December 4, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 40
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
In the
public gallery today, I'd like to welcome several guests who are here for the
second reading of Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act.
With us
today, we have Gail Thorne, Levi Thorne and Karen March of the STAND For Hannah
Foundation; Joe Davis and Sherri-Lin Davis of the Sunshine Squad; Chris Blundon
and Duane Antle of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Services;
and a special welcome to two people I know well, Sarah Pittman and Frances
Ralph.
Welcome
to the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the public gallery,
I'd like to welcome the Stella's Circle Inclusion Choir, including members of
the Stella's Circle management team Lisa Browne and Rob McLennan, and volunteer
director Helen Murphy, who are here for a Member's statement.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova,
Ferryland, Harbour Main, Mount Pearl – Southlands, Virginia Waters –
Pleasantville and St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to recognize a former educator and community pioneer.
Originally from Hickman's Harbour, Mr. George Martin moved to Clarenville to be
principal of the former Horwood Regional High School. Later, he became principal
of Clarenville Integrated High School, a position he held until his retirement
in 1988.
I met
Mr. Martin in 1980 and I saw him as a dedicated volunteer, being involved in
numerous charities and local organizations, including the Clarenville Co-op
Society and the men's softball league.
For 26
years, as its chairperson, the George Martin Charity Golf Tournament raised in
excess of $500,000 for the Discovery Health Care Foundation.
Sadly,
at the age of 86, Mr. Martin passed away on November 4, 2017.
I think
George's neighbour, Victoria Best, sums it up best when she said: George is one
of those great humans that didn't just make the people around him feel better,
but hugely impacted his whole community, province and made the world a better
place.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the passing of a community icon,
mentor and educator, Mr. George Martin.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I stand to recognize a group of male athletes from St. Kevin's Junior
High who won the Junior High School Soccer Championship for the Eastern District
on October 30, 2017.
The
accomplishment of these young people was heightened by the fact the team
consisted of many underage players whose contribution helped in the championship
despite playing against many older players for much larger school populations.
This is the second soccer banner for the school, which reflects the growing
soccer program in the region.
I would
also like to congratulate and recognize Coach Charlie Simmonds, who has been
running a soccer program in Goulds for almost 20 years. This was indeed a very
proud moment for players, coaches, parents, students and friends.
The
youth started playing soccer with the Metropolitan United Football Club,
formerly called Goulds Kickers Soccer Association. For several years, this club
has operated in Goulds. This club has complemented the youths' involvement in
their school soccer, is an integral part of the community and, no doubt, we will
see more soccer success for both boys' and girls' teams over the next few years.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating St.
Kevin's Junior High School soccer team for their outstanding accomplishments.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome in
the public gallery today Pastor Crane and his wife, Kathy, who are joining us
here for a Member's statement, too, today. Welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Mr. Speaker, as we head into
another holiday season, it is important for us to remember the many blessings
which we are privileged to enjoy throughout the year. Sadly, there are many
people across the province and in my district who find themselves alone or
unable to provide a hot meal to themselves or their families.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, such individuals living in the town of Clarke's Beach
and surrounding area need not fear this type of Christmas, as every year Pastors
David and Kathy Crane – son-in-law to John Crane, former MHA for Harbour Grace –
provide free turkey dinner meals to people in the basement of the Pentecostal
Church in the town. Now an annual tradition for the parish, each year dozens of
individuals and families join together to celebrate the magic of Christmas,
regardless of religious beliefs or financial situation. Following the Christmas
Eve service, volunteers from the church stay behind to help cut and peel
vegetables and prep for the feast that so many people will enjoy the next day.
I would
like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Pastors David and Kathy for their
service to the community of Clarke's Beach and wish one and all a blessed
Christmas and a happy new year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize the accomplishments of
six individuals who have given their time and talents to the sport of soccer in
the City of Mount Pearl. Four of these individuals, Don Coaker, Wally Lawrence,
Ron O'Neill and the late Sam Pretty, have been inducted into the Mount Pearl
Soccer Hall of Fame in the category of Builder; Lana (North) Burns in the
category of Player; and the late Dave LeGrow as an Honorary Life Member.
Soccer,
like many other sports, provides tremendous benefits for our youth, not only
from a health and wellness perspective, but also in providing lifelong lessons
such as the value of hard work and commitment, and working as part of a team.
Through the tireless efforts and unwavering commitment of these Hall of Fame
inductees, many young people in my community have benefited from a physical and
social point of view and have gone on to be very healthy, well-rounded and
productive citizens.
I would
therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in commending these six
individuals for their contribution to this great sport and in congratulating
them on being inducted into the Mount Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to wish a very happy 103rd birthday to a man who has
given over nine decades of service to the youth of our province.
Major
William G. Tilley joined the CLB in 1926, served in both C Company and its Naval
Company before becoming regimental band's drum major in 1939 for some 63
consecutive years.
Tied to
the steps at his Plymouth Road residence as a child, he watched drummers leave
the old Princess Rink and longed for the day he would lead the parade. Over
these years, he has indeed led the band for thousands of miles and through many
significant events.
He
retired from CN in 1977 and was asked to preserve the history of the CLB, which
he has done meticulously, ensuring the information is available for everyone in
our province for many generations to come. Major Tilley is a mentor for
thousands of young men and women who have had the pleasure of marching behind
him all these years.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in wishing my mentor, Major William G. Tilley, a
happy 103rd birthday and thanking him for his years of service. Keep the flag
flying, Major Tilley.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
delighted today to congratulate an organization that has been creating positive
community empowerment for the past decade. The Stella's Circle Inclusion Choir
is a place of acceptance where there are no auditions and people sing for the
joy of it. The choir is comprised of Stella's Circle participants, staff and
volunteers, has 35-plus members and 100 performances under their belt.
Stella's
Circle has a mission to transform lives for people facing barriers to successful
inclusion in the community. The Inclusion Choir increases social
connections for the members and can be a step towards engaging in other
community activities.
The choir's original song “Be the Change” was written this
past spring with Juno award-winning, singer-songwriter Amelia Curran. I was
delighted to take in the screening of a video documenting the songwriting
process at the St. John's International Women's Film Festival. MusicNL recently
presented the Inclusion Choir with a community award. The philosophy of the
choir is that every one of us can sing when encouraged and given the
opportunity.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating
Stella's Circle staff and volunteers, all choir members and volunteer choir
director, Helen Murphy, on the 10th anniversary of the Stella's Circle Inclusion
Choir. I encourage you to find the time to go listen to them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize yesterday, December 3, as International Day of
Persons with Disabilities. Twenty-five years have passed since the United
Nations proclaimed this observance to promote the rights and well-being of
persons with disabilities.
As a
government, we have accomplished much, including new government-wide policies
for accessible communications and inclusive engagement practices, recent changes
to the program for Hunters and Anglers with a Disability, Buildings
Accessibility Regulations and Designated Mobility Impaired Parking Regulations.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we are working with community and other partners in the
design of an Individualized Supports Funding model, a commitment from
The Way Forward.
We are
proud to partner with organizations like Empower, the Coalition of Persons with
Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association for Community Living to improve employment opportunities and inform
and support our work. We are pleased to provide funding to individuals, taxi
companies and community organizations to improve accessibility.
Mr.
Speaker, we know there remains much work to be done. Barriers still exist and,
unfortunately, discrimination is still not a thing of the past, but our
government recognizes inclusion is both a process and a goal, as the slogan
'Nothing about us without us' articulates so well.
We know
an inclusive planning and decision-making process is important to ensuring
everyone can avail of programs, services and opportunities. Our government is
committed to consulting and collaborating with the community of persons with
disabilities to achieve, as this year's theme envisions, a sustainable and
resilient society for all.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The Official Opposition also
wishes to recognize December 3 as the International Day of Persons with
Disabilities and we celebrate the theme of transformation towards a sustainable
and resilient society for all.
On the
25th anniversary since it's proclamation by the United Nations General Assembly,
we have come a long way. We observe this day to encourage the public to have a
better understanding of disability issues and promote support for the dignity,
rights and well-being of persons with disabilities.
We all
have a responsibility to increase awareness of gains to be derived from the
integration of persons with disabilities in every aspect of our society. The
resilient spirit of these individuals must be met with not just understanding
but absolute encouragement.
Much has
been done, but much more is required. I commend all efforts that work towards a
more sustainable and resilient society for all.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
I thank the minister for an
advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, on this day I want to congratulate
the incredible organizations and persons living with disabilities for the work
they have done leading us all in the advancement of the inclusion of all people
in our community.
We all
know there is so much more work to do. The deadline for a new act is looming.
Poverty among persons with disabilities is growing because of government's
regressive policies and inaction. We need inclusive procurement in our
Procurement Act and organizations need to sustainable multi-year core funding to
continue their important work. We must keep moving forward.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in
this hon. House to acknowledge the Grammy Award nomination for the Broadway
musical Come From Away.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Specifically, the musical has
been nominated for best musical theatre album.
Mr.
Speaker, the previous winners in this category are a who's who of the world's
famous Broadway musicals; The Colour
Purple, Hamilton and
West Side Story, just to name a few.
This
nomination is just another in the long list of achievements for
Come From Away, and the accolades and
triumphs continue to grow.
Just
recently, Come From Away grossed the
highest eight-show week in the history of the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre in New
York, earning just over $1.52 million. The previous record was held by
It's Only a Play, which starred
prominent Broadway actors Matthew Broderick, Nathan Lane and Stockard Channing.
And now,
Mr. Speaker, maybe the grandest accolade of all – a film adaptation of
Come From Away is in development.
While
still in the very early stages of planning and writing,
Come From Away creators Irene Sankoff and David Hein told the media
they are bursting with ideas for the cinematic version of their Broadway
musical. Ms. Sankoff said she looks forward to showing “more of the world, more
of the characters and the place itself.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I attended
Come From Away in March, and it is an excellent portrayal of our
province's genuine kindness, generosity and acceptance during one of the darkest
moments in recent history.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all that hon. Members join me in wishing
Come From Away the best of luck at the 60th Grammy Awards on January
28.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the Official
Opposition, I wish to congratulate the cast and crew of
Come From Away on being nominated in the category of best musical
theatre album at the upcoming Grammy Awards. We're all very, very proud.
The
creators, Irene Sankoff and David Hein, have created a special depiction of our
province's kind and caring nature, which is now being shared throughout the
world. For their efforts and hard work, they are very much deserving of this
accolade.
I also
wish to congratulate the creators for having their stories chosen to be adapted
into a film. Through this, more people will learn the story of how communities
in our province opened their lives and their homes to those who found themselves
here due to terrorist attacks in the United States of America.
Mr.
Speaker, I once again congratulate the cast, crew and creators of
Come From Away and I look forward to
viewing the film when it is finished production.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
I thank the minister as well,
Mr. Speaker. We are all delighted at the continued success of
Come From Away. I'm sure the minister agrees this is what happens
when there is investment in the arts community.
This is
an industry where truly the more you sow, the more you reap.
As for
the success of Come From Away, well,
we have a million more stories from our province to tell and our storytellers
need that support. Standby world, you ain't seen nothing yet; and bravo, Irene
and David and cast and crew of Come From
Away.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, an Access to Information request revealed a dramatic drop in the number
of Highway Traffic Act tickets issued
in August 2017 in our province, compared to the same month in 2016.
I ask
the minister to inform this hon. House what the total number of officers was
that were deployed to Labrador during this past summer?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
understanding is that the total number was somewhere in the range of 120, which
would have come from all different aspects of the RCMP, both here in province
and out of province, but the latest numbers I have is roughly 120.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
understanding is there were 120 at any given time.
Can the
minister clarify: Were those numbers of officers rotated out on a rotational
basis?
The
numbers at any given time were 120, but there were actually more officers than
that deployed to Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
number that I've been given is about 120 officers. I do know they were doing
two-week shifts. Again, that number could have fluctuated, but the number that
I've been given by the RCMP is in the 120 range.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
October 16, here in the House, the minister stated that there was absolutely no
disservice to traffic services anywhere in the province during this period of
time.
So I ask
the minister if he stands by those statements.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
did answer a question from the Leader of the Official Opposition during the
House back in October, I think it was, where the information I had at that time
was there was nobody taken from the highway traffic division of the RCMP. Now,
I've since learned that has changed. In fact, I said that on province-wide news
just a couple of nights ago that there were some officers taken.
Again,
it was an operational decision made by the RCMP. It was done with the
intelligence and the expertise of the RCMP and done on their advice, and that's
where we are.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our
understanding is a significant number of traffic officers from the Island were
deployed to Labrador during the summer.
So,
minister, your comment that there was absolutely no disservice to traffic
services anywhere in the province, again I ask: Do you stand by that statement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
stand here now and say that there were officers from the highway traffic
division along with officers from other aspects of the RCMP within the province
and outside the province that did go to Labrador based on instructions from the
RCMP, based on the need that was identified in Labrador to do with the Muskrat
Falls Project.
The fact
is that this was an operational decision by the RCMP. That information has been
provided and was done on their advice.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, my
understanding is the minister actually signed off on the deployment to Labrador.
So I ask
the minister: Did you ever ask the very simple question of the RNC or the RCMP
if the deployment of officers to Labrador could impact safety here on the
Island?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
been clear in my conversations with the media that as the Minister of Justice, I
do not direct the RCMP as it relates to operational matters. When the RCMP
identified the need for extra security in Labrador for the Muskrat Falls
Project, they would have come to me based on the intelligence that they
acquired.
What I
would have had to sign off as responsible minister was the requirement for extra
funding to allow for this. Again, I certainly wouldn't want to see it done to
the detriment of anybody else, but that's the way that our policing agreement
operates with the RCMP, and it was an agreement that was signed in 2013.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the information from the minister.
So,
Minister, I'll ask you this: Before you signed off on the extra funding, did you
ask the very simple question, if the deployment of officers could impact safety
here on the Island?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
signed off on an operational request from the RCMP who identified the need for
extra security in Labrador along the roadway for the transformer move for the
Muskrat Falls Project. What I signed off on was a request for extra funds to
allow for this, extra funds that were above the normal allotment for the RCMP.
Again,
it was my belief that it was not to be done at the expense of anywhere else in
the province. They would require extra resources from elsewhere, and this is why
the extra funds were allotted.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a
few days ago, the minister told the media that the information he's received
since September confirms that there was, in fact, a smaller presence on our
roadways this past August. The minister says he signed off on the operational
plan for additional financing. He's now said there were a smaller number of
officers on our roadways during August.
So I'll
ask the minister very clearly: What was the impact of officers on our roadways?
How many fewer officers were on our roads here on the Island because of the
deployment that he signed off on?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
first thing I need to clarify – I would ask the Member opposite to please quote
me accurately. I did not sign off on any operational requirement for the RCMP or
direct where officers go. That's simply not within the purview of the Minister
of Justice.
What I
would have signed off on is a request to the federal department for extra
funding under the RCMP policing program. There's a contract that we have in
place, a 20-year contract, and when you go outside of that, I have to sign off
on that.
The
request for extra resources would have come from the RCMP. This would have been
operational issue that they identified that was needed for the safety of
Labradorians as it related to the Muskrat Falls Project.
Again,
just to make this clear, I would have signed off on the extra resources,
requesting the extra resources in terms of money, but it's the RCMP that direct
the operational mandate and not the minister.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These
questions are not difficult questions; the questions are about safety of the
public on the highways, the safety of not only Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
but visitors that come to our province, especially in the summertime and in the
fall.
The
minister has changed the information that he provided in the House earlier when
he spoke publicly. He's changed it. He says it confirms there was a smaller
presence.
Minister, if you can't tell me what that presence was, when were you made aware
of the accurate information?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
have been made aware of this information – I can't give an exact date right
here, but I think it would have been sometime in October. Again, there's a
process behind this.
Back
some time in the spring, the RCMP identified the need for extra resources as it
related to the Muskrat Falls Project when it came to the safety of the
transformer move that was going on, a significant operation that took weeks.
Last year there was quite a disturbance at the Muskrat Falls site in October so,
again, the RCMP were being proactive here in ensuring the public safety of all
involved in this process.
The
information I would have received after, but it wouldn't have been done, in my
mind, at the expense of highway operations.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister confirms that he was made aware of a smaller presence in our province.
The
question I have for you, Minister, is: What was that impact? What was the
smaller presence in our province? How many officers were taken off our roads
because of the deployment to Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At no
point was I made aware, as the minister, that there was any significant
disservice to the highway traffic services for the RCMP over the summer. That's
certainly not something that I would have been made aware of.
There's
a highway traffic division that basically operates – it's not based out of any
detachment; they operate all across the province. The RCMP said they needed
extra resources to ensure the safety as it related to this move and the public
roadway in Labrador.
There
was no information given that it would have any effect on the roadways here in
the province, and that's the information – I rely on the RCMP for that
expertise, and that's how they make their decision.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
minister has said that there wasn't an impact – as a matter of fact, the
minister had said earlier that he was told by the RCMP that the deployment would
not have an effect on regular operations.
Well,
Minister, who provided that information to you and what exactly is it you were
told that wouldn't be impacted?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
this is a process that's been ongoing for some time. The original, I think,
notification of the extra resources that were needed in Labrador would have been
sometime in the spring, and I'll ask for forgiveness here that I don't remember
the specific date. There were a significant number of people in that meeting. It
would have been RCMP, myself and individuals from the Department of Justice and
Public Safety.
At that
point, it was indicated that there was a significant need for extra resources in
Labrador and in order to enable this that we, as a department, that I, as
minister, would have to sign off on a funding request to the feds to allow for
this to happen outside of that normal agreement.
It
certainly would not have been done at the expense of funding here in the
province. It was to allow for extra funding for extra resources.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
questions I've asked, the minister has not been able to be specific on the
impacts, the numbers of officers that were deployed, if it was 120 in total or
120 at the time.
I'll ask
the minister: Minister, will you endeavour to get the specific numbers from the
RNC and the RCMP? The operation is over, the impacts on the operation are passed
and the time is passed for that. Will you get the specifics from the police in
Newfoundland and Labrador and make that public so people can understand what
changes happened and make their own decisions if there was a risk or not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly I have no problem – again, the Member opposite should know that I
wouldn't have an update day to day on how the operations of RCMP operate. I have
no problem trying to have that information put out there for the public. It is
taxpayer dollars, so we should know. As long as it doesn't compromise any
current operations, I have no issue with that.
What I
would point out, though, is that the Member is trying to draw a direct causation
here, one that he should know does not exist. The RCMP will certainly tell you
that there are a number of factors that lead to issues on our highways more so
than just enforcement. Again, the Member should know this; I hope he's aware of
that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I was ready to
move off on this topic, but I have to speak to the Member's comment right now
and put this question to him because there's a significant loss of life on our
highways in a short period of time.
In the
first 30 weeks of this year – my understanding is there were seven facilities in
the first 30 weeks of 2017. In a seven-week period, starting in August, there
were 18.
I've
been quite clear to say that I'm not going to say the lack of resources were a
cause of this increase. I've been quite clear on that. I stand here today; I'm
not prepared to say that.
I ask
the minister: Are you prepared to stand in your place and say the lack of
resources were not the cause?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
the Member opposite is not going to stand here and say it because he knows it's
not the case, but I think he's certainly implying it.
What I
will say is the same thing that the RCMP says: there are multiple factors,
unfortunately, that cause accidents on our roadways. Sometimes it's distracted
driving. Sometimes it's impaired. Sometimes it's road conditions. There are a
number of factors here. This is just one possible factor, but I think one would
point out that the number of tickets that are written by the police on our
highways does not equal to less facilities. There is simply no causation or no
correlation there.
Either
way, my concern is for the safety of our roadways and I'll continue to work with
the ministers, caucus and Cabinet to ensure that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for his answers and I look forward to the specific information that
he is going to endeavour to obtain for this House.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will your government issue a request for proposals
for the supply of marijuana to this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand up and speak to this impending change in policy that's going on
across the country. Just last week or the week before, we stood here and spoke
to the RFP process that will allow for private industry to be involved in this
upcoming industry.
One of
the issues that comes with this, however, is there is a supply that is needed
here in the province. What I will say is that we are aware that there is a
significant amount of interest as it relates to the need for production here.
We will
be ready for supply. As a government, and certainly the Minister for TCII will
say to you, we're always looking at ways to encourage and spur on economic
development here in the province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll ask
the Premier if he will commit for his government to ensure that local
Newfoundland and Labrador companies are given first priority to supply marijuana
product to NLC.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the first things I would say to the Member opposite is that when it comes to
licensing for this, this is a federal aspect. It's one that's not just
controlled by the province. The feds decide on the licensing and production.
There's a significant process they have to go through to get that.
What I
can say is that this government is always committed to helping Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians prosper here in this province. The fact is we have to have a
supply here. So, hopefully, as a government we can make that happen. Come July
2018, with the legalization of cannabis, we have to ensure there will be supply.
We'll continue on working to make sure that happens.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We don't
have to provide the supply if the rules are in place and the province is ready.
You've already raised concerns about our province not being ready.
So I ask
the Premier to advise this House if your government is in discussions with a
mainland company for a seven-year incentive program to sole-source marijuana
production for the Newfoundland and Labrador market.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand up and speak to this. I know this government has entertained a
number of different options and offers as it relates to the production of
cannabis here in this province, the same way that there's been a number of
contacts made as it relates to the distribution.
What we
can say is that there are significant regulations when it comes to this and it
is federally controlled who gets production, but we will continue to work with
entrepreneurs to ensure we have production here in this province. So we'll
continue to work on that and to ensure that we have supply here for when July
2018 comes.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is the
minister saying that the province, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
will not have control as to who the supplier is for this province, who is the
supplier, who's doing the production and that the province will not have control
of that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As you
know, within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador there are certain
procurement rules. There are certain trade rules that are in place for people
who actually work within government. As this government, we're prepared to work
with Newfoundland and Labrador companies to whatever extent it takes to make
sure they get fair opportunities, Mr. Speaker.
I could
point to many decisions made by the Member opposite. I point no further than the
ferries that we're actually dealing with in our province right now that were
procured outside of our province.
The
Leader of the Opposition stands here today suggesting otherwise, that things
could be done in our province when on his watch we saw ferries being built in
Romania. We saw foreign companies coming in to do Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker.
There
are tons of opportunities when they gave up on Newfoundland and Labrador. We
will not give up on Newfoundland and Labrador (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier likes to change the channel very quickly, doesn't he?
We're
asking about marijuana. We're asking about the supply of marijuana. Who is going
to produce it, manufacture it and supply it to NLC when the government rolls out
their distribution next summer?
So I'll
ask the Premier this, if he wants to get up and talk. We've asked him several
questions. It's the first time he got up today.
I'll ask
the Premier this: Are you or your government or anyone in your office having
discussions with a mainland company? Let's use an example: Canopy Growth, for
example. Are you talking to Canopy Growth about supplying marijuana for
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, going back to
the earlier comments when he talked about this particular procurement model, the
fact is the truth hurts. The Members opposite do not want to hear the truth;
they do not want to accept the responsibility of ferries that were built outside
of this province.
When we
remind them – I know it's a sore spot for them. I know it's a sore spot because
not only did they build the ferries outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, they
forgot about the wharves that went attached to that, Mr. Speaker.
We are
willing to work with companies no matter where they are from, Mr. Speaker, if it
means that we can create economic development for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. Companies like Canopy and others right across this province, we
are willing to work with them to create jobs for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to ask the Premier again – he doesn't want to talk about it, but I'll ask
him again: Are you talking to Canopy Growth? I'll use them as an example. Are
you talking to them about a seven-year incentive program over a longer term
contract to supply marijuana here in this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As a
government, we've entertained a number of offers from people that are interested
in this. In fact, I can say that one half hour ago up in my office I met with a
Newfoundland and Labrador company that's interested in production here in this
province. We're willing to sit down and have those conversations.
What I
can say is that no decision has been made on this; there's a lot of work to do
it. But I can guarantee you that the guiding factor for any decision made by
this government is what's in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister is saying there was no decision made. They made no decision last night
on this. I'm glad he's telling us now there's no decision made because it's
important for Newfoundland and Labrador companies to also have an opportunity to
compete. Canopy Growth is an example of a national Mainland company that is a
supplier and producer of marijuana.
I'll ask
the Premier very carefully and very clearly: Are you talking to them about a
seven-year incentive deal on a longer term contract to supply for Newfoundland
and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here and speak to this issue. It's a huge issue here in this
province. I can guarantee you that there are multiple companies that this
government has been in conversation with as it relates to the production of
cannabis here in the province.
There
are a number of incentives for this. People want to come here and see the jobs
here. We are one of the few provinces that don't have production in the
province. We're working on that and we're speaking to companies that are
interested.
In fact,
like I just said just prior to coming down to the House, I spoke to a
Newfoundland and Labrador company that wants to get in here. What I can
guarantee you is that no decision has been made, but when we make a decision, it
will be in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we will be
ready for July 2018.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there's no
doubt from what we're hearing they're going to do whatever they can to make sure
they're ready for July 2018.
So I'll
ask the question very simply: If they're going to provide opportunity to other
businesses, such as those interested within Newfoundland and Labrador, to be a
supplier and producer of marijuana, would they also have the opportunity for a
seven-year incentive program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
at the end of the day, whatever decision is made by this government as it
relates to production in this province, there are a lot of moving parts to it,
but what I can say to you is that we will do what's best for this province and
for the people, what is the best approach to take. There's no decision to make;
there are no barriers being put in place. In fact, I think as the minister likes
to say, we are open for business and we want to have business here in this
province.
The
decision has not been made. I cannot be any clearer, we will be ready for July
and whatever decision that this government makes will be in the best interest –
again, I can only state this, that the only thing that we're concerned about is
what's best for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I only
rise again to be clear, and I hear what the minister is saying; I just want to
make sure it's accurate and correct.
Is the
minister telling this House that the government has not made a decision on the
production and supply of any marijuana, whatsoever, for this province? No
seven-year incentive programs, no 20-year contracts – they haven't done any of
that. Is that what the minister is saying?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
I'm happy to stand here and say that we have entertained offers from multiple
companies that want to do business here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of
those are from out of province and some of those are from here, right in the
province. I just met with one.
What I
can say, again, is that no deal has been struck as it relates to production here
in this province. There is no deal that has been struck. We will be ready for
July and we'll make a decision that is best for the people here in the province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in the fall fiscal update, the Finance Minister indicated that he would
be bringing legislation mandating agencies, boards and commissions to cut their
spending. There are possibly only four days left to the Legislature calendar and
no sign of legislation.
I ask
the minister: When can we expect to see this legislation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say to the Member I thank him for the question because it's important. The
agencies, boards and commissions in this province account for about 60 per cent
of the spending in the province, 80 per cent of the salaries. So it is important
that we get the spending within agencies, boards and commissions in line with
what government departments are doing.
But, Mr.
Speaker, I will say that since that announcement, I've had conversations with a
number of the agencies who have indicated that they are interested in sitting at
the table again and looking at the information that we need to look at and
working with government. If that is indeed the case, we will determine what
exactly is needed in the legislation. I feel it's more important in getting
results than getting legislation on the floor of this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the minister, talking about results, you haven't hit the results or targets that
you had in your Budget 2017. That's
why he said he was going to bring in legislation.
I'll ask
the minister: Are you backtracking what you said in your fiscal update and
you're not bringing in legislation now related to these agencies and boards,
which you indicated you were going to do in the fiscal update?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I will say I
haven't ruled it out, but what I am indicating is that I want results. Whether
that is through legislation or whether it's through co-operation, we need
results.
What I
will also say to the Member, I read his letter last week in the
Telegram, Mr. Speaker. I could hardly continue to sit on my seat. I
almost laughed myself off the seat. Spending in the province is down. Well, in
the fiscal fall update, if you had read that, spending in the province is up by
1.2 per cent.
Mr.
Speaker, household incomes are up by 2.1 per cent. Mr. Speaker, we're off our
revenue targets by less than 1 per cent. Part of the reason for that is a
decline in oil prices, something that they pointed to as their reason for not
hitting their targets for years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
On
November 30, the Minister of Transportation and Works sent an email to parents
and guardians of Bishop Feild Elementary School pupils responding to their
questions asking when the structural assessment of the school is to begin and
how long they can expect the school to be closed to their children. Surely, the
minister could have estimated whether the wait for the assessment to begin is
days, weeks or months rather than merely offering broad strokes.
I ask
the minister if he is ready today to give the very concerned parents and
guardians a better sense of what to expect around timing than he did last
Thursday.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question.
Mr.
Speaker, back on November 5 we had an initial report come back from Nova
Consultants on their initial engineering assessment at the school, at Bishop
Feild. We took a couple of weeks to look at that to make sure we are covering
all the necessary engineering things that we need to look at. We are dealing
with an 89-year-old building. We want to make sure we get this right, Mr.
Speaker, because there's one thing we're not going to do: we're not going to
send kids back into a school that's not safe, Mr. Speaker.
Nova
Consultants will start tomorrow on the more in-depth engineering, Mr. Speaker,
and we have to make sure we're getting this right because this is about the
safety of the students.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
minister in his email talked about ensuring that all necessary steps are taken
before allowing students, teachers or staff to return to the school. We're not
complaining with that, but that open-ended statement does not bring any comfort
to parents and guardians. They have no idea of what really is going on regarding
the school and gossip is running wild out there, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister if he will notify the parents and guardians publicly about what
exactly those necessary steps are in an effort to allay their concerns and their
fears.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question.
First of
all, I would encourage her, like my grandfather used to tell me, stop listening
to gossip.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an 89-year-old building that we have students that need their
education processes of this. It's important to us that we get this right. It's
important that we make sure this building is safe for students. The engineering
consultants are going to go in, we're going to remove all the ceilings in the
building, we're going to look for what structural challenges there are. We're
going to make sure this building is safe for our kids when they re-enter this
building.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the federal
government announced it will be delivering its new legislation for persons
living with disabilities in spring 2018, meaning all provinces must also be
ready and have their legislation aligned.
As part
of this process, presumably the minister will want to obtain real substantial
input from organizations and people with lived experience to ensure this
legislation is responsive to the real needs of people and has teeth regarding
resources and enforcement.
I ask
the Minister of CSSD: What is her process for moving forward on our provincial
legislation, and what is her timeline?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question to talk about this important topic of disabilities.
We are
certainly, Mr. Speaker, engaging with stakeholders. We know what happens. We've
seen lots of examples in the past, when you go out and you rush to get something
out the door and it's not done right. We will be engaging with a broad range of
stakeholders right across the province. Staff in the Disability Policy Office is
putting a lot of work into this, and something will be coming very soon. I say
to the hon. Member: stay tuned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the national
poverty rate for persons with disabilities is 23 per cent, compared to 9 per
cent for people without disabilities. Poverty is growing for people with
disabilities in the province due to lack of affordable accessible housing, low
levels of income support, the cutting of home care hours, cutting the adult
dental program and over-the-counter drug program.
I ask
the minister: What is she going to do to lift the growing and debilitating
burden of poverty experienced by people living with disabilities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to start by correcting the record. Last week, the hon. Member asked a question
about what we were doing. I misspoke, I lowballed a number. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, budget '17: $270 million in more than 100 poverty reduction
initiatives.
Mr.
Speaker, I checked. It's actually the most money that has ever been invested by
any government into poverty reduction initiatives and we're going to continue.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a government that's very sensitive to the needs of the low
income, the marginalized. We're going to work with them; we're going to continue
to build on things like the Premier's Task Force, our Health in All Policies and
the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions.
So I say
to the hon. Member: Stay tuned, there's a lot to be done, but we are doing –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports
by Standing and Select Committees
MR. SPEAKER:
I have something.
Pursuant
to section 273(3) of the Elections Act,
1991, I hereby table the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer on
Election Finances for January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.
I also
have a document – pursuant to section 8 and section 10 of the
Public Tender Act, I hereby table reports of
Public Tender Act Exceptions for June and July 2017 as presented by
the chief operating officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
table today the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 annual reports for the Newfoundland and
Labrador 911 Bureau.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial
Administration Act, I am tabling one order-in-council relating to a
funding pre-commitment for the fiscal year 2018-19.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm tabling a document in response to a question posed last
week by the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune to payments made to Mountain
Consultants at the Marble Mountain Development Corporation. An ATIPP request was
filed and it had outlined, and is publicly available, all payments since
January 2015. This is a
contract that has been in place for the last 20 years.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
In the spirit of saving the
best for last, I recognize the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills
and Labour, who has tried four times to stand.
MR. HAWKINS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
stand today in accordance with the requirements of the Transparency and
Accountability Act, 2006 to table the activity plan for the Council on Higher
Education. This plan outlines the activities for the council for the next three
years for the period from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2020.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I, seconded by
the Member for Placentia West – Bellevue, will be bringing forward the following
PMR on Wednesday:
WHEREAS
the provincial government recently released
What We Heard document on social
enterprises; and
WHEREAS
supporting social enterprise development is vital for advancing development
opportunities that benefit the economy, supports sustainability, tackles social
and economic issues and encourage entrepreneurial models;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House take action to be responsive to
the feedback received from this document to increase the number of social
enterprises in Newfoundland and Labrador and to enhance services for existing
social enterprises.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 63(3), the PMR just read by the Member for Bonavista shall be the
one to be debated this coming Wednesday.
Further,
I give notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution:
BE IT
RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS
section 4 of the Auditor General Act
provides that on resolution of the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant Governor in
Council shall appoint an Auditor General;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Julia Mullaley be appointed as the Auditor
General.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
deaf and hard of hearing children in the public education system of Newfoundland
and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to a quality education
because of the lack of appropriate full-time resources; and
WHEREAS
from 1964 to 2010 deaf and hard of hearing children were provided with a
full-time, quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, but DHH
children currently placed in mainstream schools receive only a fraction of a
school day with a teacher qualified to instruct DHH children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to undertake an immediate complete and thorough
assessment of the supports in place for DHH children by a committee of at least
two independent and recognized experts in the field of DHH education and to
accept the recommendations of these experts, and in the interim, take measures
to honour the support commitments made to all current and future students upon
closure of the Newfoundland School for the Deaf in 2010, to ensure that all DHH
children are provided with access to a quality education equivalent to hearing
classmates as well as access to sign language.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
What an
appropriate day, Mr. Speaker, to present this petition, a petition signed by
people from the St. John's area, from the Bonavista Bay area, from the Southern
Shore of the Avalon Peninsula, people who are concerned that the human rights of
people and children with disabilities be recognized by this government in every
way possible.
We
continue to wait for legislation with regard to recognition of the human rights
of people with disabilities and we continue to have parents fighting for the
needs of their children in our school system, an inclusion school system which
is excluding children at the same time as calling it inclusion, Mr. Speaker. It
is very, very disturbing.
On the
weekend I met with parents, again, who have children who are deaf and who have
needs in our school system. One set of parents are very happy that finally their
child will have a deaf teacher for the rest of this year, but told by the school
board, well, we can't assure you that it will happen after this year.
The
parents of children going to school, generally speaking, don't have to guess
from year to year if there's a teacher for their child. But the parents of
children with special needs, especially this child who is deaf, are being told
he's got his teacher this year and we have no idea if he'll have his deaf
teacher next year.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the inshore harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador have serious concerns about
their current union representation; and
WHEREAS
the inshore fish harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador want the right to vote
on which union will represent them;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to request that government urge Newfoundland and Labrador Labour
Relations Board to proceed immediately to a vote of the inshore fish harvesters
to decide which union will represent them.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, like I said, I have this petition here again today. This one is signed
from people from Red Head Cove, Bay de Verde, Port au Choix, Port Saunders,
Summerside, Irishtown, Frenchman's Cove, Lark Harbour, Benoit's Cove, New
Ferolle, Bartletts Harbour, Reef's Harbour, Castor River South, Plum Point and
Lab City. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we have numerous people here
throughout the province.
It's
interesting that some of the Members over there find this petition funny. I can
assure you that the individuals who are involved here, they certainly don't find
it funny.
The
fishery has certainly been the mainstay of our province for years and years;
it's what brought people to this province. There are many areas of the province,
many rural areas in particular, that still depend on the fishery. We've seen a
lot of decline in a lot of the rural areas because of the challenges within the
fishery. We know the fishery is important, not just to rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, but to the province as a whole.
I look
even in Mount Pearl and St. John's – you look at Mount Pearl into Donovans
Business Park, as an example, there are many businesses there that exist because
of the fishery. So it's important to us all.
The last
thing we need, with all of the challenges we have, is a division amongst people
within the fishery itself. Currently that's what exists, unfortunately. What the
people here are asking is to solve the issue of who will represent the inshore
fish harvesters, one way or the other.
It
doesn't matter to me, Mr. Speaker. I'm not a fisherman; I couldn't care less
which union it is. It's irrelevant to me, but it is important to put this issue
to bed so that they can be united and everyone can work together for the benefit
of the fishery overall.
That's
what is being asked here. I was asked to bring it forward, that's what I'm doing
and glad to do so.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
a petition that I presented before and I'm going to present it here again today
because I have over 300 names of people that came out and asked me to present
this petition.
To the
hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Indian Meal Line and the Bauline Line are maintained by the Department of
Transportation and Works; and
WHEREAS
these roads have very narrow shoulders, particularly for pedestrian traffic; and
WHEREAS
excessive speed is an issue on these roads;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to implement traffic calming measures such as
speedbumps, electric signage, et cetera, to reduce speed and ensure safety of
all residents.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, like I said, I presented this petition now –
either it's the third or fourth time. It's a very important issue, and I even
expand it to other districts. I know it's important in my district and important
in other communities because there are so many provincial roads out there that
are basically maintained and controlled by the provincial government. A lot of
these roads in particular are small roads, but especially on the Northeast
Avalon where the growth over the last number of years, some of these roads have
become major thoroughfares now.
Indian Meal Line, and the Bauline Line in particular,
one time used to be mainly dirt roads and there was very little traffic flow on
it, but an example for Indian Meal Line, it's a road that a lot of people will
take between Torbay and Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. There are a lot of new homes
and there are a lot of subdivisions. Like I said the last time, on Indian Meal
Line there were probably 50 or 60 homes, 20 or 25 years ago. Now, I would
estimate there are a couple thousand people, maybe 3,000 or 4,000 people living
off those roads.
So it's very important. Provincial roads – most of the
main roads have a shoulder on it that's probably about three or four feet where
there is opportunity to push a stroller or walk a dog or anything like that, but
on these particular roads, which government does control, does snow clear and
does maintenance on these roads, it's important that traffic slows down.
We're going to do a bill later on today and it's about
safety on the roads. Again, this is another part of safety. Mr. Speaker, what
I'm talking about is that we need some mechanisms put in place. I know it works
on roads in communities in my district like speed bumps or speed humps they call
it and also signage, like electronic signage.
I know in the new school in Torbay there are electronic
signs on each side of the school. When you come up to that sign and you see how
fast you're going, it will help you reduce your speed. So I'm calling on the
provincial government to look at these measures on provincial roads.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS a 2013 risk assessment report made public in
June 2017 makes it clear that initial cost estimates and financial risks for the
Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project were understated; and
WHEREAS the Muskrat Falls Project is way over budget,
diverting funds from other needs and potentially doubling electricity bills, and
it has raised serious concerns about damage to the environment and downstream
communities; and
WHEREAS Nalcor and the provincial government have not
been transparent or accountable as to why the 2013 report was not previously
made public, and the people of the province are left with many unanswered
questions;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately conduct a forensic audit of the
Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I know and we all know that an inquiry has been called, but there are
still many people who are mystified as to why government didn't call for a
forensic audit. It's now within the scope of the inquiry to call for a forensic
audit, but government could have done this, could have enacted this much earlier
than it has. Now the people of the province will have to wait two years for a
report from the inquiry.
Fair
enough that the inquiry will take a long time for it to be able to do its work
accurately and precisely, but the forensic audit, people are really concerned;
they want to know what their government did, both in the previous administration
and in this current administration. It's not only important for this project,
but it's also about restoring the confidence of the people in government.
Without that confidence, how can we go forward?
So, Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to present this petition on their behalf, on the behalf of
all the signatories. Again, this petition was signed before the inquiry was
called. But I believe it's still relevant, because the people who signed this
petition are saying they want a forensic audit – a very specific, targeted
forensic audit – with the results to be released as soon as possible.
Mr.
Speaker, I will take my chair and thank you once again.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Provincial Drug Program under the Access and 65Plus Plan were eliminated in
Budget 2016;
WHEREAS
many low-income individuals and family can no longer access basic dental care;
WHEREAS
those same individuals can no longer access dentures;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover
low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of
life and dignity.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, we've had some discussion around this over the last number of years
since the program was cut, and we're continuously hearing horror stories from
individuals and family members about lack of access to dentures and the impact
that's having around oral health, around quality of life and around dignity.
I only
recently met with a constituent and their family. Their loved one has lost
nearly 40 pounds because they haven't been able to access dentures, being able
to eat certain foods and that has had a detrimental effect on them. Even their
general practitioner doctor has intervened and said we need some specialized
help here to be able to support them.
I'm
happy to say that, within this community, they managed to fundraise to help out
that individual, but that's where we've gotten. When we start looking at
dropping quality of life and dignity for people to save a few dollars, yet it's
going to be more costly from a health point of view, then I think we've got it
wrong. We totally have it wrong.
This is
about providing – particularly people at the 65-plus, those who have been
contributors to our society, those who need a little bit of our extra supports.
It's not a big drawdown on the Health budget of nearly $3 billion; it's a small
proportion for a small number of our citizens to be able to have a quality of
life, proper health and dignity in here.
The
impact, if you look at it, from an investment point of view, being able to
address some of those issues to ensure that people are still eating the proper
foods because of the dentures, that obviously has an impact on the cost
associated with not having proper health care and the effects that may have. The
other thing is about quality of life. It's about people having dignity, being
able to be active in their communities. This has an effect mentally on people.
They don't feel the same going out because they don't have dentures there. They
hide away from stuff; they don't engage in the same atmosphere as they normally
would.
I think
we, as a society, have a responsibility to ensure that everybody has basic
access to certain things. So when you cross over health, proper dental hygiene
and you cross over dignity and quality of life, then, Mr. Speaker, I think this
is very important. The government should reconsider in reinstating this.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders
of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 5.
I move
pursuant to provisional Standing Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30
p.m. on Monday, December 4, 2017.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
motion, please say 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
This
motion is carried.
The
Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, for leave
to introduce a bill – sorry, I have to turn my page, Mr. Speaker – entitled An
Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act, Bill 26, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate
Act, Bill 26, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act,” carried. (Bill 26)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Child And Youth Advocate Act. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, for leave to introduce
a bill entitled An Act To Amend The Independent Appointments Commission Act,
Bill 28.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour shall have leave
to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Independent Appointments
Commission Act, Bill 28, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Independent Appointments Commission Act,” carried.
(Bill 28)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Independent Appointments Commission Act. (Bill 28)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper number 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 2, Bill 27.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 2, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second read of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2.” (Bill
27)
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in this hon. House to speak to Bill 27, an amendment to the
Highway Traffic Act.
This is
my second opportunity to stand during this session of the House to introduce
amendments to help increase safety on the roadways in our province. I cannot
state often enough how important it is that we keep the dialogue going on road
safety.
It is
also important that we, as a government, regularly review the act to keep
current with changes in safety codes, vehicle design and other highway safety
improvements, as well as responding to driving behaviours. A couple of weeks
ago, I attended an event to honour the many individuals in our province who have
lost their lives or been seriously injured on our highways.
The
National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims is a stark reminder of the
significant toll that is taken on families and communities all throughout our
province. I doubt there is anyone in our province who has not been touched in
some way by a motor vehicle accident.
In many
cases, it may have been the unimaginable loss or injury of a parent, a child, a
sibling, a partner. For others, it may be a friend, a neighbour or a colleague.
Whatever the relationship, individuals and families must live with the loss or
suffering of their loved ones. I've met with individuals and families who have
had their lives forever changed because of the incidents on our highways. It has
affected me in a very profound way. It has certainly made the attention our
government has been giving to road safety very personal to me.
Every
time I have to consider making changes to strengthen the
Highway Traffic Act, I am reminded of the people I have met and
their stories of pain and loss. Words cannot express the devastation that
families live with every day, and I commend people like Gail and Levi Thorne and
the STAND for Hannah Foundation in their efforts to spread their road safety
message despite their suffering. These are the stories and these are faces that
we must keep front and centre every time we make changes to the act to help
increase road safety.
In June
of 2016, the Highway Traffic Act was
amended to increase the fines for using a handheld cellular phone while driving
a motor vehicle.
Mr.
Speaker, in September, amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act came into effect, which include tougher penalties for
impaired drivers in this province. I want to acknowledge the support of all
Members of this hon. House for Bill 68. These amendments include new rules that
would help steer our young people in the direction of safe and sober driving
habits.
Just
last month, I introduced further amendments to the act to increase penalties for
a number of offences that were less than $100. It is our expectation that
increasing these fines will help deter a number of behaviours that continue to
pose risks on our roadways such as driving too slow, driving with an obstructed
windshield or illegally modifying a vehicle, but we also know there are many
other unsafe driving practices that endanger lives every day.
Time and
time again, we've all witnessed blatant disregard for safety on our roadways.
We've seen the driver who carelessly weaves in and out of traffic, or heard the
news stories about the person who has been caught speeding excessively. It is
startling to know that an average of five people die on Canada's roads every
day. This equates to over 1,800 people losing their lives every year and more
than 160,000 people being injured, some very seriously.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our efforts to improve road safety in our
province. We are introducing amendments today to strengthen the act regarding:
excessive speeding; street racing; stunting; Move Over provisions; creation of a
new offence for driving without due care and attention or without reasonable
consideration for other persons causing bodily harm or death; increase fines for
the existing offence of driving without due care and attention and driving
without reasonable consideration for other persons; modification to proof of
insurance requirements; and, an addition of an appeal process for certain
drivers' licence suspensions, as well as clarification that these suspensions
are imposed by the legislation and not by the registrar.
Mr.
Speaker, I will now speak to the specifics of each of these amendments. There
are daily occurrences of motorists who travel at high speeds, which place the
general public at risk. The posted maximum speed on a highway is determined by
highway design and motorists are required to adjust their speed to suit the
weather and road conditions.
Currently, under section 1(10) of the act, speeds exceeding the posted speed
limit by more than 30 kilometres per hour carry the same penalty, unlike most
other jurisdictions, which have more severe fines and increments above 50
kilometres per hour or 60 kilometres per hour over the limit.
Drivers
who are convicted of speeding in the province have to pay a fine and depending
on the rate of speed, will accumulate demerit points. Currently, drivers face
fines of between $50 and $360 for speeds exceeding the speed limit by one to 10
kilometres per hour, between $100 and $450 for speeds exceeding the limit by 11
to 20 kilometres per hour, $200 to $600 for exceeding by 21 to 30 kilometres per
hour, and $300 to $750 for speeds in excess of 31 kilometres per hour over the
posted limit.
The
changes we are introducing include separate speeding offences for 31 to 50
kilometres per hour and greater than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed
limit. This also involves a 7-day driver's licence suspension for exceeding the
posted speed limit by greater than 50 kilometres per hour to be effective on the
second day after the notice of suspension is given.
Vehicles
operated by drivers that exceed the posted speed limit by greater than 50
kilometres per hour will be impounded for three days. Fines for exceeding the
speed limit by greater than 50 kilometres per hour will be set at a range of
$400 to $850, while fines for speeding in school zones and construction zones
will be set at $800 to $1,800.
Mr.
Speaker, racing on a highway is a high-risk activity that disregards the safety
of the general public. Unfortunately, we have witnessed tragedy on our roadways
because of such reckless behaviour, tragedies that could have been avoided.
Groups
like STAND for Hannah have lobbied government to strengthen the province's
regulatory regime in order to deter racing and travelling at extremely high
rates of speed on our highways. With these new amendments, a driver that is
charged with the offence will receive a 7-day driver's licence suspension
effective on the second day after the notice of suspension is given. Drivers who
are charged with racing will also have their vehicles impounded for three days.
Mr.
Speaker, currently there is no provincial legislation that prohibits the
execution of a stunt on a highway or in a public area, such as a vehicle doing
doughnuts or motorcycles travelling on one wheel. A separate offence for
stunting has now been created with penalties being the same as those associated
with racing on a roadway. A driver that is charged with the offence will receive
a 7-day driver's licence suspension effective on the second day after the notice
is given. Drivers who are charged with racing or stunting will also have their
vehicles impounded for three days.
Mr.
Speaker, we will also strengthen our Move Over provision in an effort to help
ensure the safety of our first responders. We are adding a speed reduction of at
least 30 kilometres per hour below the speed limit to a minimum speed of 30
kilometres or less for vehicles passing stopped emergency vehicles. We are also
providing the ability to charge the registered owner for such offences.
Mr.
Speaker, we are also creating a new offence under the
Highway Traffic Act for driving without due care and attention
causing bodily harm or death. With this new offence come new penalties as well.
The offence will carry a minimum fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of $20,000,
or up to two years in prison or both. It also includes a licence suspension of
not more than five years and six demerit points. The fines for the existing
offence of driving without due care and attention and driving without reasonable
consideration for other persons will rise from a range of $120 to $480, to that
of $300 to $1,000.
We're
also modifying insurance provisions so as to place the onus on the driver to
prove the vehicle they were driving was insured at the time the offence
occurred. This will also include placing the onus on the person charged with an
offence to prove there was a valid insurance policy when the offence was
committed.
Mr.
Speaker, another amendment we have made to the act involves an appeals mechanism
to appeal a 90-day driver's licence suspension for impaired driving. The
Highway Traffic Act provides authority
for peace officers to require the roadside surrender of a driver's licence for
impaired driving, alcohol and drug, and sets time periods for suspensions. The
act does not currently provide an avenue for a person to appeal a 90-day
driver's licence suspension, blood-alcohol content of 0.08 or greater, or
failure or refusal to provide a sample; however, highway traffic legislation in
all other provinces and territories contains provisions for review of driver's
licence suspensions.
In
October 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision in which it held
that the fail provisions of British Columbia's automatic roadside prohibition
scheme infringed section 8 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms because a 90-day suspension could result from
an ASD rating alone. It also stated that the limited review mechanism available
did not allow an individual to challenge the accuracy of the ASD result, even
though there were potential concerns about the reliability of ASDs.
The
Highway Traffic Act now provides a
mechanism for drivers in Newfoundland and Labrador to appeal a 90-day driver's
licence suspension for impaired driving. Grounds for an appeal will be identity
of the driver or medical explanations for failure or refusal to comply with a
demand. The appeals process will not be retroactive.
Mr.
Speaker, as you can see, the amendments put forward today help us continue our
ongoing focus on strengthening road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador. They
are further proof of our government's dedication to making public safety a
priority.
I also
want to recognize the input of groups such as the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Fire Services and their president Duane Antle. Input from
community stakeholders like his association, STAND for Hannah, individuals whom
I have personally met with, as well as law enforcement personnel in our province
is all very important as we continue to develop amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act.
I want
to express my gratitude for their willingness to continuously work with us in
our efforts to improve road safety in the province. Through the changes we have
introduced here today, along with other changes to the act, our objective is to
help the people of our province develop safe and sober driving habits.
I
respectfully move these amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act to ensure continued support of road safety for everyone
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to get up here today and to speak to this new bill. I have to
say before I start and talk about the bill, times in society that we have people
that advocate for different reasons, they work on different projects and I
really want to applaud the groups that are here with us today. It's because of
you people that we're doing this today. I understand that loss of life in
families is so hard. What you're doing today, your loved ones will always
remember and be with you to know that you're making a difference.
On
behalf of everybody here in the House of Assembly, I would really want to thank
you for your advocacy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I personally don't have a
family member or anybody, but I do have friends that through highways and
excessive speeds and everything else have lost members of their family, and I'm
sure we all do here in the province. We understand what we're doing here today.
I applaud the minister. I have a fine lot of questions for the minister later on
when we do get into Committee about this act. It's not to criticize or anything,
but it will just be some clarification basically.
I also
want to advocate to the minister that as we do the
Highway Traffic Act – the last time we did it, it was Bill 68
and everybody in this House supported it – we need to do things now to make sure
that the general public understands what we're doing as a House and what we're
doing out there. Advocate groups like we have here today, I know they've been
speaking out. We've heard them in the media. We've heard them everywhere. Now
it's time for government to really put this forward and let people understand
that these are the reasons why we're changing and making changes to the
Highway Traffic Act is to protect our
loved ones so that when people go home in the nighttime they are assured that
their children come home after them or before them and are safe on our highways.
We had a very hard year in this province,
a very difficult year in this province when it comes to fatalities on our
highways. Mr. Speaker, one is too many, and this year we've had way too many. We
need to address it. Part of this is what the minister is introducing here today.
If this saves one life, we're all in it for the right reasons and it would be
great for this province.
The bill
itself, I'm just going to go through a couple of the amendments, just a couple
of the new things that are in the bill. We're talking about stunts. Sometimes it
may be done in fun. I meet it all the time; you meet a bike on the road and
they're on their back wheel. Like the minister said, there are all kinds of –
doing donuts and stuff like this. We saw it last year on Kenmount Road.
If
people really took the time to look to see what they're doing, they're putting
not only themselves, but they're putting so many other people in jeopardy of
either injury or some damage they may do to a person. Please God, not death, but
it's something that we really have to address. That's what we're trying to do
here today.
As you
look through this bill, it has an explanatory note just to explain to the people
here today, each one explains why we're doing what it is. Under the explanatory
note, this is a new offence, this one here and it's associated with penalties.
It includes car suspension. It's all about stunts. So this is something new that
the province has brought in. It's a good piece of legislation because it's
something we really do need to address.
The
other part, which is also pretty new, is excessive speeding. We always do have
fines for excessive speeding, but this one really emphasizes it. I travel the
Outer Ring Road sometimes and I drive as close as I can to the speed limit. I
see vehicles passing me by. It's like I'm stopped. Now, I'm going 100 kilometres
an hour and they're passing me by like I'm completely stopped. I believe,
Minister, it's from 51 kilometres on is what the new regulations are bringing in
that the car can be impounded and suspensions can be brought in also.
We all
see it. We all understand how dangerous it is for cars to be travelling on our
highways at the speeds – and it's not only the Outer Ring Road. It's Torbay Road
sometimes. Sometimes it could be a road going through a community. We've seen
lots of that through our province where excessive speed kills.
If
somebody is travelling at 51 kilometres over the speed limit, whether it's 100
kilometres or it's 60 kilometres, it's way too fast. Again, I think, Minister,
this is another really important part that we get out to general public and let
them know, listen, we're not tolerating this anymore; your car can be taken from
you and you could be suspended. You could be going to jail because of it, and
that's what we really want to emphasize to the general public.
The
other thing is – I know that there's a group here today and this one here is
important to them – causing death or bodily harm. Sometimes things that we do on
the highway – and I hate to bring it up – there can be something in a vehicle.
It can be something that is not secure. It can be something that was just not
thought of before a person really gets in that vehicle and makes the decision
whether to drive on the Trans-Canada Highway or drive up where I'm from, Torbay
Road.
People
have to understand that you're responsible for that vehicle. It's your
responsibility that that vehicle goes to wherever you're going to and it's your
responsibility that you really have to caution what you're doing and making sure
that anything you have in that vehicle is your responsibility. So that's another
part.
The
other part of this legislation – I'm just going to go through a little bit here
now – is racing. Again, too many times we hear it in the news, we hear it in the
courtrooms and we see it on TV that this causes death. And usually the death
that we hear of is younger people. I know that there are all kinds of awareness,
schools have it, we have Young Drivers of Canada, we have different driving
schools and everything else; but sometimes I don't know if it's emotion, someone
in the car with you or whatever happens, this seems to occur and there's never a
good result.
Again, I
really call on the minister to – I think while this is a great piece of
legislation, that suspension can be done, there are new penalties, any grounds
to believe that a person is racing on the highway, traffic enforcements can come
out and say listen, this is what it's going to be, you're going to be suspended
and stuff like that; but again, it all comes back to education and it comes back
to making sure that our young people are well educated.
I know
that once a tragedy happens everybody realizes then that it's too late, maybe
this should have been done, maybe that should have been done; but we really want
to emphasize that while there are penalties in place, suspensions and taking
vehicles, there is more to it than that. We should let everybody know but, in
particular, it seems to me that we see it's usually young people that are
involved in this. Again, as a parent and most of us are here in the House, we
all look forward to our children coming home every night safe and sound. So it's
really important.
I want
to talk a little bit about the Move Over legislation. Again, it's an important
part. Minister, my understanding is that say if you're in a 60-kilometre zone,
it will drop down to 30, but if you're in a 50-kilometre zone, it still drops
down to 30, I think. So the speed limit in those different zones is 30
kilometres.
Sometimes we go through the 30 kilometres, but if there are people there
that are working and you're in close proximity, just crawl through them because
these people probably have other jobs to do and they're looking at doing their
work on the road. It could be an accident there and it could be our law
enforcement officers which we have here today also and I want to applaud them.
They need to be able to do their work, they need to be in a safe environment and
we need to make sure they're protected.
We've talked about school zones here in the House of Assembly now for the
last number of weeks. We brought in a private Member's motion last week, and the
Member before that, and it was all to do with school zones. Sometimes in our
communities, we're dealing with children. Sometimes we don't really realize what
they're doing and we don't understand whether – sometimes they can run out,
maybe it's not a crosswalk, maybe there's a friend across the way. But it's
important that we make sure these regulations are put in place and that people
really do slow down in these zones.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation also talks about insurance and proof of
insurance. While a person is driving a vehicle, sometimes somebody else could be
driving that vehicle. It's important that the vehicle is insured itself. I guess
that's where the minister is coming through on a bit of this here also. It
requires the insurance policy be produced to the police. So it's making sure
that vehicles are insured. Too many vehicles are on our roads today that are not
insured. I mean, there's no excuse for that whatsoever.
When it comes to the appeals process, I think this has more to do with
the Charter of Rights – and I'll talk a little bit about it later on, the 90-day
appeal process. It allows for there to be an appeal, and there are different
reasons for them, which I'll read right now in a few minutes.
I'm just going to go through the overview of each amendment that the
minister introduced. On Bill 27, it increases the fines for driving without due
care and attention or for driving – a reasonable consideration for persons from
which the current range now is gone; the fines are gone now from $120 to $480.
They're gone to $300 to $1,000. You'll find these in section 1. Some of this
bill there are different sections that talks about two or three different
things. So it's important to know where they're coming to in the bill.
Causing death or bodily harm; this is a new offence for driving without
care and attention or without reasonable considerations for persons causing
death or bodily harm. It sets out the following penalties: a minimum of $2,000
and a maximum of $20,000. Up to two years imprisonment and licence suspended for
not more than five years. Again, accompanying regulations will also outline that
you lose six demerit points.
Mr.
Speaker, bodily harm sometimes can be – there's a definition that's in there,
bodily harm sometimes can be hurt or injury of a person of their health or their
comfort is what it's called. Any time there is some injury that is involved,
this is important because while people don't realize what their actions are and
the causes of these actions, so it's important that we introduce that also.
Excessive speeding; in this bill, there are a lot of clauses in here where it
talks about excessive speeding. It is clauses 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 16. The bill
includes a separate speeding – and it's for offences from 30- to 50-kilometre
zones and then greater than 50, which means 51, past the posted speed limit.
Some of the fines for greater than 50 kilometers an hour posted, there would be
up to $400 to $850 and now fines will be set at $800 to $1,800 for construction
zones or school zones.
Again,
like I just spoke that time, Mr. Speaker, it's important for people to realize
that when you're in a school zone there are children around. When you're in a
construction zone there are people around also that are doing construction.
They're going to work in the morning. They have a job to do. It's important that
we slow down and make sure of the safety of these people. Again, too often we've
heard of accidents and reports of people being injured in both of these zones.
It also
imposes a seven-day driver's licence suspension for speeding greater than 50
kilometres an hour. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is something that I really find
myself. I know travelling our roads and travelling –whether it's the
Trans-Canada going as far as Whitbourne, where I go to quite often, that going
along the highway and you're going your 100 kilometres an hour and someone
passes you by like you're stopped. I mean, it's just so unsafe and for everybody
else that's on the road. You often heard the term it's an accident waiting to
happen. Well, that's what has happened here. It's important we bring it in, but
it's also important that we educate the general public that we're not going to
tolerate it.
Other
regulations will make it so that vehicles can be impounded for three days for
speeding over. That's pretty important because once you take a vehicle away from
a person hopefully it sends the right message to them also.
Mr.
Speaker, racing on our highway in this bill is clauses 12 and 16 and it poses
additional penalties. In the legislation there is a section on racing. It's not
new, but this is new of the penalties of what we're putting in. There's a
seven-day driver's suspension for racing on a highway, and effective the second
day after the notice of suspension.
I have a
question for the minister when we get into Committee on that, just to get an
understanding. I know during the briefing it was explained, but there are a
couple of questions I have to ask about that also; also, impounding the vehicles
for racing, up to three days. Hopefully, this will send a message that we need
to send out there to society that we're not going to tolerate it.
Stunting
is in clauses 13 and 16. The bill
creates a new offence for what department officials call stunting. As the
minister explained, that's someone doing wheelies or doing some kind of
unforeseen driving act that you shouldn't be at on a highway, and you're putting
other people in danger. Again, this is new. It will impose a seven-day driver's
licence suspension; again, the fact is on the second day after the notice of
suspension has been given. Added to the regulations is making authorities being
able to impound vehicles for up to three days.
Again,
when it comes to stunting, reading the bill, I'd like to see a little bit more.
I think if we talked to our law enforcement officers or talked to the people out
in the general public, there's a whole list of things that we should inform the
general public that you're just not allowed to do this.
Sometimes stunts can be like – again, you'll see people sometimes on motorcycles
going on their back wheel. Another stunt is you'll see them weaving into traffic
and out of traffic, and going back and forth like this. It puts everybody in
danger because it takes the attention away for people who are actually driving.
I believe something like this should be – anything that takes my attention or
driver's attention away from what another person is doing, maybe that could be
some consideration of what it could be also.
Mr.
Speaker, I spoke a little while ago about the Move Over one, but I'm just going
to talk about the – and this is under clauses 11 and 15. The bill strengthens
Move Over provisions, adding speed reduction of at least 30 kilometres per hour.
That's at least a minimum speed 30 kilometres over for vehicles to pass
emergency vehicles and designated vehicles.
I know
sometimes on the highway we come upon very unfortunate scenes. We're so lucky to
have the emergency response people that we do have, because sometimes, I don't
know; I have friends who are ambulance drivers, I have family members that are
firefighters and I know a lot of police officers. I tell you, I don't know how
sometimes they do it when they come upon a scene as what they see every day and
what they see on our roads and stuff like this.
So while
they are attending people and people who really need their help, we really need
to make sure we pull over or just let them do their jobs and be careful when
we're going through zones. When we see an ambulance or a fire truck or a police
vehicle coming towards us, I have a tendency to almost stop and pull in to make
sure they have lots of adequate room.
Sometimes you'll see people, they drive on a four-lane highway and they think if
they're on the inside lane that they can go on and give it to her, you're okay,
he's out in the outside lane; but listen, just take your time, slow down and
make sure these people get through because you don't know what another driver
could do, maybe somebody is going to come up and pass, but just get over so
everybody realizes it's an emergency vehicle. It's important that somebody here
may need to get to hospital really, really quick or it could be a vehicle that's
going to a scene where a life can be saved.
Again, I
applaud these people. It's something that I know from speaking to friends of
mine who are involved in it that it takes a special person to be able to go and
be able to be on these scenes, to see what they see and be able to do what they
do to make sure that we're protected and our loved ones get all the due care and
everything else they need because minutes save a life. Every minute that they
can either get to a scene or a minute they're coming away from a scene or while
they're at it, they don't need to worry about oncoming traffic or anything else
so it's important that we do that.
Mr.
Speaker, proof of insurance: Bill 27 modifies proof of insurance provision. What
it does is it puts the onus on the driver to prove the vehicle they were driving
is insured at the time, when requested. I'm not sure, the minister can probably
correct me on this, before it was either the RCMP or RNC had to prove that you
didn't have it. This is proof that the vehicle itself is insured. If you don't
have that proof in your vehicle then it's their jurisdiction to say, okay, there
are going to be fines at their request. It also places onus on persons charged
with an offence to prove that insurance was on that vehicle at that time, so
that's important.
These
are some of the safety reasons and, like I said, proof of insurance is a safety
reason because everybody should be insured and now an appeal process is also
added in this. There is a huge section in the bill that just takes out the word
“registrar” and that's just, as we say in the House, basically a housekeeping
type thing.
The bill
adds the process where there is an appeal to the registrar of 90 days for an
impaired driving suspension where a blood alcohol of 0.8 or greater, refusal or
failure to provide a sample. This is added as there is no appeal process in the
act. The absence of an appeal process as a mechanism could result in a challenge
to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a model in Ontario, which has had the
effect for a number of years, there's no successful Charter challenge to date.
Grounds
of appeal: Now, I don't know how it will be appealed, but I guess it's more or
less that there is a mechanism in place so that there is an appeals process.
That's why it's done. Grounds for an appeal could be: Identify the driver. Maybe
there's a medical explanation for failure for proof of example or failure to
refuse your blood sample. Again, Mr. Speaker, I think it's something that has to
be added to the bill with the appeal process because someone can appeal under
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Like I
said, most of the legislation is to impose operation of the legislation and not
the registrar itself. Mr. Speaker, the last part of this bill is to do a lot
with timing; amendments to be clarified, as mentioned, proposed operations,
legislation. Most of the registrar will come in force under Royal Assent. The
appeal process will come into force 30 days after Royal Assent and the rest of
the bill comes in six months after Royal Assent.
Mr.
Speaker, that's just a background of everything that's in this bill. It's a
pretty intense bill. I just want to go back to how I started speaking about this
bill. Anything that we can do in this House so that people are not at risk when
we're on the highways, to make sure that our families get home safe to us in the
evenings, to make sure that we don't hear of incidents of people doing stupid
things, really, that are costing people's lives.
Some of
this stuff that's brought in here today, I hope that the minister and this
government will do a lot more education. I think that the consensus, everybody
out in the general public, really does a good job. There's a very small minority
that are on our highways today that are not abiding by the rules. As we get into
the winter months, sometimes you'll see incidents where black ice is a huge
problem. Later in the mornings and early in the evenings when the sun goes down,
that kind of happens. People have to slow down. I really believe it because we
all want to get home safe and sound.
I know
that a police presence is a big part of our highway safety. I know we had
questions here today in Question Period and everything else, but I believe that
our law enforcement and our RNC, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, really
have to be given the resources to do what's needed to be done out there to make
sure that our roads are very, very safe. I do believe in police presence. I
think police presence does make a difference, really makes a difference. I know
this summer I travelled on the highway and I just notice it all the time – I
really do. If I go and I drive to Clarenville or I drive to Gander, I always
note if I met a RCMP vehicle on the road and I know there's other people out
there that do that also.
So
there's a lot that we can do as a society. There are a lot our law enforcements
– because we really got to get the minority of people that are going too fast on
our highways and not doing it with dear care and control of the vehicle.
Again,
we have groups here today that are paying the price for what happens on the
highways. I applaud them. I started by thanking them for all that they do. Your
advocacy work is noticed and we really appreciate it, the general public, not
only politicians. I appreciate it as a parent and I appreciate what you do for
us. It's unfortunate that you were put in a situation that you have been put in,
but I really appreciate everything you've done to bring this bill in here today.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
delighted to stand here and join my hon. colleagues on this very important topic
of road safety. Thank you to the hon. colleague from across the way for the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis for support of this legislation. As
always, he's very well read on his bill, which is great and he's done a great
job of going through it.
As the
Minister of Service NL said earlier, this is our second opportunity to stand on
our feet in this session of the House to speak to amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act – a topic that has
great impact on all the people of our province. Service NL is committed to doing
what it can to make the roads as safe as possible for the travelling public and
part of that commitment is to periodically review the amendments of the
Highway Traffic Act, as required, to
ensure it keeps current with the purposes of protecting highway safety on our
highways.
We are
all too familiar with the devastating effects that accidents can have on our
roadways, with the many individuals and families and friends who've had their
lives drastically altered as a result. Over the past several months, I've had
the opportunity to attend a number of events that recognized and honoured the
individuals in our province that have lost loved ones or suffered great injury
on our roads. This is devastating to see and I could only imagine how the
families feel and how they cope with this devastating occurrence.
I've
seen many tears shed. I've looked at the many photos of people whose lives have
ended far too soon because of the actions of those people behind the wheel. I
read the comments by one family member who talked about the crash that took the
life of a loved one out of their lives instantaneously and that it was 100 per
cent preventable, which is the hardest thing to take.
Since
coming to Service NL, I cannot tell you the impact that these many stories of
loss and injury on our roadways have had on me. I've met many individuals and
families who have had their lives forever changed because of incidents on our
highways.
That is
why it is so very important – and it seems we have great consent in the House –
that we continue to take action to promote awareness in an effort to improve
safety on our highways and roadways. We know there are many unsafe driving
practices on our roadways that are putting our people in danger each and every
day. When you hear statistics like the minister provided which states in Canada
approximately 1,800 people lose their lives each year and over 160,000 of those
Canadians are injured on our roads, that's startling.
I
recently read information provided by the World Health Organization that says
more than 1.25 million people throughout the world die each and every year as a
result of road traffic crashes. Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of
death among people aged between 15 and 29. Nearly half of those dying on the
world's roads are vulnerable road users, meaning pedestrians, cyclists or
motorcyclists.
It also
states that without sustained action, road traffic crashes are predicted to
become the seventh leading cause of death by 2030. Mr. Speaker, that is
unacceptable. That is why our government will continue to make public safety a
priority.
Mr.
Speaker, we made a commitment to continue to identify opportunities to improve
highway safety with input from community stakeholders and law enforcement at
every step of the way. We have developed strong working relationships with the
STAND for Hannah campaign, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire
Services and many, many others who have offered different views on what
amendments were needed.
We're
happy to take their opinions and suggestions into account when making
legislation because it can only make our legislation stronger. This is exactly
what we're doing here today. When you look at the areas that are covered with
these latest amendments – I'm not going to go through all of them, but I will go
through some – you realize how necessary these changes are to help improve road
safety.
Mr.
Speaker, let's take a look at racing on highways as an example. This is
completely avoidable action and needs to start educating people as soon as they
get their licences about the impacts this can have on people's lives. This
action is one that disregards – total disregard for the safety of our residents.
The new penalties will hopefully deter such behaviours, but it's our hope not
only that – I hope nobody receives any fine for this because I hope it never
happens again, but that's pie in the sky, I guess dreaming, but we will make a
difference by bringing forward legislation like this.
With
these changes, a driver that is charged with an offence will receive a seven-day
driver's licence suspension and their vehicle will be impounded for three days.
This is meant to discourage people who street race and keep new drivers from
ever thinking about trying it.
Another
action that disregards safety on our roadways is stunting. Everyone remembers
the individual in the corvette on Kenmount Road. I think it was in the District
of Mount Scio, in May of 2015, doing donuts in the middle of Kenmount Road. It's
unacceptable and this cannot happen. I know the individuals that are in a
corvette club spoke out heavily against that at the time. We need more people to
make sure that this is unacceptable behaviour.
Before
these amendments, there was nothing in legislation to deal with this action on
our roadways. Bill 27 creates a new offence for stunting on our highways, and
I'm very happy to applaud this addition.
As with
street racing, drivers who are charged with stunting will also have their
vehicles impounded for three days and face a seven-day suspension of their
licence, a significant addition to the legislation in this new offence for
driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for
other persons causing bodily harm or death. Undoubtedly, every Member in this
hon. House will agree to the necessity of such a change in our legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, this fine carries a minimum of $2,000 and a maximum fine of $20,000, or
up to two years imprisonment or both; licence suspension for not more than five
years and six demerit points. I hope we never again see anything like this
happen in our province, but this sends a clear message.
I'm also
pleased with the changes for the Move Over provisions. Unlike previous
amendments, which did not specify how much someone should reduce their speed by,
now they have to reduce their speed by 30 kilometres per hour to a minimum speed
of 30 kilometres per hour. The Move Over legislation, officers are now able to
charge the registered owner of the car with failure to move over. This means
there's no chase or distraction from the initial move over. They are able to
send out a ticket when they return to their office.
We all
know the great risk that first responders face each and every day when they're
called into action. It is incumbent upon us to do our part to ensure they're not
put in any further risk while carrying out their duties.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the discussions we talked about earlier was excessive speeding
on the highways in our province. I would tend to agree with both the minister
and the Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. Many times you're
on the highways or on roadways in our province and you're passed like you're
standing still. That's unacceptable. We've tried to address some of those
concerns within this legislation. Especially on the Outer Ring Road, people can
be careless. I want the public to know the consequences of their actions.
The
updated Highway Traffic Act increased
the fines for excessive speeding and introduces a three-day impoundment for cars
caught doing over 50 kilometres an hour, which is new. The current fine for
excessive speeding ranges between $300 and $750, but the change has been made to
raise that to $400 to $850 and having them up to $1,800 in school zones and
construction zones. We all know that's very important to focus on those two
areas in particular. These are only a couple of the highlights of the amendments
that were put forward today, but there are many others that will have great
impact on the travelling public and in our province.
As with
the changes to drinking and driving regulations, we are trying to make
generational changes. Safe driving should not be limited to when you have
company in the car; it is our goal to live in a province of safe and defensive
drivers.
As I've
said, Mr. Speaker, these amendments are another important part of the evolution
of the Highway Traffic Act to ensure
it provides the protection needed for the people of the province who use our
roads each and every day. Driving is a responsibility and we need to be cautious
of what can happen when we're not abiding by the law.
I heard
the Minister of Service NL state over and over again how important it is to keep
the conversation of road safety going, and continually look to ways to improve
safety in our towns and communities right across our province.
Within a
few short days the Christmas season will be upon us, and the number of
individuals and families travelling on our highways will increase dramatically.
It is crucial that every one of us helps reinforce the need for safety on our
roads and the need to make responsible decisions each and every time you sit
behind the wheel.
I am
very pleased to have been part of the discussion here today with the amendments
to the Highway Traffic Act, and I pass
on my deepest condolences to all those families that have experienced these
great losses. There's nothing we can do here in this House that can fix that,
but we're hoping today we'll have the ability to at least hope it doesn't happen
in the future.
I
encourage all Members in this hon. House to support this legislation today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
pleased to have the opportunity to stand today and speak to Bill 27, An Act to
Amend the Highway Traffic Act No. 2. I join with my colleagues in offering
condolences to people who are present in our galleries today and to others out
in the general public who have suffered the loss of family because of reckless
and careless driving on our highways. We can never say enough to them in saying
how we feel for them.
It's
interesting how something from the past can come back, but I haven't thought
about one of my uncles – I think about him, I guess, but not in this way – in a
long time. But I had an uncle, my mother's brother, who when he was around 40
was knocked down at the top of Casey Street crossing over Lemarchant Road
because somebody raced up Casey Street to get through a red light, and his life
was changed for the rest of his life. He was physically incapable of working
again for the rest of his life. So he became our Uncle Charlie, very close to
us, because he was walking home on a Friday night – he would spend Friday night
with us. He loved watching wrestling; he didn't have a television himself. He'd
watch wrestling with us and then walk across Lemarchant Road to go back to where
he lived on Springdale Street.
I think
about Uncle Charlie now – he became a very special part of our family. He was
always there. He babysat us. He babysat nieces and nephews, but he could never
physically work again. I remember my Uncle Charlie today. I never thought I was
going to stand and say this, but he's sort of present to me, and I guess as a
young adolescent, I never really thought about the impact on his life of that
crazy driver who wanted to race through the red light 10:30 at night. Why, who
knows? But that's what we deal with and that's what this piece of legislation is
dealing with, the craziness of people not thinking, people not caring.
I'm not
going to go through all of the bill. The minister did that and my colleagues
have done it as well. I'm not going to use my time to do that. It's quite clear
that we have a piece of legislation whose goal is to try to cut down on the
craziness that's going on, on our highways, in the streets and our cities and
strengthening the existing provisions with regard to fines and with regard to
additional penalties by suspending licences and for impoundment of cars, et
cetera – all of that is extremely important.
Of
course, what's even more important is that there be public education like groups
like STAND for Hannah are doing, but like government has to do as well in
getting people to understand why they have to stop speeding, why they have to
stop doing crazy things like stunts on the highways or on our busy city streets,
why this has to stop.
Unfortunately, I think we all know that the provisions we have now, I don't
think they're not working because they're not strong enough – I'm hoping that
strengthening is going to help – but I think one of the reasons they're not
working is because we're not putting enough resources out there to help out with
prevention and with enforcement. And I think education is a prevention piece. We
have to hope that if we have more education going on that it's going to help. We
have to hope that as we educate younger drivers who are coming into the culture
of driving, that we're helping them to become better drivers than those who are
ahead of them. We have to hope that education is going to help cut down on the
speeding – period – so that the provisions that are put in place won't even be
needed.
But even
with the education that we'll do, even with the work that will be done to inform
people, the person who was driving crazily yesterday on our highway is probably
not even going to be aware tomorrow of the changes in the provisions that this
act is bringing or this bill is bringing in because they don't care. They're out
there not caring anyway. They're not going to pay any attention, so how do we
get through to them?
I think
one of the ways we have to get through to them – one is through the education
and that has to go on. I'm not saying it doesn't have to go on, it does have to
go on, but it's also through enforcement. We have to have enough resources out
there to get people to understand they're going to get caught. If education
doesn't mean anything to them and they don't care, they're going to get caught
and they're going to suffer. They have to know they're going to get caught
because they won't suffer until they get caught. That's the thing we have to be
looking at. Enforcement is really, really important. Enforcement requires
resources.
I've had
a couple of incidents recently. I've had friends from – actually, in both cases
– Ontario visiting. Two were a couple and I was so happy to see them. One of the
things they commented on – they were so happy to be back in Newfoundland and
Labrador. They hadn't been here in about 20 years and they were loving every
minute. They were loving being in the city.
One of
their comments to me when we went out to dinner was: Lorraine, we've hardly seen
a police car on the streets. We're walking all over the place and we haven't
seen – and at that point in time they'd been here in the city for a number of
days. They're walking all over and they said we haven't seen one police car.
They really questioned it.
Then the
other day I had a friend visiting. We were just driving along Prince Philip
Parkway. That friend said: Lorraine, I can't get over how fast the drivers in
St. John's drive. These were observations; uncalled for, just coming from
friends who were visiting from Toronto, mind you. That was the interesting thing
– from Toronto. Not like from a small place where they weren't used to fast
drivers, but they were noticing things like, one, no police around. How do you
enforce traffic laws? That was the question that was put to me, and then
secondly, how fast drivers drive.
What my
colleagues are saying is true, not just on the major highways, but in the cities
as well, here in St. John's in particular. The other day on the Parkway I was
being driven by a shuttle from the garage back here to the Confederation
Building. We were at the red light by the Arts and Culture and we were turning
left onto Allandale Road to go to the building, and we were stopped in the left
turn lane. The red light was already there, and this car passed us. It had to be
doing at least 100 or more as it passed us and went through the red light. Now,
not everybody is always going to have a police car sitting around seeing all of
that. I realize that, but the incidents I believe in the city are getting worse,
and they're getting worse on the highway as well.
We can
have all of the penalties we want – we already have penalties. These are going
to strengthen it, and they're important ones. We can have all of those, but
unless we catch people who are driving this way, then the penalties aren't going
to mean a thing. We have to have the two pieces in place and government is going
to have to take seriously the thing around the resources with regard to the
traffic control. The resources that are needed by the RNC in particular and the
RCMP as well, these resources are needed in order to enforce because, without
enforcement, people will not get caught.
I think
we all know that the mentality of people who do this kind of thing is: I'm going
to do it. I'm going to try not to get caught. I'm not going to get caught. I'm
going to do what I want to do. I'm going to drive the way I want to drive and
I'm not going to get caught. Because they don't see enough people getting
caught, and that's something we have to deal with. I'm really pleased with the
changes that are being made, but as I'm saying, it's not enough.
I'm
pleased, for example, in particular with the change that's happening in the Move
Over legislation. Back in 2013-2014, we were dealing with the amendments to the
act and we were dealing with the Move Over legislation. I think that Move Over
legislation was in 2014. I raised in the House at that time, I asked how come
there was no speed limit attached to the legislation. It was explained to me
that really couldn't happen and you really didn't need it. Just telling drivers
to slow down was going to be sufficient.
Well,
I'm glad I was right in 2014 and I'm glad we're finally doing what should have
happened then. I'm happy with the changes that are here, but I can't impress
enough on all of us the need for resources to enforce, to make sure that people
who are out there who will continue doing the stunting, people who will continue
driving at 150 and 160, that these people know they are going to get caught. I
mean, thank goodness the person who last week – I heard this on the news – was
driving 120 in a school zone got caught. Can you imagine that even thinking –
not even thinking – they can just speed that way in the city, outside of the
city? It doesn't matter where.
Obviously, I support the legislation. The issue of enforcement is not something
that goes into this legislation, but the issue of enough resources to those who
control our traffic, enough resources so they can really make sure that they can
enforce the rules and regulations with regard to driving, that those resources
are in place; and, secondly, that resources are in place from government, both
from the government's own systems to do education, to inform people and also
resources for groups like STAND for Hannah, that the resources are there to do
the education that's needed because the two things are needed.
I think
I've made the points, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to make. As I said, I will
obviously be supporting the legislation, but I do urge government to realize
that we have to do something about making sure that not only do we have the
rules and regulations on paper, not only do we have the penalties on paper, not
only do we have things like suspension of licences and impoundment of cars on
paper, but that we have enough resources out there to catch those who are still
going to be breaking the law so that they feel the brunt of the new regulations
and that will stop them.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
haven't heard Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair for a little while. That sounded nice
in the House, actually.
I'm only
going to speak for five minutes, Mr. Speaker, to Bill 27. I didn't plan on it
when I came in the House, the bill that would amend the
Highway Traffic Act to strengthen road safety in the province.
I guess
listening to the minister – and I want to throw a bouquet to my colleague, the
Minister of Service NL, who's done a really great job bringing this to the
Social Policy Committee, discussing the details, trying to determine what
direction we needed it to go, bringing it to Cabinet and getting support there.
She's done a great job. Sometimes these things don't move through the process as
fast as we would even like as ministers, and then it goes to the Legislative
Counsel to be drafted and things like that. There's been a lot of work put in to
get this bill in. We know how important it is.
When the
hon. Member was speaking about her uncle – I guess we all have many, many
stories we could talk about – you reminded me. I'm an only child, as most of my
colleagues would know, and my mother lives on the other end of the country. In
2008, she was coming from an eye appointment, swinging her glasses, just before
Christmas, around this time of year – next week is the anniversary – thinking
about: I have to get a turkey, I have company coming, and all of a sudden my
mother, who's only 100 pounds, went into the air because somebody went speeding
down, struck her on a crosswalk. She came down shoulder first – I guess is what
saved her life – in through the windshield of that vehicle.
It has
been a long road to recovery, Mr. Speaker. They told her she'd never walk again,
but my mother doesn't take those things. She's pretty feisty and determined. She
had a major brain surgery in 2008 and it's been a long road back. That's because
somebody was in a hurry, I guess, to get somewhere, on a crosswalk, not paying
attention and there have been permanent changes in her life because of that, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm not
going to talk about the things other people have mentioned, but when we talk
about increased fines, licence suspension, vehicle impoundment, it's all
heightened things – heightened things to hopefully prevent, as my colleague
said, five people a day losing their lives.
Mr.
Speaker, if someone loses their life, that's a minute on the evening news clip –
a minute. As an individual, I know from my husband's hometown on the Northern
Peninsula, a man who had twin daughters lost them both in a highway accident. He
said until that comes into your home and until the furniture is moved around in
your home, you really don't realize the impact of that.
There
will always be people who – there are a lot of grieving people out there and
people will wish we had gone further and we'd done more. I can't say I'm pleased
to see this. It's a difficult bill to speak to, but I am happy to be a part of a
government that saw a need to do more than we were doing.
The
current Speaker right now, when he was the Minister of Service NL, made some
positive changes around impaired driving. That's another big issue, Mr. Speaker.
I
represent a district where we are just getting new pavement. We had gravel road
for a long time in half of the district and it got finished maybe last month.
The speeding tickets that have been passed out there in the last few weeks have
gone up, I don't know, maybe 500 or 600 per cent. People driving 165 and
children in the vehicle, was one story that just came out. It's not a runway,
it's a roadway.
Like
many here, I have a daughter 21 years old. I worry about her when she's on the
road, leaving university and she's driving home to Labrador, because as one of
my pilot uncles used to say – and the Minister of Health would appreciate this –
in the sky you've got the whole sky, but on the road you've just got that one
line for someone to come across.
As the
bill is being debated, I'm thinking about good friends of mine on the West
Coast. Their daughter Karen was a teacher out in Burgeo – La Poile area driving
in, alone in the vehicle, went across the road into a tractor trailer, lost her
life. I have another very good friend, beautiful daughter Stacey who worked with
me as a summer student. Stacey was driving to Corner Brook two, three years ago
to surprise her mother on her birthday. It was near Springdale and she lost her
life, Mr. Speaker. Alone in the car, we won't really know what happened, but
we've been hearing about education today and that's where it all starts.
I
remember going back about 10 years ago, we went to visit some friends in a cabin
in Howley and I was relaying to them about a young guy in my community that had
been impaired, took his father's truck, went up in the gravel pit, went off the
road, which was probably the best thing that could have ever happened, and my
daughter only in grade six at the time, that I didn't even think was paying
attention to the conversation, she said, and it's not like we don't know any
better now because we get presentations on those things in school.
I never
forgot that, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes when you get older, you get set in
your ways and you develop bad habits, but it goes back to the younger that we
can do this, if we can reach out so that then we're going up through as a
preventative thing – and I do know now as a mother of a 21-year-old, there are
lots of times I'm surrounded by people in the later adult and early teens,
they've taken things like impaired driving really seriously because they know
because they were educated and they always call for that designated driver and
things like that.
I just
want to lend my support, Mr. Speaker, to this bill. I was thinking about the
timing of the bill. When you lose a significant person in your life, a birthday,
an anniversary is a day to get through. Christmas is a very, very difficult time
for grieving families to get through because it's like it goes on forever.
I'm
speaking tomorrow night at Eastern Health under coping with loss through the
holidays, an annual event. This will be my third or fourth time speaking there.
Not that I'm pleased to, but when I get asked, maybe a number of my tragic life
experiences, if you can help someone else a little bit on that journey, it adds
a little bit of meaning back or makes some sense of the loss that you've had
yourself.
The
point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, every year in that auditorium at Eastern
Health it's full of people with fresh grief, full of people trying to get
through that first Christmas, that first birthday, trying to make these big
adjustments. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary secretary, they're going through a
very difficult time now, best friends of his, lifelong best friends, their
daughter on her way out to a christening on the highway and I believe it was
another vehicle that swerved across the road, and that young lady, life cut
short, just like that. A moment, again, on the news, but a lifetime of change
for the family that's impacted as they try and adjust to a new normal. So
anything that we can do.
I was
thinking, too, Mr. Speaker, about there are politics always at play and spirited
lively debate in this Legislature, and that's important and that's necessary,
but there are some things that come to the House that you take the politics out.
We all want to make our little corners of the world better, we want
infrastructure, we want capital works, but if our people aren't well, if our
families aren't safe, the rest of it doesn't matter. Bills like this today are
the things of value that we can play a little role in.
So I'm
very humbled to have the opportunity to speak to the bill, to support Bill 27,
An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act and, hopefully, lives will be saved
because of the extra measures taken here. I think the onus is on all of us as we
move about our lives to say did you know if you do that, you can have your
vehicle impounded, suspended and all of these different things. Hopefully the
message will come and will continue that these violations will be less and less
and less.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity to speak this afternoon to Bill 27. I've been
listening and paying attention to some of the comments by Members of the House
on what, no doubt, is an important bill to many people in our province. My
colleague for Cape St. Francis spoke earlier. He commented on some of the people
who make an effort on a daily basis to continue to create the discussion about
highway safety. People who either experienced loss themselves, or in some cases
– we know he had representation from the provincial fire service here today. The
fire service in our province experience serious incidents, destruction and
sometimes death on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker. Not death on a daily basis, thank
goodness. We know that this happens far too often – once is too many, but they
do deal with difficult circumstances on a daily basis throughout our province,
and I know that they're here today and have an interest in this bill and these
changes.
Just a
short comment on the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development who
just commented a minute ago. There is great value in what she said, and
listening to her, and I know she was talking about her own experiences, she was
talking about she's going to talk to a group on coping with loss herself.
There's nobody in a better position to speak to these matters than someone who
has experienced it themselves. The same would hold true to someone who has
experienced a serious illness, a serious medical issue and quite often that's
the best people to be able to speak about those particular matters, offer
support and lend support.
And for
the people who are watching this here today either at home or in the gallery,
have that vested interest in it, they have, in many cases, earned the right to
be considered to be experts on the impacts of these types of circumstances.
What we
saw in Bill 13 a few weeks ago were increases in some fines. While we saw some
changes in speeding fines and so on at that point in time, there are further
changes today, but I was trying to determine why some of these changes in the
Highway Traffic Act are coming at this
point in time and why some of them came just a couple of weeks ago under a
different bill. Maybe the minister can provide more information on that when we
get to Committee, but the ones we changed earlier on some of those
Highway Traffic Act offences such as
speeding, construction, in school zones and so on, when I think about those, my
experience, it was 25 years that I wore a uniform, most of those years as a
uniformed officer in the province, everybody knows it and is quite aware of
that.
Some
people think I spent my entire career as a media relations officer, but I
didn't. It was only the last four years of my career. But I spent most, by far,
almost all of my career or the vast majority of my career as an operational
officer on the street either in uniform or in plain clothes. When you hear about
vehicles passing a school bus and driving too fast through construction zones
and so on, in some way that's neglect and that's becoming somewhat complacent in
not driving with the care to say I'm paying attention to what I'm doing; I'm
going to slow down and drive safely and so on. Sometimes they're complacent and
it's wrong for that to happen. It's wrong for someone to do that.
Some of
these changes we see today such as adding a section regarding stunting, as it's
referred to, which the act uses the phrase: “performing or engaging in a stunt
or activity that is likely to distract, startle or interfere with users of the
highway.” That's not that. That's not complacency. That's not just someone
saying, well, I'm going to drive 10 or 15 or 20 kilometres over the speed limit
because everyone else is doing it, or I'm a couple of minutes late, I'm going to
try and make up that time and I speed through a construction zone, or I've got
my phone out and I'm typing, well, I've just got to check that text while I'm
going through a school zone.
That's
not acceptable, but stunting is so much more than that. I've seen it over the
years with motorcycles who like to do stunting. We saw one very visible public
circumstance in the last couple of years on Kenmount Road outside a take-out
where a person in a sports car pulls out on Kenmount Road where there are five
lanes of traffic, one of the busiest roads in our province, early in the evening
and does a bunch of donuts on the street with lots of people around, because
that's the night for people with cars and so on, and I respect that.
I've
been out there myself looking at cars and seeing who's out there with
motorcycles and so on. I know a lot of them myself, but to get out when there's
so much traffic on the roadway and do that. It was not an accident; it wasn't
complacency. It was a direct act that could potentially have caused significant
damage or injury or harm to others; fortunately, it didn't.
Mr.
Speaker, over the years, and Members talked about some of their own experiences.
I remember as a teenager, which it was my first recollection of seeing or being
at a collision that involved a fatality. I remember it very clearly. I know it
was a long time ago since I was a teenager, but I remember it very, very
clearly. When I think about what I remembered most, Mr. Speaker, I remember the
emotion. I remember the upset. I remember the impact that had on the people who
were around there to experience it.
Later in
life when I became a police officer and over the years, I wouldn't be able to
begin to think how many times I've experienced in different forms, but
experienced loss of life and devastation and so on. In the times that first come
to my mind, I remember the emotion. I remember the upset. I remember the impact
on families. I remember as I'm standing here now, I remember sitting in a living
room talking to a family member. We do that. Police officers do that and do the
work they have to do, notifications and dealing with family.
It's not
unusual, there are many people in a vehicle and one person has significant
critical injury or loss of life. The rest of the family quite often, or some
other family members that they are dealing with and have to deal with the
aftermath, not only that, but they deal with it for the rest of their lives.
It is
one thing for a police officer to have to do a notification or to attend a
scene. It can be harmful on anybody who's impacted or experiences that, but
families have to live with that the rest of their lives. I don't know what
that's like. I don't know what that's like for a family member.
We do
have a responsibility as a society, and government has a responsibility and we
as legislators have a responsibility to look at ways to improve safety. We know
there's always a balance between improving safety, making our highways safer for
everybody and balancing that with what's acceptable, what's reasonable, what
people abide by, what people will not abide by.
It's no
good for the government to bring in a law and people just say, well, we're not
doing that. If government decided today there's going to be a prohibition
starting today on alcohol, it's not going to happen. There still will be alcohol
use and people will find ways to fill it because it's just not going to happen.
So government has to slowly move the bar on safety and what people are expected
to do, and slowly continue to move that bar.
I
remember as a child not wearing a seat belt because they were tucked down in the
seat or they were strapped up above the door in the driver's door because they
were clipped up there, and you were never allowed to take them down because it
was too much work to put them back. You were never allowed to take them down
because if you pulled them down and put them on, it took my father half hour to
figure out how to pack them all up there nice and neat and out of the way again.
So you'd never take them down. You would never think about it.
Then the
laws changed to say cars have to have seat belts. They have to be a different
design where they could be easily put on and easily taken off, and they're on
safely. They won't let go, break in a crash and so on. Then the laws slowly
changed to say, well, not only do vehicle manufacturers have to put in seat
belts, but slowly over the years now you have to wear them.
The
children have to be in car seats – not only in car seats, they have to be in car
seats that are acceptable to federal regulation. Federal regulation makes those
more stringent as time goes on. The car seat you bought 10 years ago may not be
acceptable today because rules and laws change and so on.
That's
the movement of what legislators and governments do when they enforce laws on
people. You can't go from here to here overnight quite often. You have to go
through step by step by step.
I've
said here in the House before, Mr. Speaker, that if everything was solved and
the legislation was finalized and that was it, it was done, well, we wouldn't
need a House of Assembly. We wouldn't need a Parliament in Canada to change the
laws and progress as times change. Technology changes, and people's expectations
change and government's responsibility changes and continue to evolve. That's
why we're here, because things continue to evolve.
What the
government has done on this bill is taken a number of aspects that we've seen
recently in our society. We've seen over the years, but recently we've seen a
bit of this in our society, too much of it in our society, whereby there's been
loss of life and there are things that can be done to change some of those rules
and also what the impacts would be. There's no greater impact than having to
live with loss of life, no matter if you're a family member or a person that is
involved in another manner.
The laws
at least can change to try and encourage safer operation of motor vehicles. We
now have a law that says you can't use your cellphone. I've got on my cellphone,
my most recent update on my iPhone, there's an option whereby now I can activate
it so that when I'm driving, if someone sends me a text message, I don't get
notification that someone sent me a text message. It doesn't come on my phone,
but the person who sent me the message gets an automatic reply that says: Hey,
I'm driving, and when I'm no longer driving I'll have a look at your text
message – or words to that effect. So you're not tempted anymore to be: Where's
that phone, I just heard it beep or buzz or ring or whatever.
I have
that activated on my phone, and people can activate that. That's the kind of
transitions that continue to happen so people aren't tempted, because quite
often it's the tempting: oh, that's a message. I was waiting for a response from
so and so. I never got it before I left my office or home or whatever. I'll have
a quick look to see. Sometimes it's a quick look and a momentary look that will
cause a collision and potentially devastating impacts to people.
Mr.
Speaker, listening to debate today, when we get to Committee I may have some
questions to ask the minister just on clarification on a couple of matters. Some
of it has been cleared up in debate, and as I'm doing further research and
reading through the bill, it's clarifying some of that for me, but there may be
a couple questions I have for her in Committee.
This is
the second Highway Traffic Act
amendment this fall. I would say if government was to check – or maybe I should
get officials in the House to check, but really I suppose it's academic at this
point in time – would probably find the
Highway Traffic Act is probably one of the most modified pieces of
legislation in our province. It's not unusual during a session of the House to
have more than one amendment to the
Highway Traffic Act. There may have been times when we had three or four. We
make an amendment to insurance regulations or another one changed to speeding or
so on – maybe there's a change in technology that allows for a change.
I
remember when we introduced and brought in the change to the
Highway Traffic Act in this province that allowed for a police
officer to stop a vehicle to ensure the driver and vehicle are in compliance
with the law. There was a big discussion and debate about it. I remember a big
discussion about it. Are you violating people's rights by just arbitrarily
stopping them and so on?
We know
places in the world, in North America, in Canada and the United States, we hear
sometimes allegations of police doing inappropriate targeting of individuals and
there was concern that was going to happen. I haven't heard any of that concern,
but the police in Newfoundland and Labrador now can stop a vehicle to make sure
the driver has a driver's licence. To make sure they have a proper insurance
policy in place that's required and, very importantly, to make sure they're
driving a vehicle while not under the influence of alcohol or a drug, which can
be one of the most devastating factors involved with serious crashes in our
province and beyond as well. Police officers can do that today. Some of the
changes that are here will impact and improve what officers can do and give them
more options. But what's really important to this, as well, is to make sure the
public is aware of it.
I
believe there was a press release issued by the government this afternoon saying
that this bill was now before the House. When it's completed, they'll probably
do the same thing. Sometimes your local news agencies will say, hey, there are
some new laws around the Highway Traffic
Act now regarding stunting and racing on the highway, which is not new. For
speeding over 50 kilometres an hour above the speed limit, there's going to be a
higher fine for those types of cases. There's a change in driving without due
care and attention, without reasonable consideration for others. It's a good
thing to let people know that. Not only should it happen in the introduction of
the bill and when it passes, but the government has to find a way to continue to
tell people.
We hear
comments and discussions fairly regularly in public: Don't use your cellphone
when you drive. Sometimes those discussions are raised. Don't drink and drive is
another example and they're raised by stakeholder groups. MADD, as an example,
has done a really good job of continuing to raise the discussion about not
drinking and driving, not driving while impaired. They've done a really good job
of that.
There
are other groups, and not only groups, but individuals, who continue to spread
the word on those. I hope that happens with some of these changes as well, that
we remind people that the police are going to check you. If they do check you or
find you've been acting in a way that's inappropriate – a lot of these are
moving violations. The last act was mostly non-hazardous; some of them were
hazardous moving, but some of them were not. Hopefully in this one, when you
have people operating stunting, driving without due consideration for reasonable
consideration for others and so on, that people will be aware that – you know
what – there are big fines for that today – big, big fines.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague for Cape St. Francis talked about the importance of having
police officers on the highway. Yes, we had a discussion about that here today.
It's not the first day we had a discussion about police officers on the highway
in the House and in Question Period about having adequate resources.
In no
way, shape or form – just to reiterate, in no way, shape or form – am I trying
to assert or say that a lack of resources, because of the deployment in Labrador
of police earlier this year in the summer, were directly related to loss of life
on our highways. But I used an example the other day when the media contacted me
and asked to speak to me. I used this example the other day: If a person
travels, say, from Conception Bay North, from Carbonear or Victoria or the Bay
Roberts-Harbour Grace area to metropolitan St. John's or greater St. John's area
for work every day – and, Mr. Speaker, thousands do that every day. There are
thousands of people coming in over the Trans-Canada Highway, over Veterans
Memorial Highway every day to come to the greater St. John's area and Mount
Pearl for work and they go home every evening. They come in to go shopping and
they go back in the evening.
If
they're coming in the highway and they're coming across the Veterans Memorial
Highway and they see the police car on the side of the road and they get down
and they're on the Trans-Canada and they're coming in through the Trans-Canada
and they see a second police car on the highway or driving on the highway –
going east or west – or see a police car and they see a third police car and
they get in, they are going to say: Well, I just saw three police cars today.
It's going to be on their mind; they're going to see it, just as my colleague
for Cape St. Francis said.
Mr.
Speaker, if tomorrow or on the way home, they see one or two or three police
cars and tomorrow on their way to work they see one or two or three police cars
and on the way home tomorrow night they see one or two or three police cars, the
person very quickly is going to say: Do you know what? I should slow down. Not
because it's safer to slow down. They think I'm going to slow down because I
don't want to get a ticket; I don't want to be charged for speeding. That's why
they slow down.
So there
is a significant impact on drivers when the police are visible on our roads.
There's a significant impact. The RNC this year had a 10 per cent reduction – I
believe the number I saw was 10 per cent reduction in accidents so far in 2017.
But I also know they're doing targeted enforcement on the highways. You see them
now with the new radars, it's like looking through a scope, and they can target
their lasers and they can target the vehicle in a group of cars, group of
traffic. If one's going faster than the others, you can actually pick it out
with this new technology. And they've been targeting that and stopping people
and so on. Now, is that an impact? Well, it may be. All that they do is an
impact.
To go
back to my Conception Bay North scenario for a moment, if every day a driver
comes in and you don't see a police car, you go home you don't see a police car,
you come in in the morning and you don't see a police car and you go home the
next day you don't see a police car, then you're going to say: Well, I can speed
up a little bit today because I am late. I can drive a little bit faster today
because I am late, and I don't see a police car and there's a good chance I'm
not going to see one because I've been doing this every day for 10 years and for
the last six months I've seen one police car. Good chance I'm not going to see
one at the very time that I'm speeding going in here today, as an example.
That's
an important part of this as well. I have full respect for women and men who
provide policing services in our province. I am concerned about the level of
resources, especially on our highways and people off and vacant positions and so
on. We are concerned about that. This can't happen in isolation by itself and
there's a combination of things that has to happen. I know the government are
doing other things as well. But you have to have the resources in order to
enforce the laws. People have to be out there and seen. Police officers have to
be out there and seen in fully marked patrol cars. There's a reason why they're
fully marked so you can police all over them. One of the reasons is to deter
people from driving inappropriately. One of the reasons why they are there is to
deter people from driving inappropriately and causes them to drive in a safe
manner.
Mr.
Speaker, I leave on that comment. I thank the people who have worked with the
minister and provided input on these changes. Like I said, I might have a
question or two for the minister, but I expect as well that as time passes,
there'll be further changes and further improvements. I fully would invite any
person in the province who may be watching this or listening to this, or looking
at the bill or looking at legislation and has any suggestions for the minister,
I'm sure if you send it to the minister that she'd be more than happy to have a
look at them and include them at some point in time, if appropriate and
beneficial to do so.
I thank
the people in the gallery who are watching, people at home who have an interest
as well. I thank the minister for bringing it forward. I thank you, Sir, for the
time to speak to it this afternoon.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
want to stand today and represent the District of Harbour Grace – Port de Grave
on speaking to this bill. I believe it is certainly an important bill. As my
colleagues have said, amendments to our
Highway Traffic Act are something that will be ongoing forevermore, for as
long as we utilize roadways.
We can
all attest to how it would change someone's life, to lose a loved one. If not
directly, indirectly, I would say that every Member in this House of Assembly
has been affected by a fatal collision at some point in time. I'll reflect on a
time when my life was changed. It was one of my best friends who was actually
killed tragically on the Veterans Memorial Highway and it was just following our
first year of high school. It was just gearing up for Christmastime. There were
two vehicles involved in that. Weather conditions certainly were a contributing
factor, but it was indeed a fatal collision.
I'll
never forget that day. It was a Sunday, I remember. My friend, his name was
Lloyd Morgan; I've talked about him here. He is from Port de Grave. He and
another friend were driving on their way to do some Christmas shopping in St.
John's at the Avalon Mall. They were travelling on the Veterans Memorial and it
was just before reaching the Makinsons bridge in that roadway where they had a
head-on collision. My friend died instantly, and I'll just never forget that.
His
family, to this very day, they carry on, they do what they can to continue with
life for their children and for now their grandchildren and the other family
members, but their lives have been changed forevermore. It's something, of
course, that we'll never forget.
Unfortunately, there have been a lot of fatal collisions in the region where I
come from, where I represent. Also, family friends Adam Rose and Wade Hawe of
Clarke's Beach and Port de Grave were also fatally killed in Makinsons one
night, and it was a single-vehicle collision. They happened to hit a pole, a
single pole that happened to be in a field. We're uncertain as to what caused
the accident, whether something had come out in the roadway. We also have to
contend with moose here, our wildlife.
Myself,
I came pretty close to hitting a moose on the Veteran's Memorial just a couple
of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. It was at nighttime; I happened to be driving slower
than the posted speed limit at this time, given to the road conditions. We
always have to be focused. This day and age there are many distractions such as
our cellphones, such as the texting. You also have to be mindful of the drivers
around you. When I stopped abruptly to avoid hitting this large moose, a driver
behind me pulled out and passed and swerved to the other side of the road to
avoid hitting the animal. So common sense, when someone stops abruptly on a
highway, whether it be nighttime, whether in the daytime, chances are it's for a
reason. This time it certainly was for a reason.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to commend the minister for bringing this bill
forward to making the amendments to again Bill 27, for our viewers at home,
amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.
I can speak from experience with my colleague, when she gets a bee in her bonnet
or when she has, of course, when there's a good cause, she certainly puts her
heart and soul into this. I can remember a time when she told me how in her
former profession as a nurse and had come upon a fatal accident. Again, even
just coming upon those accidents and seeing them, it has an impact that never
leaves you.
In my
former career as a journalist – and I've also worked with my hon. colleague
across the way, the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the media relations
officer for the RNC at the time. Of course, I was a journalist and we'd often
work together, and I've had to interview him on some fatal collisions as well.
One that comes to mind, it happened on Kenmount Road. It was in the late hours
in the evening. I do know speeding was involved, but this vehicle veered off the
road and hit a tree, and two people's lives were lost. Again, it's the family
members who are left to cope with that every day, to get up and to face the day.
So again, I won't take too much time. I certainly call upon on all Members in
this hon. House, on all sides of the House, because it is certainly our
obligation to work together. And we're here for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I know
the minister was inspired by a family impacted in her district to bring this
forward. Again, it's great to see good things happening. There are lots of
things happening that, unfortunately – every wish can't be granted, but when we
can do something like this and make some amendments where need be, where it
would improve safety for all people, everyone across Newfoundland and Labrador,
certainly it's to be commended. It's great to see people working together all
times of the year, but especially, of course, coming upon the Christmas season.
I do
look forward to all colleagues voting in favour of this amendment. Again, thank
you to the minister for bringing this forward. I certainly will be supporting
this. I look forward to the support of all Members.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take too long, but I will just take a few minutes to speak to Bill 27.
Mr. Speaker, I think that as everybody has said – I'm not going to repeat
everything that's in here. It's been said now over and over again, but I just
want to add my voice to the conversation that, obviously, like all of my
colleagues on both sides of the House of Assembly, I support this 100 per cent.
I think
this is one of these pieces of legislation – and we've seen others this
government has brought in that have been very positive pieces of legislation.
Whether it be the Highway Traffic Act
or other things they've done. I've said many times that when good legislation
comes forward, I'll definitely stand up and support it. I think this is a good
move.
I do want to comment, though. The Leader of the Official
Opposition did make a good point in comparing these amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act to the previous
ones that we supported unanimously a couple of weeks ago, whatever it was. The
fact that many of the amendments that were made in the previous bill, to the
Highway Traffic Act, there's no doubt
it was about safety, most of it was.
Certainly, some of the things, like speeding and some of
the other things that were there in the previous bill, were things that it was
important to recognize them, it was important to put stricter enforcement in
place because they still centred around unsafe acts. But, I guess, the big
difference is that some of the things that were dealt with in the previous
amendments were things, as the Leader of the Official Opposition said, mistakes
that anybody could make. They weren't deliberate acts per se.
I don't think there's anybody in the House of Assembly, or
anyone out there, for the most part, that can say there wasn't a time that
perhaps they went a little bit faster than they should have. There wasn't a time
where they may not have been as diligent behind the wheel driving a vehicle as they should have. We're all humans
and humans make mistakes. Sometimes whether it be for the fact that we're
distracted, we have other things on our mind, we're trying to get somewhere in a
hurry, things like that, everybody from time to time make errors in judgment.
There's
no doubt that a lot of the changes made in the last bill on the
Highway Traffic Act dealt with those
things, things that anyone could make those mistakes, it still has to be
recognized, still has to be dealt with, still has to be appropriate measures in
place to deter that activity. But a number of things that we have here in this
one, whether it be the new provision there for somebody who is stunting, whether
it be dangerous driving, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, causing death,
things of that matter, drag racing, some of these things, this is not something
that the average, law-abiding citizen here in Newfoundland and Labrador is going
to do.
When the
House of Assembly closes today, I doubt very much that any of my colleagues are
going to leave here, go out on the Parkway and get into a drag race. I doubt
very much that they're going to go down the Parkway and one of my colleagues are
going to decide we're just going to spin around and do some donuts in the middle
of the Parkway. I just don't see that happening. I don't see that happening with
the average, law-abiding citizen either.
The
activities that we're talking about there are deliberate acts by individuals who
have absolutely no regard whatsoever for the law and they have absolutely no
regard whatsoever for their safety or for the safety of other people. Those acts
should stand out in a category onto their own and the penalties for those acts
should be extremely strict.
I'm very
pleased to see that a number of those things are being addressed in this bill,
as they should be. I certainly commend the minister and the government for
recognizing those things. No doubt, they've been lobbied by groups such as the
groups and individuals that were in the House of Assembly today lobbying for
some of these things because they've experienced the unimaginable tragedy of
losing a loved one as a result of some of these deliberate, intentional,
ill-thought-out, I will say stupid acts. It really is. There's nothing but pure
stupidity for someone to do some of those things, and families have felt a loss
as a result of it.
It never
should have happened and there's nothing we can do, as has been said, to bring
back those who have been lost, but we can certainly do something to strengthen
the legislation, to strengthen the penalties to deal with individuals, in
particular, who think for whatever reason that it's okay to go out on the road
and put the lives of people at risk in a very, very significant way. Whether
that be doing doughnuts out on the road, whether that be drag racing down the
road, whether that be travelling in excess of 50 kilometres over the speed
limit, those acts need to be deterred. I think it's a positive move here today
that we all agree with in putting in legislation to address those matters.
Now,
there are a couple of things that have been said and I will echo those points.
One is education. I'm not going to get into a big speech on education, it's
already been said, but I would agree with those points that we must ensure that
we educate the public on safe driving and on these new measures so people
understand that this is not going to be tolerated and some of these things are
going to be dealt with in a much harsher fashion. So that has to happen.
The
issue of enforcement has been raised. Obviously, this legislation, like any
legislation of this manner, is not worth the paper it's written on unless it's
enforced. So it's obviously critical that our law enforcement agencies have the
tools and resources to enforce this legislation. I think we all recognize that.
The
other piece, though, that I haven't heard anybody speak about but I think is a
very relevant point is the fact – again, I want to go back to, it is not your
average law-abiding citizens that are committing these offences. Quite often
it's the repeat offenders. It's that small group. It's the 2 per cent or 3 per
cent or whatever it is, but that small percentage of the population who just
don't agree with the law, period, whether it be the
Highway Traffic Act, whether it be the Criminal Code. No matter what
it is, they feel they're going to do whatever they want to do when they want to
do it and the heck with what the law says, the heck with public safety, the heck
with the enforcement agencies, the justice system. They're going to do whatever
they want to do.
It's one
thing to catch them, but one of the big problems we have is that this select few
people who get caught – and we hear about them in the media all the time owing
$20,000 and $30,000 and $40,000 in fines because they've been driving
erratically and dangerously, driving with no registration, no valid driver's
licence, no insurance. They get caught and they get fined significantly. The car
probably gets taken from them. Then, they go out a couple of weeks later or
whatever and they buy another heap of junk. They get aboard that heap of junk
and they drive around dangerously for another two weeks or a month or two
months, however long it is, until they get caught again. Then they get another
bunch of fines and then they repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.
It's
fine for us to make these changes; I support them 100 per cent. It's fine to
have enforcement, which we all, obviously, support and we encourage as much
enforcement as possible. I say to the Minister of Justice and so on, one of the
issues we need to deal with in this House of Assembly that's not part of this
bill but it's related – I'm sure he agrees with me – is what we do to deal with
these habitual offenders, what we do to deal with that 2 or 3 per cent of the
population that doesn't care what the law is. They keep getting caught over and
over again. They keep getting fines. They don't pay the fines and they're not
held accountable.
I've
heard people talk about maybe the licence plate, for example, should go with the
person, not the car. That could help identify these individuals. Now, no doubt
they could steal a licence plate off someone's car. That's also a possibility.
We know that. They're already stealing stickers, but it's still one thing we can
do to look at dealing with those people is the plate with the person.
The
other thing, of course, is appropriate punishment because they're not paying the
fines anyway and you can't get blood from a turnip. So they owe $30,000 now and
then in six months' time it's $40,000, then it's $50,000 and it keeps on going
up. They don't care; they're not paying it anyway. We need to find more
effective ways of dealing with those individuals.
I've
heard some people talk about community service. I know at one point in time we
used to have, I think it was called, warrants of committal was the term, for
people that owed all these fines. If they didn't pay them, they would be put in
the clink for a period of time and they would do time in jail. I understand the
challenges around that, because there's no room at the inn. I get that, and
maybe that's something we need to look at as well.
Maybe we
have the facility out there in Whitbourne that's hardly even being used for
young offenders. Maybe that's something that could be utilized to deal with the
more minor offences, similar to what we used to have in Salmonier Line at one
point in time. It was part of corrections. People that were charged with
impaired and things like that would serve time out on Salmonier Line on the farm
and so on. Maybe we need to look at something like that to deal with this small
percentage of repeat offenders.
Again,
we could have all the legislation we want and we can enforce it, but if it's the
same people and those people are not being punished, then they're only going to
keep on doing it over and over again. Until we deal with those people, we're
going to continue to have these types of things happening, because it's not the
ordinary, law-abiding person that's committing many of these acts.
Yes, the
ordinary, law-abiding person can have a bit of a heavy foot, guilty as charged,
guilty as charged. I've gotten a couple of speeding tickets in my life – guilty
– on the highway. Easy enough, right? When you go out on the highway, you pass
somebody, it's a nice clear day or whatever, it's easy enough to go 10 or 15
over or whatever. It happens all the time, but I'm certainly not going 50 over.
I'm certainly not going 50 over, or certainly not doing doughnuts, certainly not
drag racing.
Those
are the things we need to deal with. Like I said, it's the individuals that are
doing them are the ones we need to deal with, and we need to find an effective
way of dealing with them because that's really what much of these changes are
about, that group. We can put whatever we want on paper, they don't care. They
don't care about the laws there now. They're not going to care about this
either, couldn't care less. They really couldn't. So I just put that out there,
I think that's an important consideration.
I do
applaud what's being done here overall. I certainly congratulate the minister
for bringing this forward. As has been said, I certainly congratulate the groups
that have been vocal on this issue, bringing it forth to government, lobbying
for it. It really is a shame that it had to take the loss of life and so on for
some of these issues to come forward. I know it must be very painful for the
family and I certainly offer them my sincere condolences.
We are
doing something about it now. We're going to try to, at least. This is one tool
in the toolbox, we need more tools, but at least this is one and it's a step in
the right direction. Kudos to the government for doing it. I support the bill
100 per cent.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Service NL speaks now, she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
proposed amendments we have introduced here today are an important part of our
government's public safety agenda. These amendments help us continue the
dialogue of enhancing safety for the travelling public and help ensure our
roadways are as safe as they possibly can be.
The
Highway Traffic Act is a substantive
piece of legislation, which includes 215 sections, plus a schedule of penalties.
The amendments represent one more step in our ongoing efforts to improve safety
on roadways in every town and in every region of Newfoundland and Labrador.
There
are a number of changes to the act that deal with increased fines, seven-day
suspensions of driver's licence and three-day vehicle impoundments, along with
amendments that deal with modifications to proof of insurance requirements and
the addition of an appeals process for certain driver's licence suspensions.
I'd like
to close debate by specifically highlighting a few of the amendments we will be
making, namely: street racing, stunting, Move Over provisions and the creation
of a new offence for driving without due care and attention or without
reasonable consideration for other persons causing bodily harm or death.
Groups
like STAND for Hannah have lobbied government to strengthen the province's
regulatory regime in order to deter racing and travelling at extremely high
rates of speeds on our highway. With the new amendments, a driver that is
charged with the offence will receive a seven-day driver's licence suspension,
effective on the second day after the notice of suspension is given. Drivers who
are charged with racing will also have their vehicles impounded for three days.
In terms
of stunting, there is currently no provisional provincial legislation that
prohibits the execution of a stunt on a highway or in a public area, such as a
vehicle doing donuts or a motorcycle travelling on one wheel. A separate offence
for stunting has now been created with penalties being the same as those
associated with racing on a roadway. A driver that is charged with the offence
will receive a seven-day driver's licence suspension, effective on the second
day after the notice is given.
Drivers
who are charged with racing or stunting will also have their vehicles impounded
for three days. We will also strengthen our Move Over provisions in an effort to
help ensure the safety of our first responders. We are adding a speed reduction
of at least 30 kilometres per hour under the speed limit to a minimum speed of
30 kilometres or less for vehicles passing stopped emergency vehicles.
Certainly, we heard the concerns of Duane Antle's group and the issue they face
as first responders.
We are
providing the ability to charge the registered owner for such offences. We have
created a new offence under the Highway
Traffic Act for driving without due care and attention causing bodily harm
or death. With this new offence come new penalties as well. The offence will
carry a minimum fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of $20,000, or up to two years
imprisonment, or both, Mr. Speaker.
It also
includes a licence suspension of not more than five years and six demerit
points. All of these charges would not be possible without the input we received
from numerous community stakeholders and law enforcement personnel in this
province.
I want
to express my deepest gratitude to Gail Thorne and Levi, to Duane Antle and to
the numerous other individuals and groups with whom I have met, and their
willingness to continuously work with us in our efforts to improve road safety
in the province. I cannot state often enough how important it is that we keep
the dialogue going on road safety. Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House today and
I wear Hannah's picture on my lapel. I know Levi and I know Gail; they're from
my district.
It is
also important that we, as a government, regularly review the act to keep
current with changes in safety codes, vehicle design and other highway safety
improvements, as well as responding to driving behaviours. We've had numerous
changes to the Highway Traffic Act in
the recent past. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth time since we
were elected in December 2015. In June 2016, the act was amended to increase the
fines for using a handheld cellular phone while driving a motor vehicle. In
September, amendments to the Highway
Traffic Act came into effect, which include tougher penalties for impaired
drivers in the province.
Just
last month, I introduced further amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act to increase penalties for a number of offences
that were less than $100. The amendments we will put forward today in the House
of Assembly help us continue our ongoing focus on strengthening road safety in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Every person who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle
must realize that it is their responsibility, Mr. Speaker. Every single one of
us must make sure that we abide by the rules of the road and make decisions that
will help us improve safety on the roadways of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want
to conclude by thanking all hon. Members for contributing to this debate today.
We must all remain committed to making public safety a priority.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 27 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole to consider Bill 27.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2.” (Bill 27)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I have a
few questions and I guess I'll ask them here now.
Mr.
Chair, this new bill is a new section and it's called stunting, people out doing
stunts and stuff like that. When I did my speech today, I spoke a little bit
about it. I know the minister gave some examples, but there's no definition in
the legislation at all. There's a new definition for bodily harm, but there's no
definition for stunting.
I'm
wondering if the minister has a definition or what the process will be when it
comes to law enforcement and who decides what stunts are and what's going to be
done.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Stunting will be understood
to mean a person showing off, trying to get attention by performing an elaborate
act. Such a thing could be determined by eyewitness, a police officer, video
surveillance, smart phones. It's the act of showing off and performing
behaviours that would not normally be performed with the vehicle.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just to continue on your
answer there, Minister.
If
somebody sees something that's happening, it could be somebody hauling out of a
convenience store, for example, and screeches tires over the road or does
fishtails or something like that, is that what's considered? If you catch it on
your camera or you report it? If you do report it, there's a time frame on once
notice is given. Does a charge have to be laid or does the person have to go to
court to prove it? When does the suspension come into effect?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
It's defined as an elaborate
act. If somebody is hauling out and they're performing their vehicles,
screeching their tires, going over into the other lane. Elaborate behaviour that
you would not normally do in a vehicle, then the information will be portrayed
to the police or the eyewitness would put forward. It would follow with any
other procedure for people who are caught speeding if the police pull them in.
Is that
what you're asking?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Either the Minister of Justice or someone can answer this one. When someone
notifies somebody that something has occurred, for example, the person is out in
the middle of the road doing donuts or whatever they're doing and I report that
to the RNC. They come down and do an investigation. Does the investigation have
to be completed before that person is charged? Do they have to go to court or
does it happen immediately that they lose their vehicle?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the questions from the Member opposite. They are important questions
to ask.
Just
looking through the legislation here – this might go back and elaborate on the
first question asked – it says: “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle on a
highway while performing or engaging in a stunt or activity that is likely to
distract, startle or interfere with users of the highway.”
The
second part is: “Where a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a
person has committed an offence under this section, the peace officer shall give
the person a notice of suspension.”
So
suspension can happen. That being said, a person has the right to contest these
tickets. Then that's when it gets – you go to court and there's evidence. In
some cases, I think the Kenmount Road one, there was video evidence, which is
certainly a lot different than just, say, the eyewitness. So a peace officer
would have to have reasonable grounds and then they would serve the notice.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I want to thank the
minister for that.
It's
just my understanding would be that if somebody reported something and they're
not necessarily guilty, it will be based on the evidence they showed the peace
officer. Okay, that's fair enough.
Another
question I have for the minister, and it's under impoundment. Once a vehicle is
caught for racing or doing stunts or anything, there's a second-day notice, is
what it's called in the legislation. Why is it the vehicle isn't taken right
away? You can compare it to an impaired driver. I know they're not impaired or
whatever, but why the second day? Just give me a reason for that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Well, first of all, most
other jurisdictions would take the vehicle upon conviction. We're actually going
to take it the second day. So that's an improvement.
Secondary, the individual, unlike an individual who's impaired and is a danger
to society at that time, that particular individual is not a danger to society.
So we would allow them to get their vehicle home or if it's dad's vehicle or
whatever, and then the next day they would lose their licence and the vehicle
would be impounded.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, that runs me in to my
next question.
Minister, sometimes, a lot of the times, a case will come that is not tolerable,
these accidents, racing and stunting and everything else. In a lot of cases it
could be a family member or it could be somebody borrowing a vehicle, which they
got all the right in the world to do. It could be somebody borrowing a truck
from me to go to the dump and they do some act that is deemed either racing or
doing a stunt and the vehicle is taken for seven days.
The
owner of the vehicle doesn't have – is there anything in the legislation or is
it just automatic that that vehicle is gone? There's no consideration given to
whether the family member has to use it to go back and forth to work or it's a
vehicle that is used for different things. The onus doesn't necessarily go on
the person committing the act. It goes on the person owning the vehicle, when
you talk about impoundment.
Could
you just talk about that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Under section 17 of the
Vehicle Seizure and Impoundment Regulations, there is a process that
exists where someone can apply to the registrar for early release of their
vehicle from impoundment due to undo hardship.
So that
process presently exists that you can apply, but otherwise you would lose the
vehicle.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Again, we're talking only a
seven-day period, Minister. Is there a time frame that would be rushed up or is
there something that can – is there a part in the department that somebody, that
if this happens and it's a vehicle belonging to a parent who needs it to get
back and forth to work or whatever, what mechanism do they have? In some cases,
by the time you go through all the rigmarole to get to where you need to get the
vehicle back, seven days the vehicle comes back.
My
question is: Is there someone designated in the department to be able to handle
this immediately?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, there are staff that
deal with section 17 of the act. So there is someone available to accept an
application under section 17 of the act.
The
whole idea here is the fact that an individual is driving the vehicle, the
vehicle they are driving is impounded. It's to teach a lesson. If Sonny is
driving dad's vehicle and he loses it, well, he's going to lose it; but, if
there is capacity to present undue hardship, you will get it back early.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Also,
when we spoke today about these amendments to the act, we all understand the
importance of it. I think most people in the House really do realize the
importance of this act. It's about safety on our roads and ensuring that people
abide by rules and regulations that are out there.
I
mentioned in my speech today, I really think it's important. Are there any plans
from either the Department of Justice to increase enforcement on our highways?
Just in saying that, there are a lot of people out there. Again, I gave an
example when I spoke today earlier that I drove from Flatrock to Plum Point, I
stopped in Grand Falls along the way, but I drove the whole way and I never saw
a vehicle on the road. I really do believe police presence plays a major role in
safety on our roads. When people see them they tend to slow down a lot more.
They let other drivers know, well, there are police cars on the road there by
Clarenville. People do slow down. I really do believe that.
I'm
wondering, in bringing this act and enforcements like we're doing – again,
sometimes when I see on the Outer Ring Road and other roads when a car passes me
by, I'm doing 100 and they're cruising. I really believe that we do need to
enforce this because it's a danger not only to them, but everybody on that
highway.
The only
way to slow these people down is to have enforcement on our highways. I'm just
wondering, is there a plan to increase enforcement on our highways?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll
just take issue with the vernacular at the end of the comment. I know what he
was trying to say, but I don't agree with the statement that the only way to do
this is for more enforcement, but that's just a figure of speech.
What I
would say is we're constantly working with the RCMP and RNC. In fact, I've had
meetings with both agencies to discuss highway safety. If you look at some of
the statistics, the fact is it's actually not that much higher this year than it
was last year. I think in this case, when you have so much tragedy within a
shorter period of time, it's a more pronounced episode basically. That's a lot
of what we're seeing, but when you look at the stats they're not good.
The
other thing, though, it's not just about enforcement. There's a personal
responsibility here that in many cases we're not maintaining. When I look at
seat belt usages being the cause of some of the fatalities, and when we look at
our numbers have declined drastically in terms of people using their seat belts
– we used to be amongst the national leaders, and now that's gone down. There
are such a number of factors, but I appreciate the point the Member is making,
which is that we all want to see enforcement. I'd like to thank the men and
women of the agencies for the work that they do, and we're working on new ideas
to figure out is there something innovative we can try; we're working on other
technology that can also help with this as well.
In fact,
I had a really good telephone call recently. It was about photo radar, talking
to some individuals that are trained in this; this is what they do.
Unfortunately, one of the issues we have with all this is there is a cost.
There's so much we can do and it's about figuring out the cost implications of
this. We spend a significant amount in public safety. We never spend enough. I
haven't spoken to a community yet that said they had enough police officers or
had enough enforcement. Everybody wants more; we all want to see that. So we're
working on that.
We're
very lucky to have, again, when you talk about the RNC and the RCMP, fairly new
leaders there. Peter Clark for the RCMP has been in for just under two years
here. Joe Boland just came in this past summer. And they're willing to work with
us and work with community groups to figure out different measures we can take.
So I
appreciate what the Member is saying. That's something we will continue to do,
along with other technological advances that may assist the same goal.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I want to assure the
minister I wouldn't say “only way,” because there are so many different aspects
of road safety and we all play a role. Every individual who is on the highways
today play a role in making sure our roads are safe.
Again
today during the minister's speech and every colleague here in the House that
spoke on this today, I think education came up and informing the public of these
new rules and regulations. Is there a campaign that's going to be out there so
the general public will have a good understanding? Maybe that's another
mechanism along with enforcement and more officers on our road. Maybe education
is another step, along with many steps that we can do.
Is there
a plan for educating the public?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Well, there are a couple of
things. The debate today is going to bring attention to this, of course. The
media release will have all the information. But also the Department of
Transportation and Works has awarded the STAND for Hannah group a grant so they
can do some educational component in the school system. So, yes, we are moving
forward.
Also,
gov.nl.ca/drive, we'll have information on that particular website. But it's
very important the STAND for Hannah group are going to get into the schools –
they've already started – and they're going to start to educate at that
level. That's our young drivers; that's our new drivers. Get in there, develop
the habits when they're young, and as they grow older they will have better
habits than some of our generation have had, as we move forward. So yes.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I want to thank the minister
for her answer that time. It's great for STAND for Hannah and groups like this
because we really do have to applaud those people that advocate for safer roads.
It's unfortunate what has happened to those. We don't want it to happen to other
individuals.
You
mentioned the school. I was just wondering if the Minister of Education was
going to offer anything, probably somewhere we could go, because younger
drivers, I feel, need to be more aware of what's happening. I know when my
children were at driving age, they drove my vehicle. If they understood the
different results now of their habits or whatever they're doing now, maybe
that's where we should be, is at the young driving stage so they'd understand
most of these rules that are in place.
It's so
important that everybody understands what we're trying to do here and make our
roads safe. But it's about awareness, too, and the more people are aware, the
habits will change a lot.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't
speak just necessarily on behalf of the Minister of Education. What I would say
is that changes to the Highway Traffic Act
are so frequent that it would be quite difficult to do new education
training every time one comes in. Another thing is that not everybody within the
school is getting into driving.
What I
would suggest is that he's right in the philosophy that we have to get at the
people the youngest. That's why I think all drivers that are doing training,
that are going through the process, that are going through the licensing,
especially if it's through the DMV or whatnot, it's on them to be learning the
rules of the road. We start with the youngest, I think, so I agree with the
concept that the Member says.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I want to thank the Minister
of Justice for his answer because he half answered my question that I was just
about to ask. That's where I want to go to.
Today,
most young people – and I'm not picking on young people because it's not only
young people that have bad habits. There are a lot of other people that have bad
habits. But I believe it's like anything, if you get them at an early age, the
practices will go on and they teach us a lot. I'm not picking on the young at
all because there are so many different age groups that have habits that are not
very good on our roads.
My
question – and the minister half answered it. Most people today take driving
school lessons because it's a reduction on their insurance costs. I'm wondering
if there's a way that we could have people that instruct young drivers or
different driving schools to implement some kind of a plan in their process so
that people would understand these new rules.
As the
minister just said, I understand that you cannot bring it in every time that we
have changes to the Highway Traffic Act
because being the critic for Service NL for the last number of years, there have
been a lot of changes, but I think a lot of these changes this time is being
very direct to the Highway Traffic Act.
They are something that everybody in the province should really know what's
happening here so that everyone is aware and hopefully our highways will be a
lot safer.
My
question is: Are you planning on putting it to educational groups like Young
Drivers and different groups that teach driving skills?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
The Motor Registration
Division presently works very close with the driving schools so when these
things change, yes, we do provide them with the educational updates.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 18
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 18
inclusive.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 18 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 Highway
Traffic Act No. 2.
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 Bill 27 carried 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. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 27.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 27.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker and Chair of Committee.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 27 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 27 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 23.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
believe the last time in debate I finished off, or we ended sitting for the day
and I had some time left on the clock. I was up speaking on second reading to
Bill 23, and we had some time left to do so.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, really? Oh, very good,
okay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Lots of time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Lots of time, thank you very
much.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill is to amend the Liquor
Control Act. What the government has brought forward here is a bill that
changes the Liquor Control Act
regarding the sale of cannabis. It would make an amendment to authorize or to
provide authority to buy, import and sell cannabis. It would also provide
authority to control possession, sale or delivery of cannabis. It also gives
authority to establish, maintain and operate cannabis stores; and to issue
licences for the possession, sale and delivery of cannabis. The bill would also
give the minister authority to set fees and establish forms for the purpose of
the administration of the act.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of comments I'd like to make on this, but first of all
– and when we get into Committee as well, I'm sure we'll have a more in-depth
discussion. Because, quite often, Committee is where the government, the
minister and the Opposition have an opportunity to ask for clarification,
propose amendments and so on. We get down more into the details.
Mr.
Speaker, the bill actually, in the amendments, one of the first things it does,
which is not uncommon, is to define what cannabis means. It refers to cannabis
as a plant. Well, we know it's that. It's any part of a cannabis plant,
including the phytocannabinoids produced by, or found in, a cannabis plant,
regardless of whether that part has been processed or not, other than a part of
a cannabis plant referred further in the section.
It also
refers to any substance or mixture that contains or has in it a cannabis plant.
We know sometimes people will mix cannabis with other items. But it doesn't
include a non-viable seed of a cannabis plant. And we'll get into details of how
that would be determined on a reasonable basis.
It also
talks about a mature stock, which is not included, and some other items that are
not included as well. It defines a cannabis store, which means a store
established, maintained and operated by the corporation under the act to sell
cannabis. It refers to a conflict of interest. It's making a change to the
conflict of interest rules under section 11 which, again, appears to be adding
not only alcohol, but amending it to include cannabis. The act is changing not
only for alcohol, as the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation has been,
but also to cannabis and the conflict rules would be added to that.
Corporation under section 33 – and, again, throughout the act we see many
changes where it adds cannabis to where it also relates to alcoholic liquor.
This is the section that gives the corporation authority to buy, import and have
in its possession for sale and to sell not only alcohol, but cannabis or
articles associated with alcoholic liquor or cannabis in a manner set forth in
the act.
What it
does, Mr. Speaker, where the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation is
currently legislated to have the ability and authority to buy, to import and
possess for sale and to sell alcohol, they will now be able to do the same thing
with cannabis.
The
section also indicates the corporation may “control the possession, sale and
delivery of all alcoholic liquor and cannabis in accordance with this Act.” The
corporation may “manufacture, blend, package, mix, dilute or otherwise prepare
for sale alcoholic liquor.” The part here, Mr. Speaker, that catches me, I have
to go back to (b) for a second, the corporation may “control the possession,
sale and delivery of all alcoholic liquor and cannabis in accordance with this
Act.”
The next
section (d) deals with the corporation may “with the prior approval of the
minister, (i) establish, maintain and operate liquor stores at the places in the
province that may be considered advisable for the sale of liquor in accordance
with this Act.” Also, then it goes on to talk about cannabis: “establish,
maintain and operate cannabis stores at the places in the province that may be
considered advisable for the sale of cannabis ….”
Also, it
establishes “liquor stores, cannabis stores and liquor agencies in the same
locality.” Mr. Speaker, while it refers to manufacture, blend, package, mix,
dilute or otherwise prepare the sale of alcohol it doesn't say the same for
cannabis.
I know
in Question Period today in conversations in the question with the minister, he
referred to the fact that the federal government holds authority over the
production and licensing of producers of cannabis. It was an interesting comment
because that differentiates on the control of alcohol where the corporation,
being the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, can manufacture, blend,
package, mix, dilute or otherwise prepare for the sale of alcoholic liquor, but
the amendments do not give the same rights when it comes to cannabis.
We asked
questions about that today and asked the Premier actually if government plans on
providing or partnering with an outside organization for the production of
cannabis. The minister said, first, there's no decision made and then he said
there was no deal done, and I suggest that maybe they are a little bit
different.
Having a
decision made by government to partner with a company to produce and having a
deal done are two different things. The government could have made a decision to
partner with a company; it doesn't mean that an agreement has been reached. My
questions today were on the decisions that the government has made.
Mr.
Speaker, when I move over to section 4 of the bill, where it says “The Act is
amended by adding immediately after section 34 the following,” it also provides
authority that the board may grant to a person –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Can we
have some quiet, please?
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
“The board may grant to a
person a licence to possess, sell or deliver cannabis. (2) The board may issue
different classes of licences and set out the terms and conditions of a
licence.”
While
the federal government holds the rules on production, manufacturing, growing of
cannabis and production and packaging of cannabis, the province actually holds
the ability to license sellers in the province – “… may grant to a person a
licence to possess, sell or to deliver cannabis.”
The
province holds that licence, that power. One of the common discussions that are
happening in the province today is that provinces have expressed concern over if
there's too much of a rush happening here. While we know the federal government
has mandated the legalization of marijuana, the province still has to take the
time to put in place the legal processes to allow for the sale, distribution,
manufacturing – or not manufacturing, because the federal government has that,
but the distribution and sale of manufactured products.
“The
board may issue different classes of licences and set out the terms and
conditions of a licence. (3) An application for a licence shall be made to the
board in the form and manner set out by the board. (4) A licence shall only be
granted under this section to” the Liquor
Control Act.
“An individual or a group of individuals, where that
individual or each member of the group of individuals is at least 19 years of
age.” So that's included there as well.
Also, it lays out that “a corporation or partnership
authorized to carry on its business in the province whose officer or agent in
charge of the premises for which the licence is required is at least 19 years of
age.” So that sets the age, which provinces are required to do.
Mr. Speaker, provinces in the county have expressed a
concern that this is being rushed. It's happening too quickly. From the
province's perspective here is they're going to be ready. There is much concern
about not only having the proper legislation in place, but also have in place
the training and the resources to make sure it's done properly.
There has to be an understanding about the use of cannabis
in workplaces and how it's used in public places. There has to be an education
process. Are people allowed to use before they go to work or at workplaces?
There are occupational health and safety requirements that have to change. There
have to be developed proper means of enforcement from the
Highway Traffic Act and also from the
Criminal Code of Canada for persons
who have consumed or used cannabis prior to operating a motor vehicle. We
certainly don't want to see circumstances whereby there's a concern on our
highways for safety of our people.
The last bill brought here in the House that we talked
about this afternoon was the Highway
Traffic Act and about strengthening the
Highway Traffic Act to improve safety
on our highways. We don't know, yet government says they're going to be ready.
We haven't seen that yet. Are the people going to be ready? Are the people of
the province going to understand the rules? Also, are police going to be ready
and able to properly police our streets and our highways and our communities to
ensure the safety of citizens of the province?
This change here in the
Liquor Control Act as amended under
section 23, I suspect will be the first of several bills to come to the House.
I've asked here in the House of Assembly for a master plan, an overall strategy
of what the government proposes in order to roll this out in the coming months.
They haven't provided that. They say they have a plan and are moving forward
with it, but we haven't seen the plan.
We don't know what the plan is. I'm sure as it rolls out
piece by piece maybe we're going see it, but there may be some benefit if we
knew the bigger plan now while we're debating each of these bills. We don't know
what that is, Mr. Speaker, or how that plan is going to roll out. We do know the
government wants to continue to be ready for July of 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, we know federally there were some concerns raised about conflicts
involving producers. We know the national media had attention over the last
number of years on production nationally and so on. It was interesting that the
minister today said production was actually going to be the responsibility of
the federal government when we know there were some strong political ties
involved with producers.
We
wanted to make sure and understand exactly what's taking place there. That's why
when I asked the minister today about decisions and, particularly, I even went
as far as to say last night that – he may have made decisions last night, asked
about that. He said no decisions made, no deals done and he clarified that
today.
We look
forward to seeing what decisions have been made and how they're going to proceed
with that. Manufacturers here – I know some who want and have an interest in
manufacturing here in our province. They're looking for opportunities and
looking for opportunities to partner with the government. Maybe there is an
opportunity to provide a local business, company owned and operated here in the
province that are here today, to transition into the manufacturing of marijuana
for sale by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, which is the bill
that we're talking here today to amend the
Liquor Corporation Act.
So we
hope to hear more of that. I'm sure we will, Mr. Speaker, as time goes on. I
know we're going to ask further questions and look for more information as time
goes on about how those processes happen and how those decisions were made, what
producers and growers – how they're selected.
This act
provides for actual sellers to be licensed by the Liquor Corporation. Under this
act they'll be licensed here, but there are still a lot of unknowns about where
they're going to get their supply from and how that's going to happen. Where are
they going to get the supply? Under the Liquor Control Act, where is Newfoundland and Labrador going to get
the supply? How is it going to be monitored?
The
minister says it's done federally but, at the same time, they're talking to
producers. So I'm not sure how that's going to work in the province, especially
if they're going to provide incentive to some producers, but not to others on
set-up and operation and also delivery of what will be a carefully produced and
monitored for quality control and so on, product here in the province.
I would
expect, being a drug, the same type of quality control that exists if you go to
a pharmacy and purchase a drug. Marijuana is available; cannabis is available by
pill form through pharmacies. It's a very restricted, controlled environment in
drugs and produced in a very restricted, very careful way. I'm sure that this
marijuana is going to be the same way.
People
want to know everything is going to be safe and it's not going to be a danger,
not going to be a cause for concern and it will be the same kind of standard
that people buy alcohol today. They know what they're buying; they know what the
label says. They trust what's in it and trust that the Liquor Corporation is
managing those affairs.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to take my seat, having spoken to this bill. It's not a big
bill. There are only a half dozen or so pages of actual amendments. They're not
major amendments, only to add cannabis and the sale of cannabis, cannabis stores
and so on to the Liquor Control Act. I
look forward in Committee where I'm sure we'll have questions, as we have in
other bills as they come forward.
Thank
you for the opportunity to speak to this this afternoon.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and to speak to Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Liquor Corporation
Act.
I
believe this relates to the production and the distribution and the sale of
cannabis – mostly known by most folks as marijuana. This has been a long time
coming. We know in many cases over the years peoples' lives have been ruined by
participating in the sale of cannabis, by participating in the production of
marijuana plants, whether it be in their own homes or in a larger format, that
people were imprisoned. It's been a real long and rocky road.
So I
believe at this point there's much celebration about this legislation, or the
promise of this legislation, and the legalization of cannabis for early July.
Also, I believe in some corners there's some fear. In other corners, there's
misunderstanding. So it's a bit of a mixed bag.
I
believe one of the things we should look at is the opportunities, the potential
opportunities here for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know the
federal government will be handling the production and all legislation that
deals with the production of cannabis, and that the province will be dealing
with the distribution and the sale of cannabis and how that's best rolled out in
our province.
The
opportunities that I would like for us to take a look at, will there be a
windfall of money? Perhaps, perhaps not. We don't quite know yet exactly how
much money will be involved in terms of the revenue from taxes, the revenue from
production, the possible profits from production, the revenue in retail sales,
the taxes involved in retail sales and also the potential of profits in retail
sales.
What we
really need to look at is: What are the potential opportunities for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador? We heard my colleague from the District of Topsail
– Paradise ask a number of questions today in the House asking government, has
government made any deals at all with any outside companies for the production,
for the sole, exclusive production of cannabis to be supplied to the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation? His questions were pretty clear;
he asked a number of them. We didn't get a real clear answer about whether or
not government has made any deals with anyone, but we certainly know there
haven't been any contracts.
We're
going to assume at face value that government hasn't made any deals with any
outside companies, but we know when we look at the stock market, when we look at
the growth of companies that are either in the production or whether it's
growing the marijuana or cannabis plant, but also producing forms of cannabis
that can be ingested rather than smoked, it's big business. We know it is big
business. We can watch and see what's happening on the stock market in this
area. So we do know it is big business.
Will it
be big business in Newfoundland and Labrador? We're not so sure. There is a
potential there that it might be. We also know a lot of the money made through
the distribution and production of cannabis in the province has gone via the
black market or small independent, albeit illegal operations, but certainly
local operations.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to think that – we have to work very quickly, because the
legalization will be early July. That really is only six months from now. Six
months from now we have to roll out all the legislation that will deal with a
number of aspects of the introduction and legalization of cannabis. Then we also
have to deal with legislation about the production and about the distribution
and about the sales.
I do
believe there are some opportunities there, but there's a lot of information
missing. I would like to see grown right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, made
right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Providing those opportunities to the
people of the province to produce marijuana right here in the province in a
locally owned company so that not only do we provide well-paying jobs, but also
we can ensure that any profit made from the production of cannabis will stay
right here as well.
We know
what happens when we see large national or international companies, what happens
when there is a profit. That those profits go outside the province. In our
current economic situation, is this an opportunity for more money for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador? In a time when we know we need more jobs, we also
need more money in our economy. We need more cash flow in our economy. Is there
a good opportunity here for local companies to be able to take advantage of the
opportunities that are presented to us through the production of cannabis?
Part
two, the retail and the sales of cannabis. We know the Newfoundland and Labrador
Liquor Corporation will be handling the distribution, but what about the retail
sales? Now, we can look at a number of companies that are in our province that
sell pharmaceuticals, and they are large, national companies. Some of them are
international companies. They do provide jobs. Often the jobs are minimum wage.
What happens? Any profit made by those companies leaves the province once again.
Will the
retail sales of cannabis, of marijuana provide opportunity for stable jobs, for
well-paying jobs, for jobs with benefits and opportunities for the profits
rather than being taken out of the province by national or international
companies? Again, there is a thought that this is big money. We see it on the
stock market. This is not small potatoes, this is not just change. Is there
still opportunity for the possibility of keeping those profits here in the
province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if
I need to sit down now and continue after the supper hour. I'm looking for
direction from you, Mr. Speaker, as to what I should do, whether to continue or
will we be taking a supper break?
MS. MICHAEL:
We have to stop at 5:30
today.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, I'll stop at 5:30.
Okay, thank you very much.
So I'll
keep on until 5:30.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. ROGERS:
I'm getting mixed messages
from the floor here, Mr. Speaker. I'll sit down until that is clarified.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I think, Mr. Speaker, we
gave notice that the House shall not adjourn at 5:30.
Given
that the Member is speaking, I figure we'll let her continue on with that and
then we can make a decision as to whether we shall recess and then continue on
after.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So when
we look at the pros and cons, and I'm not so sure how much –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm finding it –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
We do
not know what kind of analysis has been done by government to look at both the
pros and cons of having –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do
not know what kind of analysis has been done by government in terms of the pros
and cons of having local companies be the producer of cannabis. We also do not
know what kind of analysis has been done about the retail sales of cannabis in
the province.
I
believe analysis needs to be done in order to make decisions that the minister
earlier today, in response to the questions from the Member for Topsail –
Paradise – the minister said: We will make decisions that are in the best
interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If that is accurate, I
would assume in order to make the best possible decisions in the interests of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the analysis needs to be done.
We
already have a well-functioning, profitable distribution system and retail
system in the province by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. The
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation has a few ways of selling alcohol
in the province: their own retail sales stores. Then, they also sell through and
give licence to local smaller operations in smaller communities where it's not
feasible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation itself to open up
a big store.
It is a
successful operation. It has been successful over the years. It reinvests
profits back into the province. It provides unionized jobs. Some people turn up
their nose about unionized jobs, but what does a unionized job mean? It means
that people are paid a fair wage for the work they do. It means they have
stability. It means they have benefits that extend not only to the worker
itself, but to the family of the workers. It also means they have pension plans;
they have health care plans that take care of their families. That's a positive
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would
think, Mr. Speaker, if the analysis was done, which I'm not so sure it has been
done because we haven't seen any evidence of any analysis to show whether or not
it would be more advantageous to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have
the retail sales of marijuana done through our already existing infrastructure,
through the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. Again, it provides
well-paying, stable jobs, which is good for the individual, good for their
families because there are benefits included in those jobs, benefits that take
care of their whole family. And they're good for the community because we have
people who are making good wages and that money recirculates into the provincial
economy because people will spend their money here in the province.
The
other thing is that the actual profits from the sale of alcohol do not leave the
province. They are reinvested in the province. They go back into general
Treasury, so they're included in our health care system, they're included in our
education system and they're included in our roads and infrastructure system.
I would
say, Mr. Speaker, that would be the ideal way to undergo retail sales of
marijuana in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that's what
Ontario has done. They have chosen – and again, they have taken more time
because they've already made that decision. They were ahead of the ball here.
Here we are, again, we only have six months to try and pull this together if, in
fact, we are going to be ready to provide retail sales of cannabis to the
province once the federal legislation changes.
Really,
in order to make those kinds of decisions, analysis has to be done about whether
or not this would be in the best interest of the people. At face value, it looks
like it would be in the long run. Of course, I can imagine that what the
government are trying, perhaps making hasty judgments, because they're thinking
what about the cost of infrastructure. We know also there's been a
recommendation that the cannabis is not sold in the same premises as alcohol.
What
does that mean for the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation? It means
then that they may need extra infrastructure. How can that be done? Well, there
are a number of ways that that can be done. It can be done by prefab modules
that can be attached to already existing Liquor Corporation's retail outlets and
stores, or perhaps there are ways of cordoning off and sectioning off existing
stores so that it is separate.
Mr.
Speaker, we really don't know what is in the best interest of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador if, in fact, that analysis hasn't been done. Again, my
concern is that government will make hasty decisions because they have to be
ready for July 1, or July – whatever it is; it's very early July.
So, Mr.
Speaker, this may be an opportunity for creating more jobs, stable jobs, jobs
with benefits, jobs that are well paying for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. This may be an opportunity for keeping the profits from the sale of
cannabis all across the province in the province, rather than handing them over
to some national or international corporation that will swallow up the profits,
probably pay minimum-wage jobs, with no benefits, precarious work, probably not
full-time work, because we know how large corporations try to avoid that so they
can avoid paying benefits.
Is that
the choice this government will make? So far they're indicating that's the
direction they will go in, although this legislation allows them to have the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to retail. But they're saying
basically it seems, from this legislation, that the direction they're going in
is they will do retail in smaller communities where nobody else wants to set up
a retail operation.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe we can do this, that we really can do this in the best
interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have infrastructure. We
have a successful corporation whose main goal is the safe distribution and sale
of alcohol, but also to make money for the province, and to keep that profit and
that money in the province – and they provide good jobs. They provide jobs with
benefits. They provide jobs with security. They provide jobs that are good for
the economy and good for working families, again, because of the benefits and
the security and the pay that comes along with those jobs.
Are we
going to miss out on that opportunity? I'm concerned; I believe government may
miss out on that opportunity. Again, has that in-depth analysis been done? We
know there are a lot of unknowns, because cannabis has not been sold legally in
this province ever. So it's new ground for us. Are we going to miss the
opportunity of having all the profits from marijuana leave this province and go
into the pockets of businesses whose main interest is only profit? That's okay.
That's the main interest and goal of many corporations, but this is an
opportunity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is an opportunity
for the province to make money, to provide the safe sale of cannabis in an
infrastructure that we already have.
I would
hope, Mr. Speaker, and I plead with government to not act hastily, to do a full
and in-depth analysis on, in fact, what would be in the best interests of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that we can go in that direction.
I know there are infrastructure complications, but I also believe there are
innovative ways of dealing with that.
If there
are corporations that are willing to come in to set up retail sites, you know
they're going to do that only if they are sure there would be significant
profit, because this isn't an easy substance to deal with. It's the same that
alcohol is not an easy substance to deal with. They are regulated substances.
When we
look at our Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, they have staff that
are well trained, that know how to deal with regulated substances. I believe
that culture of responsibility and expertise can be extended to the culture of
selling cannabis.
I would
hope, once again, that this is providing opportunities. So let's not work in
haste and miss the opportunities for increased wealth for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'm
willing now to take my seat, Mr. Speaker. Again, I believe that much more
in-depth analysis needs to be done. We have to be careful not to throw away and
miss this opportunity that might be facing us as a province.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to drag out the closing remarks in this because we are getting into
Committee and I'm going to allow all Members to ask questions. I'll be happy to
answer questions as we get into it.
I will
say this is a necessary first step, this piece of legislation, in allowing the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation the ability to put in place
regulations to set up a distribution network, to put out an RFP process to allow
private businesses to set up storefronts and sell cannabis products in
Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
So
there's been a great deal of work put into this by many departments within
government. We had a committee of several departments working on this to take
into account the legal implications, the enforcement implications, the social
implications and, as well, the regulations to allow for businesses to sell and
businesses to grow within this province, cannabis products.
We've
looked at all models, Mr. Speaker, to allow for private business to set up,
create employment, to create opportunities for the people of the province and to
create revenue for the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, as well as
taxation revenue and the tax put in place, the excise tax by the federal
government, of which we'll get our share.
On that,
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude remarks. I look forward to the questions at which
point we will get into greater detail.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 23 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now be read
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker –
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would suggest is
normally I would say now, presently. What we're going to do, with the consent of
my colleagues across the way, we will break. Now we will recess until 6:30,
given that we've invoked the Standing Order.
So we'll
come back 6:30 and at that point we will proceed into Committee on this bill.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands in recess
until 6:30 o'clock p.m.
December
4, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 40A
The
House resumed at 6:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
The
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 23.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We're
now considering Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill 23)
CLERK (Barnes):
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, on November 21 a briefing by officials was held in the Department of
Health offices, but the Department of TCII were there as well, officials from
there. It was a little bit of a different briefing. There was a deck provided,
there was a cover page and an outline of what was contained in the deck. Then
there was a page for questions and then there were three pages of information.
The bill
was passed out at the time, but then it was taken back and we weren't allowed to
have a copy of it. There was more information provided in the public briefing
the next day, but really not a lot of time in the briefing.
I wanted
to ask the minister, on page 4 of the briefing material, under Retail and
Distribution Model, it indicated here that: “NLC Regulator and (at outset)
Distributor.”
I'll
back up a page, just to be clear on this, while the minister is maybe trying to
locate the information.
On the
first page it says: “NLC needs appropriate legislative authorities to implement
retail and distribution model in time for the July 2018 deadline.” The bill
would: “Enables the NLC to: Buy, import and sell cannabis; Control the
possession, sale and delivery of cannabis; Establish, maintain and operate
cannabis stores; Issue licences for the possession, sale and delivery of
cannabis; Determine price and the forms, manner ….” So very basic what the bill
was going to do.
“With
approval, NLC can develop and issue Request for Proposals for retail licences.”
On the
next page, where it says Retail and Distribution Model, it says: “NLC Regulator
and (at outset) Distributor.”
I wonder
if the minister can explain what that refers to when the material indicates at
the outset?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the
outset, NLC will be the online distributor. In addition to that, in
extraordinary circumstances, if there is a location in the province where there
is a demand but no private business to set up a storefront, it would allow them
to do that as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
apologize to the minister; I never got all of his remarks. At the outset, the
minister referred to online sales.
I'm
sorry, Minister, I missed what you said. If you wouldn't mind, maybe you could
clarify at the outset what that means about online sales?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, at
the outset, NLC will be the online distributor for online sales.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had on
the outset. I apologize to the minister, but I had on the outset circled twice
on this one page. There is a section there on online sales on the outset, but
before that it says: “NLC Regulator and (at outset) Distributor.”
I could
pull out a copy for the minister if you want to have a look at it, but the line
is: “NLC Regulator and (at outset) Distributor.” It looks like being the
distributor will only be at the beginning. That's what it almost seems like.
There will be a different distributor after that.
Maybe
the minister could clarify that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
I'm not
sure – I mean, I can certainly check with officials, but it's my understanding
that NLC will be the regulator and distributor on a permanent basis, other than
the online sales. Initially, they will be set up to do online sales. We'll
determine at some point down the road whether or not we're going to put that out
to somebody else.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I'd
appreciate it, because it seems to indicate that NLC will be the regulator,
which the bill clearly indicates, but at the outset, the distributor. So it
indicates on the briefing provided that someone other than NLC may be the
distributor, other than the outset. The minister, maybe he'll get a message or
clarification or something as we go on.
On the
next page of the briefing, it talked about next steps. “Amendments to the
Liquor Corporation Act would provide
NLC with authority to regulate, distribute, and do business in cannabis, similar
to its authorities with respect to alcohol.”
Then the
last line on this briefing said: “NLC, in close consultation with GNL” –
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – “will develop a Request for Proposals
for retail licences.”
Minister, can you give us some indication how that request for proposals for
retail licences will take place? How will the selection of retail licensees be
made?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this
particular stage, this legislation gives NLC the ability to start that work. At
this particular point, it's not legal for them to conduct business in cannabis.
Those
details will become more clarified as we get further into the process. In fact,
this week I will be meeting with the CEO and the chair of the board at NLC. They
will give me an update on where they are at this particular stage, but they are
developing the RFP process.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Today in
Question Period, we had a discussion about production. We've asked questions
before about the standardization of quality and so on, but we had a discussion
about production.
In the
answer today and the information provided – maybe the minister can clarify this
– that production will be strictly under the purview of the federal government.
I think the Minister of Justice earlier referred to the feds and I assume the
federal government I know he's referring to.
Production, quality production, Minister, while it's not included in the bill,
you're telling me that's the purview of the federal government.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, Health Canada is
responsible for issuing licences when it comes to medical cannabis at this point
in time and for cannabis once it becomes legal. They will be the ones who would
be licensing for production.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe
the minister, then, can clarify the process. The federal government licenses a
producer. How does Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation arrange for a
supplier? How does that take place?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We
issued a press conference, myself, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety, where we had highlighted distribution and regulation
about this particular bill and around supply.
The
federal government has passed legislation that will make cannabis legal sometime
in July of 2018. Each province has the responsibility to either secure supply or
supply will be provided through other means and other avenues. If there is no
production licence or production facility in a province where it's legal, it
would be able to be imported from other parts and other jurisdictions through
online purposes. It is the responsibility and the onus is on a provincial entity
to secure appropriate supply.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
From
reading the bill, what we know so far, the responsibility for securing a supply
as I understand it – I ask the minister to correct me if I'm not correct.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
NLC
would find the supplier. Would that be correct, Minister? It's up to NLC to find
a supplier, one that is licensed by the federal government?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
This piece of legislation
designates the NLC to be the regulator and the distributor. They would be able
to then go out for a request for proposals to look at those who would like to
get in the business to operate into a retail model.
When it
comes to supply, those who would wish to operate here in the province would have
to apply to Health Canada federally for a production licence if they would like
to produce in Newfoundland and Labrador. But in terms of supply, if there is no
production or a supply agreement in the province, then that would be able to be
supplied by any other jurisdiction, basically, through other methods.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe
the minister is not understanding what my question is. I appreciate the
information and his effort to provide an answer. NLC will be given the authority
here to do an RFP process to determine who will sell marijuana in the province.
My
question is: What process will be used to determine who supplies NLC?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I think the Member opposite
is getting into some operational issues that are not really pertinent to the
particular bill. I'm not sure which particular clause the Member opposite is
speaking to, but the NLC will be the distributor and the regulator when it comes
to cannabis when it becomes legal here in the province.
The
responsibility and the onus would be on ensuring, as a government, to have
adequate supply. Or if supply is not guaranteed, then it can be provided by any
other entity across multiple jurisdictions. So, as a government, we will
certainly take responsibility to secure appropriate and adequate supply.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not
trying to be difficult with the minister – I'm really not. The bill lays out
here that – and the briefing material, which was very brief, has a line in it
and it says: “NLC, in close consultation with the GNL, will develop a Request
for Proposals for retail licences.”
Clear
enough. They're going to develop a request for proposals. That's how they're
going to find licensees, there's going to be a request for proposals. I'm not
sure how people are going to be able to apply for that if they don't know what
the rules and the parameters are and so on, but there's going to be a request
for proposals.
I'm just
asking the same thing. You said it's an operational issue. Well, getting
licensees is an operational issue too, but it's embedded right in the
legislation how they're going to do that, or at least it was in the briefing.
They're going to do a request for proposals.
My
question is the same: Will a request-for-proposal process be used for suppliers?
Will it be sole sourced? What is the plan and what will be the process when it
comes to supply?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I've
said previously in response to this, the onus of supply is the responsibility of
each government jurisdiction to secure adequate supply. We have been doing a
tremendous amount of work as a government, working through this process with the
NLC and others across multiple departments and jurisdictions, because of the
legislation that has happened federally that will legalize cannabis in July of
2018.
We are
taking the steps to make sure that we have adequate supply here in Newfoundland
and Labrador. We also have the mechanism put in place, through the NLC, to be
the distributor and the regulator so that they can go through an RFP process. I
can't be more clear than that when it comes to – the bill itself is dealing with
regulating the product and how it will be distributed through a retail model. It
is not dealing with the specifics of the matters the Member opposite is
providing or questioning.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Maybe I'll try and use
another example so the minister understands what I'm getting at. If the
government decides they want to purchase vehicles, for example – let's say they
want to purchase vehicles for the Department of Transportation; they just bought
a new piece of equipment – I'm sure that there was a tender process or a
request-for-proposal process in order to find the best suited supplier to
provide the needs to the government.
You just
can't walk up to a dealership out on Kenmount Road and say I'm going to buy that
car, that car and that car. There has to be a process in legislation where you
have to tender it or, in some cases, you can go do an RFP to find out who's best
suited to provide exactly what it is you're looking for.
Will
that kind of process, Minister, be followed when NLC sets out to buy a supply of
cannabis?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I'll ask the Member – I mean,
I appreciate his answer. I know that the Minister of TCII has been trying to be
helpful, but I'll ask him in which part of this act you're referring to.
I think
you're getting ahead of yourself. This act is a very necessary first step in
allowing NLC to start to outline the work they need to do to get ready to put
out RFPs for retailers, but I'm not sure this act is dealing with the question
you're asking.
I'd ask
you to point out exactly which part of this act. The Minister of TCII is trying
to answer your question, but I'm not sure it pertains to this particular act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of
the issues is that it's not in the act. I don't see it here in the act. If it's
here in the act – that's why I'm asking the minister to tell me if it's in the
act and what the process will be.
I'm
referring under clause 1 which, quite often, people get in and have a broader
discussion. If the minister wants to tighten it down and not allow us to seek
that answer, then that's the choice of the minister. But what I'm asking for is
some clarification on the information we received and, for that matter,
information we didn't receive during the briefing or that's not clearly laid out
in the bill.
Mr.
Chair, that's fine. If the minister doesn't want to go down the road and provide
that information, I'm okay with that. We're on clause 1 and clause 1 also deals
with the amendment to section 2.
I'll ask
the Minister of Finance: Will hashish be included in sales of cannabis?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can
just speak to this because one of the – I guess after we did the press
conference, it's amazing how many emails I've received. Basically, I can say
that people have dissected everything that we said up on that podium that day.
Some people agreed and some people will disagree; some people will say: How did
you say that?
One of
the things that people asked is – I actually made a comment and said that
smoking cannabis can be more harmful than smoking cigarettes. So somebody came
back and said: How can you say that? That's not true. What I did was I got here
– this is one of the things that we've referred to, is the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse.
Two
things I will say; one, we're still early on. We're talking about right here
cannabis means “(i) cannabis plant, (ii) any part of a cannabis plant, including
the phytocannabinoids produced by, or found in, a cannabis plant, regardless of
whether that part has been processed or not … (iii) any substance or mixture of
substances that contains or has on it any part of a cannabis plant ….”
Maybe
there's some scientific aspect that I'm not aware of, but when you look at what
cannabis is – and one of the big parts of the debate, when this started out, it
was the legalization of marijuana. That term is gone because it's not accurate.
What we're dealing with is cannabis. So referring right to this, which comes
from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use, Cannabis is a “greenish or brownish
material consisting of the dried flowers, fruiting tops and leaves of the
cannabis plant, Cannabis sativa.
Hashish or cannabis resin is the dried brown or black resinous secretion of the
flowering tops of the cannabis plant ….”
What I
would suggest – it says here: Currently in Canada, licensed producers and
registered individuals can supply cannabis for medical purposes in fresh, dried
and oil forms.
I can't
get into exactly because I'm not intimately involved in the production side –
there are also questions that will not be answered until next summer as it comes
to certain formats, including edibles. But looking at this right now, looking at
the definition that's in the act and looking at what cannabis definition is
according to the Centre on Substance Use, I think this should answer the
question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I would
like to ask the minister what kinds of analysis was done vis-à-vis the expected
potential revenue sales, the profits from those revenue sales; if he could
table, actually, a report, an analysis of using our existing infrastructure
through the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation or going totally
private.
Because
when I look at the Report on Public and
Stakeholder Engagement, initially, the Minister of Justice had said that
there really wasn't much support for the sales through our existing Newfoundland
and Labrador Liquor Corporation; but, in fact, when you look at adding up the
responses to existing Crown agencies and a new Crown agency that there were over
2,000 people really pushing for that kind of a sale to the public, that it would
be either in our existing Crown agency or new Crown agency. Perhaps, though,
what could happen is using the strength and the success and the expertise of our
existing Crown agency to be able to do the majority of the retail sales and
again they do have different methods of doing retail sales through the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.
I'd be
interested to hearing from the minister exactly what kind of analysis was done
about cost-benefit analysis or not, and if he could table the reports of that
kind of analysis and study.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Chair, the analysis on
the revenue to be made, we've been very clear that we're estimating.
Unfortunately, I don't think the people who are currently selling cannabis
products in our province are prepared to tell us how much they're selling. We're
putting forward an estimate of what we think the market will sustain, but it is
an estimate.
As far
as an analysis of whether or not we should allow it through a private retailer
or through an NLC store, for a variety of reasons there are social concerns with
putting a cannabis product and alcohol in the same store. We've heard that, so
there are social concerns with that. If we were to put it in an NLC-operated
store, we'd have to build new bricks and mortar.
We've
got a hybrid system which we think satisfies both. It will give NLC some revenue
as a result of being the distributor, the same as private NLC stores now where
we have private operators operating in a number of areas in the province,
including on the Northeast Avalon, NLC outlets or outlets for the sale of
alcohol. We also have corner stores that sell beer products. There are a number
of instances where alcohol is sold through private industry.
There's
a very strong desire to allow private industry to create employment, to provide
economic opportunity and to provide opportunity to entrepreneurs to sell product
in a private setting. At the same time, NLC will be the online distributor, so
they will reap the full benefit of sales online. They will reap some benefit
through revenue as distributor to the private retailers. We're also allowing
private retail entrepreneurs the opportunity to set up a business, create a
profit and employ people in the province.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I can
understand that there's the potential of jobs here, but we also know that in
convenience stores where beer is sold that, for the most part, the employment is
precarious, it's part time and it's minimum wage. However, if we task our
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, and we know there are different
tiers and different ways the Liquor Corporation does retail alcohol – and those
jobs are unionized jobs. They have good wages. They have benefits, which extend
to the whole family of the employee. It means it's a better economic situation
for the community in which the workers live and work as well.
I would
ask the minister: Does he think that precarious, part-time, low-wage, often
minimum-wage jobs, are better jobs than jobs that have benefits, that are
well-paying, that have pensions and that are secure? I would just ask him that
because it would be interesting to see. I know there's the issue of bricks and
mortar; however, there are ways of getting around that. Everybody is going to
have to deal with bricks and mortar. When we sell alcohol, we have to deal with
bricks and mortar.
My
question, once again, is if we use the model we have that is successful, that
creates good jobs, that brings profit into the public sector, that's reinvested
in education, that's reinvested in health and in infrastructure, why would he
choose not to do that?
I guess
my first question is: Is it better to have minimum-wage, precarious, part-time
jobs without benefits than it is to have jobs through the public sector, through
our Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
respectfully disagree with your opinion, and I would say that every convenience
store owner in your district would respectfully disagree with your opinion. I
would say that all of the liquor outlets in the province, the people who are
working in those would respectfully disagree with your opinion. The Retail
Council of Canada and the convenience store associations would respectfully
disagree with your opinion.
How
ridiculous to say that those jobs are not valuable. They are.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I never
once said they are not valuable – never once. Again, we're talking –
MR. KING:
(Inaudible.)
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, I'm sure the
Member for Bonavista will have a chance to stand and speak if he needs to, but
maybe he'll just let me have the floor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
I'd be willing to listen to
him if he gets up and says something.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Labrador West (inaudible).
MS. ROGERS:
And Labrador West, actually,
both of them. Thank you very kindly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Chair –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, Ontario has said
they're conceding to the fact that the timeline to – they're going to do it
through the Ontario liquor corporation. They said the timeline is tight, and
they started way ahead of us here. So we have even a tighter timeline.
I would
ask the minister again – first of all, I object to him misrepresenting what I
said because I certainly didn't say that those were not valuable jobs. I would
like to say, I reiterate, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation
has a few ways of setting up retail shops and it seems to be working. It is
successful.
However,
government is saying they're not going to have any retail through the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation unless there's a community where
nobody else will set it up. If this is profitable, it adds an opportunity to
bring more money into the public coffers. Why would we not do that?
My
question is, once again: What has the analysis been on doing it – and we know
that Ontario is saying the best way for quality control and for dealing with a
controlled substance is through the public sector. We already have that in
place. There are a number of ways of dealing with the bricks and mortar. We can
see it the way places deal with VLTs. The government is certainly benefitting
from that, not that I'm saying that's the model we should use.
If the
people of the province – over 2,000 in the public engagement sessions – are
saying they want it in an existing Crown corporation or a new one, I'm not
suggesting we go through a new Crown corporation, but what is the analysis he
has done about why not going through the Liquor Corporation? Instead of just
inflammatory language and twisting my language, what has he done, what analysis
has he done about the possibility of going through our established Liquor
Corporation which, again, would bring profits right back into the public
coffers?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe I
misheard the Member, but I thought she said that convenience store jobs were
precarious, part time at best. That, to me, meant something –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
Obviously, Mr. Chair, that
meant something to me that obviously means something different to her. I think
that they provide valuable employment to the people in the province. The vast
majority of liquor outlets in the province are liquor outlets, not NLC-owned
buildings staffed by NLC staff.
The
distribution of cannabis will run through NLC, will create employment and
government jobs through NLC. But we also need – I mean, who knows, it could be
100 or 120 or 150 stores in the province by the time this is set up and done. I
don't think this government is in a position to go out and build 150 buildings,
I'm sorry.
Mr.
Chair, the reality is this gives the best of both worlds. It gives revenue to
NLC. It gives revenue to NLC through online sales. It gives jobs to NLC through
the distribution and management of the product and regulating the product. It
creates employment in smaller communities and throughout the province in a model
where private enterprise – in fact, I received a message from somebody in your
district, as you were speaking, who's interested in setting up a shop.
Am I to
send him back a message on Facebook and say she's not interested in you having a
shop? The reality is, Mr. Chair, every one of our districts throughout the
province have people who are interested in becoming entrepreneurs. It gives a
business opportunity and employment opportunity for those individuals.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I am a
small-business owner. I know the risks of being a small-business owner and a
retailer – I know.
Mr.
Chair, would the minister tell me that people would rather work in small
businesses with lower wages than in working for the Newfoundland and Labrador
Liquor Corporation with jobs that have benefits? Is that what he's saying? I'm
not so sure. Again, I would really like the minister to table the analysis that
they used in order to come to the decision that they're making.
Also,
the issue about bricks and mortar; to have to build 150 stores, I don't think
that's valid. I don't think that would be the case. I don't think they would
have to build 150 brick-and-mortar stores with the rollout of this. We know
there are going to be online sales and we know there are other ways of doing
business.
I would
say to the minister: Does he really think that people would prefer low-paying
jobs that are precarious, to concrete jobs that have benefits and higher wages?
I just wonder if that's what he thinks.
CHAIR:
Shall the clause carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 8 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 9
inclusive.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Section
3 references buy, import and have in its possession for sale and sell alcohol
and goes on to describe the process. I'm wondering in regard to the import
portion of it, when we look at interprovincial trade and the export from one
province to the next. I know there were changes made to the Agreement on
Internal Trade which evolved into the Canadian Free Trade Agreement.
I wonder
if the provisions are in place and everything is within that current agreement
or that updated agreement to allow for the import into various jurisdictions. If
there was a producer in Ontario, for example, that the province had decided they
were going to be the provider in the province, they could import into the
province under the current interprovincial guidelines and regulations and they
now exist in a manner which would allow that to happen
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member opposite for his question on the Canadian Free Trade Agreement that
came into force in July of this year. I can confirm there is no specific chapter
for cannabis.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the minister's reference to no particular chapter. Is he confirming
that the current written context of the agreement would allow the import of
cannabis into the province under the current method as written and there would
be no need for an amendment to change that current agreement that exists?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, given that
cannabis is not a legal substance until it comes into force, it was determined
in the new agreement that there would not be a chapter specific to cannabis in
the current Canadian Free Trade Agreement. But that doesn't preclude any
opportunity to go down that road once cannabis becomes legal.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the answer. So just to be clear, once cannabis is legalized, in
Canada there would be a requirement to revisit the Canadian Free Trade Agreement
to allow the import of cannabis, i.e. into Newfoundland and Labrador?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, right now when it
comes to medical cannabis there is a whole import process. All users of medical
cannabis are importing that product because we do not have a dispensary here, we
do not have a producer. We don't have that infrastructure currently here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
What
this new legislation and the legalization of cannabis will create is an
opportunity where Newfoundland and Labrador, like other jurisdictions, can look
to either create an industry, or import product and deal with the process of
making sure there is adequate supply. This legislation will enable the Liquor
Corporation, the NLC, to import if necessary cannabis products to meet supply
because it will be legal across Canada.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, section 3 refers to amending section 33 of the NLC Act. It says: The
corporation may, with the prior approval of the minister, “establish, maintain
and operate cannabis stores at the places in the province that may be considered
advisable for the sale of cannabis in accordance with this Act ….”
Is he
referring to a co-location with alcohol? If so, what is your expectation of how
many places there may be a co-location?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is
an important question. I thank the Member for the question.
NLC are
going to make best efforts to find private retailers for cannabis throughout the
province. In a situation where we are unable to find a retailer in a part of the
province that a market exists – which is unlikely, but in the event that could
happen – NLC reserves the ability to set up a retail operation in a private
area. Only under very extenuating circumstances would this happen.
It is
possible that you could have a liquor outlet that would end up having cannabis
as well, but we would, in those situations, ensure that they're not on the same
shelves or within the same retail area that alcohol is. So they would have to
set up a separate retail area for the sale of cannabis.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
you for your answer on that.
Just for
clarification, I just wanted to run over to 33(i) where it says: with the prior
approval of the minister – (i) refers to “buy or lease all plant and
equipment it may consider necessary and useful in carrying into effect the
objects and purposes of this Act or the Liquor Control Act.”
What is this
section? What are you referring to? What is it that you're expected that may
have to be purchased or leased to carry this out?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I may need some
further clarification from the Member opposite on his question, but I believe
what is being pertained to in section 33(i) is around plant and equipment or
maybe product around alcohol that would be either produced or dealt with here in
this province where there is some production of product that would happen at the
headquarters of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.
If that doesn't
answer the question specifically, he could further ask a question and I'll do my
best to provide an answer.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to be clear,
section 3 says section 33 of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
The corporation may with the prior approval of the minister – so it's 33(d) and
then there are a number of subparagraphs and it goes over to (i) “buy or lease
all plant and equipment it may consider necessary and useful in carrying into
effect the objects and purposes of this Act or the Liquor Control Act.”
Maybe the minister
can tell me – it may be referring just to alcohol production because it's
changing an entire section here. Does it in any way refer to
buying or leasing plant – and I know plant is not the marijuana plant; a plant
refers to the operation plant, production plant and equipment. Does that in any
way relate to buying or leasing plant and equipment for processing of cannabis?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
Again, I
thank the Member for his question. As you know, there have been sections of the
act that have been added to. This primarily dealt with alcohol and alcohol
products, so we're adding cannabis to an existing act and amending the act to
allow for cannabis as well.
To
answer your question more directly, Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation, it is not our intention and it is not the intent that the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation would become a manufacturer of
cannabis or cannabis products. Does that answer your question more directly?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It does, Mr. Chair. I thank
the minister. It does clarify it because we just had a discussion about the
federal government being responsible for licensing and production. The minister,
I think, was expressing some reservation that licensed produced marijuana may be
available in time for July rollout of people being able to purchase marijuana,
so you may have to import it. Therefore, I wanted to clarify why you would want
to buy and lease equipment.
Mr.
Chair, under section 4 – I think we're on 3 to 8; is that correct, Mr. Chair?
Yes. Under section 4, section 4 adds after section 34 and it adds a number of
items here which allows the board to grant to a person a licence to possess and
so on; may issue different classes of licences and set out the terms and
conditions of those licences.
My
question for the minister; How does a government expect an individual, potential
licensee, to apply if they don't know what the rules are? How long before that
application process will begin? Can you give us any kind of insight as to what
will be involved in that application process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For
greater clarification, I'd ask the Member what section he's referring to. In an
attempt to answer his question, to the best of my ability, without knowing the
exact section he's referring to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
34.1.
MR. OSBORNE:
34.1.
This is
part of the RFP process that's being developed by the Newfoundland and Labrador
Liquor Corporation. This act will develop –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
This act will give the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation the ability to do further work and
prepare for an RFP process and to design the regulations that are required to
allow for storefront operations so that people can possess, sell and deliver
cannabis products.
They're
still in the process, and will continue to be in the process for a short period
of time, I would suspect, to design and put forward the regulations that will
deal with this. So at this particular point, it would be premature for me to get
into how they would do that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe
the minister might be able to shed some light – maybe he's not in a position to
do so at this point in time. We've got a July date pending where sales are going
to begin. We have reference here in amendments to the board being able to issue
classes of licences and applications for licensees and so on, and how a licensee
shall be granted a licence under this section.
But the
nuts and bolts, of course, they are not here and will be in the RFP process. So
my question for the minister: Knowing that July is fast approaching, people are
going to have to do a business plan, may have to seek some financing or partners
and so on. The expansion – we don't know the size, what might be required of the
location size. We don't what the staffing requirements may be. We don't know
what divisions may have to happen or separations may have to happen in
buildings, where there would be some kind of dividing wall or some other access.
Minister, maybe to simplify the question, do you have any idea or can you give
us some insight as to when the details of that process may be known?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the NLC – the NLC is well equipped
to deal with RFPs. They've made sure that through their private model there's an
application process, there is a clear compliance, and this legislation will
enable them to go through that process.
If there
are people that are out there that are interested, I would encourage them as
well to reach out to the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation. They can speak to our economic development officers. They're well
equipped – all throughout the province there are offices where people can advise
them on financing, business planning, consulting services and various matters.
As the
country moves forward through the legislation of cannabis in July of 2018, all
provinces are moving forward with their plans. This government, we feel we have
a very robust plan with our hybrid model here. By advancing this legislation, we
can meet, to the best of our ability, the July 2018 target. We will certainly be
ready to move forward with that rollout based on this model and these
initiatives.
Timelines, certainly, are very tight, but the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation has experience in this field. They are best suited to work out
through the RFP process. They will certainly get that matter out as soon as
possible. But they need this bill passed in order to be able to have permission
to go and draft the RFP, put out the call and see what type of uptake comes from
that. Then that will create further steps as to what other initiatives may need
to be taken by the NLC or by the provincial government.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the information from the minister. Minister, we're also hearing
provinces and officials in provinces who are expressing concern about not being
able to meet the deadlines.
I'm not
questioning the competency of the officials at NLC in any way. I'm sure they're
very competent. In fact, I thought the Minister of Finance just made a comment –
maybe I'm wrong – a few minutes ago that the RFP process is underway and they're
developing the RFP process. What you just said was they can't begin to develop
the RFP process until the bill is passed, but I would suggest they're probably
already at the RFP or developing the RFP.
My
question wasn't so much about the NLC's ability to have the RFP ready and to
send it out. My question is about people who have an interest in becoming a
licensee and how much time they'll have to develop their business plans,
financing if they need it, having to get permits from municipalities to make
renovations which, in some places, sometimes can take weeks and months for
building permits at the necessary municipal level as well.
My
question was: How soon do you think before the RFP may be available so that
people will have an understanding of all the requirements that are going to be
on them when they go through the application process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
certainly well aware. Entrepreneurs across this province and those that are
operating in the private sector right now – I would say to the Member opposite
for St. John's Centre, there are 2,000 businesses in this province supplying
over 40 per cent of employment, so quite significant what small and medium
businesses provide here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They're very equipped with
dealing with an RFP process. This is not something new.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation does not have the ability to issue
an RFP until the legislation is passed – just if I misspoke or made any point
earlier. What I would say is this has become knowledge, this is public
knowledge. We're working as quickly as possible.
There
are very ambitious guidelines when it comes to cannabis being legal. This is new
to Canada, to the entire country. It's a new sector or a new industry when it
comes to Newfoundland and Labrador. So across government, we've been working
very collaboratively, very robustly on this particular matter. We've determined
this hybrid model through the private sector is the best approach.
We have
the expertise in terms of TCII to look at financing. As a government, something
we did is we put in service standards so that we give people a clear timeline as
to when they put forward an application, when they can expect to see financing
or approval on a particular application. We're working with credit unions, with
CBDCs and others when it comes to a financing piece.
We'll
also work with municipalities and encourage municipalities in this process, but
municipal governments have their own set of criteria. They will determine their
process when it comes to issuing permits and how they would go their particular
bylaws on that matter. They have their own jurisdiction.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have
great respect for entrepreneurs in this province, I say to the minister and to
Members of the House. I have great respect for businesses and entrepreneurs and
people who try really hard.
I also
know of businesses in the province who, in recent years, are having a much more
difficult time in being able to make ends meet and stay viable and are looking
for new ways to create new business opportunities, as entrepreneurs quite often
do. Many businesses see the legalization of marijuana as such a business
opportunity for them. That doesn't mean they're all necessarily in favour or
against it. They see it as a business opportunity.
We know
now many circumstances where for a business to want to become a retail licensee,
it could take months and months of municipal processes in order to obtain that.
I'm familiar with businesses in municipalities who, on matters that are much
more routine than getting a licence to set up an operation to sell marijuana,
have gone through many months of consultation and application.
Municipalities, in some cases, may have to change their own municipal
regulations and requirements to allow this type of a business. A person who
wants to sell marijuana in a business would quite likely, in many
municipalities, have to apply for such a business licence. If they want to do
alterations or do physical changes to their structure, there's a whole process
there.
We'd
have to get an engineer involved to design a physical modification. Not only
engineers, they'd have to get electrical engineers, plumbers and so on to do all
of that work, which can take a significant amount of time, submit it to a
municipality and then ask for it to be passed. That can take a long time itself,
especially when it's something new that's being done.
My
question, again, was not about NLC's capabilities; I hear what people in other
provinces are saying about concerns and the tight timelines in getting this
done. The more I think about it, even as we're having this discussion tonight
about a person wanting to file an application to be a licensee, there may be a
significant amount of hurdles, even in a municipality you may have to go
through.
My
question was: Do you have an idea how long before the RFP process will be ready
to roll out? How long it will be before RFPs are in the hands of potential
retailers so they can start all the processes they have to do?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I
said earlier, until this passage of this enabling legislation to allow the NLC
to issue their request for proposals, a request for proposals cannot be issued.
That timeline will depend on the passage of the particular bill.
We are
working on a very rigid timeline. Regardless of the passage of this bill,
cannabis will become legal in July 2018, and then it will be possible for anyone
in the country to purchase cannabis. So this is why we're moving forward as
quickly as possible. We want our entrepreneurs to be very adaptable and those
who want to look at this as a business opportunity, to move forward, to put an
expression of interest in an RFP. That will be evaluated.
There is
generally a set timeline. That will be up to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Liquor Corporation to determine when the opening, when the closing date, the
evaluation period and the response time. But the start time of July 1 is not as
imperative as it will be to have every single store or every opportunity that
will be created in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some
people in some areas will take longer than July 1 to access, create and get
through these barriers as in any business that the Member opposite has
identified.
Every
person will have access to purchasing cannabis should they wish to choose. This
is why the NLC will be having their online portal to be doing the online sales.
They will have adequate supply to be able to ship and distribute to any of the
entrepreneurs who are successful in an RFP process. This, I think, will be a
continuous rollout process.
Some
people are going to take more time to determine the market, determine the
opportunity and do their due diligence when it comes to the business planning
process, just like entrepreneurs would, any entrepreneur when they're looking at
that opportunity. Nobody is going to make incredibly quick and haste decisions
on this particular matter. You have to do your homework as with any
entrepreneur.
Our
department is available to work with any entrepreneur who's looking at this as
an opportunity. We will provide them with advice and direction and areas of
expertise where they could go. As well, the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation has people with that expertise. When the RFP is issued, then they
will provide that one-on-one advice and direction.
I would
say to the Member opposite, some of these questions are in the hypotheticals of
what if a municipal government is three weeks longer than somebody else in
issuing a permit, or if somebody needs to build a new structure or do
renovations or whatnot. All of these things may or may not happen, but that has
no impact on the legislation we're debating here today.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's
nothing hypothetical about my question. My question was: How soon will the RFP
be available for people, potential licensees, to see it? The minister hasn't
answered it. He said it depends on the bill. It is not hard to say, well, within
a week after the bill is passed or within 10 days, but the minister is not
saying. There's nothing hypothetical about it.
My
concern, as I expressed, was that as time goes on the time available for people
to get licensed, get finalized and be ready for July – the time gets shorter and
shorter and shorter. I point out the example – not hypothetical, a very factual
example – of the experience that many people have in municipalities where they
have very strict development regulations, very strict rules about making
significant alterations, if that happens to be required in a business, that
could take months. Especially where municipalities require public meetings to
take place for members of the public to come and discuss what is planned and how
it's going to impact their neighbourhoods.
I
suggest on this being brand new and not everyone in the province and in the
country, for that matter, are agreeable – which is not unique to this. But in
this particular case, not everyone is agreeable to have marijuana sales open up
the way that the federal government has anticipated. There's going to be a lot
of people wanting to know details about it and it could slow the process down.
Not
hypothetically. That's what municipalities do. They do public consultations.
They require people to make applications, submit drawings, engineered drawings
and so on which are going to come at a cost and effort to them. But as the
minister said, it looks like in July not everybody's going to be able to
licence, just some. It's not going to be done completely, but it will be done
somewhat.
Under
34.1, again under subsection (5) it says: “The board shall not grant a licence
under this section where” and there's a list of them here, Mr. Speaker. One of
them says: “The board shall not grant a licence under this section where … (c)
the board, in the board's absolute discretion, is of the opinion that the
applicant is not a fit and proper person to keep and operate a premises where
cannabis will be sold ….”
How is
that going to be evaluated or determined, Minister?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
believe the section – and the Member opposite can guide me if I'm wrong here. Is
that section 34.1(5)?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Subsection (5)(c).
MR. A. PARSONS:
Subsection (5)(c). It says:
“The board shall not grant a licence under this section where … (c) the board,
in the board's absolute discretion, is of the opinion that the applicant is not
a fit and proper person to keep and operate a premises where cannabis will be
sold ….”
This is
something that I think we've seen in the past, as it relates to alcohol, in that
if you have individuals that have contravened the legislation or regulations in
the past – because, again, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If you look down
further – I think it has to be read in the entirety here – there's a bunch of
things the board can look at here and say is this a person that should be
granted this licence under this legislation?
You see
here that the past conduct of the individual establishes reasonable grounds for
the belief that they will not carry on business in accordance with the law and
with integrity; the applicant is carrying on activities that will be where they
are licensed in contravention of the act; the granting of the licence would not
be in the public interest; or if they've been convicted within the past five
years preceding the application for a violation of various pieces of legislation
there; and their equipment and accommodations do not meet the standards that
have been set out.
What I
would suggest is that there is, I believe, an appeal process here that they're –
again, the decision's made. I've seen these before. People have been charged
under the Liquor Corporation Act,
people have been given summonses. In this case, it's their discretion and it's
their opinion, but there are grounds that have to be established. By going
through the rest of it, you can see this is the kind of stuff they'll be looking
at. Is this a person that should be in the market to sell this substance?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the information from the minister.
The
concern that I have here, Mr. Chair, is when it says “the board, in the board's
absolute discretion, is of the opinion that the applicant is not a fit and
proper person to keep and operate a premises where cannabis will be sold ….” I
was just reading under section 34 because this whole section, this whole area
that we're discussing, section 34.1, is an amendment of the act to follow
immediately after section 34.
I was
looking at section 34 which is actually: Licences to brewers. Now, it's going to
move to people who can sell marijuana. There's nothing like this under the
current section of the act, Mr. Chair. Under the
Liquor Control Act,
under section 34, there's nothing like this under this particular
section. If it's somewhere else in the act and the minister can point it out to
me, I'd appreciate it.
My concern is that the board is given absolute discretion.
Again, I quote: “the board, in the board's absolute discretion, is of the
opinion that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to keep and operate a
premises where cannabis will be sold ….”
My question is: Is there any standing policy in determining
if a person is not a fit and proper person? How is that going to be determined?
Will there be a set of guidelines? I don't see it under section 34 for liquor
licensing. If the minister had a minute now to have a look at it, I can give him
some time just to research a little bit.
It is under subsection (5). It's section 34.1, which talks
about granting licences. It also talks about: “A licence shall only be granted
under this section to (a) an individual or a group of individuals, where that
individual or each member of the group of individuals is at least 19 years of
age; or (b) a corporation or partnership authorized to carry on its business in
the province whose officer or agent in charge of the premises for which the
licence is required is at least 19 years of age.”
Subsection (5), which we're now discussing: “The board
shall not grant a licence under this section where” – and there are 12 or 13
different paragraphs. So (c) is not a fit and proper person.
I don't know, Minister, if you had a chance to look and
provide some other information. I'd appreciate it.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Member is asking a question as it relates to section
34.1(1). Basically, what we're talking about here is who the board can grant a
licence to. They may grant to a person a licence to possess or sell cannabis and
it lays out certain characteristics here: it has to be an individual or a group
of individuals; they have to be 19 years of age; if it's a corporation, they
have to carry on business in the province.
Then when you get to subsection (5), the section the Member
is asking about, it says: The board shall not grant
a licence under this section where – and it lays out a bunch of sections. So
what we want to think about here is keep in mind that purpose is giving the
board discretion to refuse to grant a permit or a licence to sell this
substance, where they haven't paid the fee, they haven't met the requirements
set out in 3 and 4, which is the age and the corporation part.
You just
go down through it, if we feel that – and I say we, but it's not we, it's the
board – the past conduct gives reasonable grounds that they're not going to
carry the business on in accordance. They committed a wrongdoing in the past of
various pieces of legislation. That section says “the board, in the
board's absolute discretion, is of the opinion that the applicant is not a fit
and proper person to keep and operate a premises where cannabis will be sold.”
So what I would say is that whenever we deal in anything,
whether it's alcohol or whether it's cannabis, we have to ensure that
protections are put in place that basically the law is being upheld and that
there are certain standards being set.
Now, what I would say, again, the board has that absolute
discretion, but any person under subsection (c) that is denied this would have
an opportunity or a right to contest this. It's not like it's boom, you're
blackballed. You're out and that's it; it can't happen. What I'm saying to you
is of the opinion that the applicant is not a fit and proper person.
What I'm saying to you is you have to look at what they're
trying to do here. I see the Member opposite, I think he might get where I'm
going with this. I think the section here states very clearly that when you look
at it in its entirety is that we don't want to have a situation where the wrong
people are being put into a business here where there are certain controls that
have to be put in place.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not
going to repeat it, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to repeat what he said. I'm not. We
are talking about 34.1 – and I get it. Under 34.1(1), (2), (3) and (4) talks
about granting a licence; (5) talks about not granting a licence.
Minister, maybe you can just give me some insight because my concern about it is
– and I appreciate where you are, but my concern about it is it says the board's
absolute discretion. So when you talk about having the right to appeal and so
on, when it says the board's absolute discretion, that kind of means their
decision is final. That's what it means, their decision is final.
Minister, under (5)(g), the board shall not grant the licence under the section
where “the granting of the licence would not be in the public interest having
regard to the needs and wishes of the public in the community in which the
premises will be located.”
Now, Mr.
Chair, I go back to questions I asked earlier on this very section. The Minister
of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation answered the questions, or
responded to my questions anyway, about the length of time for licensing and so
on. He referenced that I was somewhat hypothetical, but under – I appreciate
what he said; I just remind him, that's all. Under subsection (5), “The board
shall not grant a licence under this section where … (g) the granting of the
licence would not be in the public interest having regard to the needs and
wishes of the public in the community in which the premises will be located.”
I'll ask
the minister: Will there be guidelines around this particular section whereby
the public will have a process to go through, should they wish to express the
needs and wishes of the public in that particular community where the premises
will be located?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
want to reference again – I think the minister has spoken to the section in
regard to the appeal process. I think he concluded – if he would just repeat, I
think there was an appeal process in either the case of the section in regard to
whether a determination was made that conduct – I think there were two sections,
34.1(c) and 34.1(e), and one deals with the absolute discretion and the other
one talks about “the board reasonably believes that the past conduct of the
applicant establishes reasonable grounds for the belief that the applicant will
not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and
honesty.” I think he indicated there was an appeal process.
For
either of those cases, if an application was denied, there would be an appeal
process heard before another application would be accepted.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
where the Leader of the Opposition was going with this was (5)(g) “the granting
of the licence would not be in the public interest having regard to the needs
and wishes of the public in the community in which the premises will be located
….”
We know
that there are certain situations, certain communities, particularly as it
relates to the provision of alcohol, that the community has the ability to say
that it's a dry community. That's something that has been kept in mind to
certain communities where this may also be chosen to apply.
Again,
the granting would not be in the public interest – this is a discussion that
would happen in particular circumstances. I'm aware of a couple of communities
where that is the case right now. I think this is basically where this is laid
out to, to cover off that type of situation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I would
just like to go back to an issue I raised and the Minister of Finance said to
me: Well, the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation would have to build
150 stores. Then in response to another question, the Minister of Finance said:
Well, it just needs to be for a private enterprise, simply needs to be a
different section from the alcohol in the store.
I'm
wondering if the minister can give us a little more clarity about what exactly
would be required by any store, whether it be the Newfoundland and Labrador
Liquor Corporation or any other store that may be selling alcohol, what exactly
would be required?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, the RFP will
clearly identify what the requirements are for any private entrepreneur who
would like to look at retailing cannabis.
I have
to say to the Member opposite and her questioning to the Minister of Finance, we
have fewer than 30 corporate NLC stores across the province. If you have to look
at the jurisdiction, the geography of which we have, the capital expenditure of
looking at building stand-alone stores that don't exist now for alcohol, but to
look at doing it specifically for cannabis, it seems to be – I'm not sure where
the Member opposite is doing the particular research on that matter for it to be
a viable option for the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to go down
that road.
We have
been very clear that the NLC would be only used or the express retail outlets
that currently sell alcohol under NLC, they would not be given preference over
an alternate retailer that would be looking to retail cannabis.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, I am fully aware
of how the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation operates. It has its
corporate retail stores. It has its Liquor Expresses in different parts of the
community. It has an infrastructure and a culture and experience and expertise
in dealing with controlled substances.
So I'm
not sure why the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation would be
answering the questions that I'm asking of the Minister of Finance, why he would
assume that we're not aware of how our liquor corporation works. We all know
that, and it's also very, very successful.
We also
know that people are trained well, are paid well. They have benefits, and the
profit from the sales stay within the public sectors. So I'm fully aware of how
the liquor corporation works.
Again,
the Minister of Finance said we don't need a separate, stand-alone store. He
said what we need is we simply need to put it in a different section from
alcohol. Well, that's possible in our corporate stores. It's possible to do a
small separate section.
Cannabis
doesn't take up a whole lot of room. It doesn't. It's not like bottles of
alcohol. It takes up very little room. So the actual footprint for the retail
section for cannabis is quite small. We also know in communities where it's not
possible for the liquor corporation to set up that there are going to be online
sales.
Mr.
Chair, I would ask the minister again, can he table the analysis on which he
made this decision?
Earlier
I spoke about the possibility of the profits of the sales of cannabis going back
into the community, to go back into our public funds. We don't even know if it
will be stores that are national or multi-national that will open up a number of
retail shops. That means the profits will be taken out of the province, will not
be reinvested into the province. Is this an opportunity we are missing?
Again, I
would ask the minister – either of the ministers – not to answer by exaggerating
or misconstruing what I have said so far, because I know how the infrastructure
for our liquor corporation works. It's successful. It's time honoured. It's
doing what it's supposed to do, and it can do this as well. Why the minister
would go toward listening to those who would advocate not to have their profits
reinvested back in the province, it's a mystery to me.
My
question is, why can it not be – if, in fact, the minister said it just needs to
be in a different section from alcohol, why it cannot be set up within the
structure and the infrastructure of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation, as in the Liquor Expresses that are operated by private enterprises
in different parts of the province as well? What's the big deal here? Why can it
not be done?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
We've already expressed, very
clearly, that it will be only in extenuating circumstances. It is not the model.
It is the exception only in extenuating circumstances, if there is a market in
an area for the product, but we don't have a retailer come forward. I have my
doubts that that is going to happen, but we have to be prepared in the event, so
we built it into the legislation.
I will
ask the Member, are you advocating that every liquor outlet in the province have
a section within it to sell cannabis? Because there are social problems with
that; they are well founded.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, what I am
suggesting is that we use the infrastructure that has been proven successful
within the liquor control of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have experienced
salespeople.
For
those entrepreneurs who have private Liquor Express outlets and they do not want
to sell cannabis, absolutely they should not sell cannabis. Nobody should be
forced to sell cannabis; however, let's use the time-honoured, time-tested
successful infrastructure and model that we have. Why would we not when it means
growing well-paying jobs and reinvesting the profits from sales back into the
province?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was
going back to 5(g); I don't think we finalized it. I think the minister may – I
know he's been doing some work over there, the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety, so he might have another comment on it.
Under 5:
“The board shall not grant a licence under this section where (g) the granting
of the licence would not be in the public interest having regard to the needs
and wishes of the public in the community in which the premises will be
located.”
I'm just
wondering if the minister envisioned some type of an opportunity for public
engagement or a public consultation meeting. What do they envision there when
there may be a community – I know he did reference dry communities. I never
thought about that when I first read it. I appreciate the minister providing
that because there are communities who are known as dry communities in our
province, but there are also small communities that have some very strong views
within the community on certain aspects of life and sometimes that involves
alcohol intoxicants and the use of, and may also have a strong feeling on the
sales of cannabis. I was going to say marijuana, then I was going to say
narcotics, but the word I know they want to use now is cannabis, so on cannabis.
I'd ask
the minister: What does he envision there if someone applies within a community
for a licence to sell?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
perhaps what was envisioned was the situation we currently have in very, very,
very few communities where they are what we know as dry communities; there's no
alcohol allowed in the communities. There was a thought process that maybe this
is something that ought to be considered.
This is
something that's going to be legalized in Canada; it's going to be legalized in
every province. So I certainly don't envision a process where communities are
going to sit around and have a referendum on whether they want to do this or
not. I don't think that's what's being envisioned at all.
I think
this is something that's been debated for some time; people have known this is
coming for more than two years now. It's certainly not something on our end that
we plan on doing.
I know
the Minister of Municipal Affairs hears from MNL all the time. I'm not sure if
this is a topic that's been brought up to him. He can speak to this at some
point. This was to cover off a specific area of concern that had been raised.
I'm certainly not talking about having multiple communities talking about – many
communities, actually, are talking about the potential here to have new business
and to have new industry, so that's very exciting.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the
minister's information, I only have a couple of more points that I just wanted
for clarification.
Again,
under section (5), if we go over to (i) there are three subparagraphs. To read
it as it should be read, in all fairness: “The board shall not grant a licence
under this section where … (i) the management, equipment, accommodations and
facilities of the applicant's premises (i) do not conform with the licensing
standards and operational requirements as determined by the corporation, (ii) do
not conform with the laws and regulations of the province, or (iii) have not
been approved in writing by an inspector appointed under the
Liquor Control Act.”
My
question is about the inspector. I know the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation has liquor inspectors. Will they anticipate the requirement for
additional inspectors? What kind of training do they envision that inspectors
will be required in order to carry out those types of inspections?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I
would suggest is that NLC will have to make a decision as to what they're going
to need in terms of inspectors that are going to be necessary to cover this off.
That's one of the things that I think there will be the creation of additional
jobs, especially at the outset of this. This is something that's extremely new.
A lot of
this is evolving. There is nothing set in stone here as to what the NLC is going
to do. It's probably hard for them to even envision what to expect in terms of
when the RFP goes out, what's going to come back, what that uptake is going to
be, what that level of interest is going to be.
I can
only talk anecdotally on the calls that I've received since then saying: I'm
very interested in this. I'm looking at a business loan. I want to reach out.
It's hard to tell, but what I would suggest is that section (i) there is just
one of the reasons where a board is able to not grant the licence. This is where
we're dealing with: The management, equipment, accommodations and facilities
don't comply with the licensing standards or the laws and regulations of the
province.
They
have inspectors now that are able to do these types of inspections as it relates
to alcohol. This is just going to be something added. I think there's going to
be an education component to this. Whether you're an inspector with NLC, or
whether you're a student in schools, or whether you're a legislator in this
House, there's an education component to this, but that's something I don't
think has been determined yet.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
have a couple of questions or comments. The first issue, and it's kind of been
raised, is as it relates to the RFPs – I heard the minister of business and
innovation talk about – that's going to go out. I'm wondering how that process
will work. Will there be consideration – or any special consideration – for
local business, how it will work if one company applied to have 10 stores? Is
that possible?
I guess
what I'm getting at is that unlike in the retail trade and the normal course of
business, when you're dealing with normal goods and services, sure, anybody can
open up a store; it's a free market, competition. You can have chain stores that
are coming from the Mainland, from the United States. Multinational firms can
come in; they can compete and so on.
But when
we're talking about this, it's a controlled product. It's through the NLC; it's
controlled by the government. It's basically a monopoly, a legal monopoly to
some degree. It's different than somebody selling shoes or selling windshield
wipers or whatever it is they're selling. It's different; therefore, I would
think that we would have some level of control based on that to ensure this is
going to be sold locally.
Now,
there's one issue that the Member for St. John's Centre, of course, is
advocating that it would be sold through the liquor stores. It would be
good-paying public service jobs. That's one aspect of it, but I guess the other
side of it is even if we allow it to go to private business, is there a way we
can assure that at the very least it's local businesses so that the profits and
the money are going back in Newfoundland?
Not that
we're going to have Walmart come in and all of the money is going to go to one
billionaire in the United States, and that's where all the money goes; we don't
benefit from it. Yes, we'll get a few minimum wage jobs, but that's all we will
get; whereas, if we ensure that they were all local businesses that were doing
it, at least the profits, one would think, would be reinvested in the
communities and so on. I'm just wondering if there's consideration for local
business to have a priority in opening up their little shops.
You
don't need huge infrastructure. We're talking about selling cannabis; you only
need a little small storefront like a little smoke shop. That's all I would
envision at least. It's not like you need a big giant footprint. There's no
reason why any Newfoundlander and Labradorian can't open up a little cannabis
store as long as they meet all the requirements. I would think that should be a
priority to make sure that happens as opposed to it going to some big chain
store.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member opposite for his question and concern about highlighting the
opportunities that would exist for Newfoundland and Labrador entrepreneurs here
in this province.
If you
look at the NLC and you look at their record when it comes to RFPs, when it
comes to the criteria that are put in place, and you look at the independent
private operator of NLCs, you would be able to look at that mix and look at the
community impact they would have over a controlled substance. Primarily the
majority, the vast portion of all the product that will be at NLCs will be
imported here into Newfoundland and Labrador because we're not a vast producer
when it comes to alcohol product.
Although, we are very proud to say that our craft brewing industry is seeing
more and more jobs being created all across Newfoundland and Labrador. You're
seeing that opportunity on a small scale that is happening. The provincial
government wants to see maximum value to the people of the province when it
comes to private sector job creation and return to the Treasury when it comes to
this process.
The NLC
has a proven track record when it comes to going out and seeking those who want
to get into business, looking at the various products that would be carried.
It's too early to tell exactly what type of products, the number of products and
all these type of things. Those types of decisions will be made based on the
decision of the NLC, as they do with certain stores that they have, carrying a
minimum amount of product, et cetera, et cetera.
Obviously, this is certainly something new for Newfoundland and Labrador, but we
feel that the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation has the capacity and
they have a proven track record where they have been investing in local
entrepreneurs in Newfoundland and Labrador that are independent franchisees that
exist in the marketplace today.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister for his commentary, but I would challenge it, to some degree. Yes,
I understand that in small, rural communities, no doubt, that there are local
businesses that are operating the Liquor Express stores and so on – in small,
rural communities, absolutely.
But when
you get into areas like the St. John's metro area and so on, that's not the
case. If you were to look at all the private liquor stores, every one of them
are attached to a big grocery store chain. As a matter of fact, we had a local
liquor store outlet in Paradise, by way of example, on St. Thomas Line. What was
it called? Hamilton's Grocery; there, for years, they had a liquor outlet. That
liquor outlet brought an awful lot of customers into that store and they helped
make the rest of the business very viable.
Of
course, what did NLC do? They decided we're going to take it and we're going to
put it into Sobeys in Paradise, we're going to give them the liquor store, take
it away from the small, local guy who is going to spend his money, invest his
money in Newfoundland and Labrador and let's give it to Mr. Sobeys so he can
make a few more billion dollars, or a few more million dollars off us and take
his profits to the Mainland.
That's
what happened with the liquor store, so I guess my concern and question is more
around – once again, yes, I get it, in rural Newfoundland in small towns, yes,
there's an opportunity; but when we get to the larger areas, I wouldn't want to
see Sobeys, Dominion, Shoppers Drug Mart or whatever opening up all the cannabis
stores under their name and all of the profits gone to the Mainland and none of
it reinvested in Newfoundland and Labrador, except for a few minimum wage jobs
which no doubt, if a local person did it, they would have to hire the same
workers anyway, but at least the profits would stay here in this province as
opposed to going off to the Mainland. So I guess that's my concern, Minister.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the Member opposite's concerns. I would ask, though, that we are
debating a particular bill; there are various clauses in the bill of which we're
here and prepared to answer questions. If you want to get into operations when
it comes to the NLC and their overall process, then questions can be posed to
them. They have an RFP process when it comes to alcohol right now that after a
licensee or a franchisee who is in the private sector, they have their
agreement, their contract and that contract can either be renewed or it goes up
for bids. It goes up through that process. That is a competitive process.
I've
seen in my very own district where a private franchisee of a retail outlet has
lost their licence and it's moved to another location, to another venue as well.
And that's part of the free market and part of a competitive process. I'm sure,
as they develop their RFP, there will be some restrictions, maybe in terms of
distance, in geography from store, so that the market is not over penetrated and
over saturated.
But that
is something that I would leave up to the capable hands of the management and
the board at the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. They have the
experience and they have been doing it. They have a proven track record and they
have been returning significant dollars back to the Treasury in terms of their
corporate stores and a private retail model.
This is
why we've gone down this route as a hybrid model so that we can make sure that
we have the proper regulations, that we are prepared, that we can look at
creating maximum employment and that we can look at the return to Treasury and
provide benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all across this province.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister again for his answer. I will say, though, that we're debating this
bill here in the House of Assembly, so I'm not going to be debating with
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. That's why we have legislation and
that's why we debate it here.
Obviously, the minister has given me his position. I would suggest that I do
have some concerns about it. I certainly just want to, for the record at least,
say that I do. NLC does have a proven record, as I said, and I'm not questioning
everything that NLC has done. They've done a lot of good stuff and they brought
money to the Treasury, there's no doubt; but then again, if you have a monopoly,
it's pretty hard that if you couldn't bring profits to the Treasury, we'd
definitely have a big problem.
Again, I
will stand by my concern that obviously then we're talking free market – I
understand if we are talking regular retail items, that's one thing; we're
talking about a government-controlled product, one product, being cannabis. It's
controlled totally by us. We should be able to ensure that we maximize the
benefit to Newfoundland and Labrador. If we go totally the route we've gone with
the liquor store, then what we open up for the possibility of is for some of
these big, giant retailers to come in, particularly in the urban areas, and take
over all of the sales and all of the profits go right out the door.
Yes, it
will provide a few minimum-wage jobs. Then again, if ma and pa down the street
did it, they would provide the same jobs. They still need to have a clerk in the
store; they still need to have people there to work, no different. The only
difference is their money, their profits, would be reinvested here in
Newfoundland and Labrador as opposed to being sent off to the Mainland to the
billionaire that owns the large chain.
The only
other question I have, and this is for the Minister of Finance – I'm assuming
it's the Minister of Finance. I'm just wondering about the taxation. This is an
issue that's been raised by a number of people to me. They were concerned about
– or I don't know if they were concerned about, but the question they had around
taxation is: If we tax the marijuana too high, based on the excise tax, and I
guess there's going to be sales tax and everything else and then there are
issues around price setting and how that will work, then the concern is if you
make it too high then people are just going to buy marijuana off the street
anyway because why would you pay double for the same product?
I
understand because one is legal and one is illegal, but the bottom line, if
you're going to pay twice as much for it, the average person who's buying it, if
they can buy it off Joe down the road, once they have it, the police aren't
going to know if it was the legal stuff or the illegal stuff, I suppose. So if
you want to create an incentive for people not to buy the illegal stuff, you
can't have the price of the legal stuff so far out of reach that it's a
disincentive for people to buy the legal stuff.
I'm just
wondering: Is there any thought on how the prices would be set, what tax would
be there and whether the prices of the cannabis bought legally would be in any
way close to the price of what you buy off the street? I can see the Minister of
Finance is really engaging in what I have to say there and I certainly look
forward to his answer.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like
to move on to section or paragraph 5, which is the repealing of section 41 and
being replaced by: “All money received from the sale of alcoholic liquor and
cannabis accruing in the administration of this Act shall be paid to the
corporation.”
Mr.
Chair, there's a tax discussion happening federally. The federal government has
said a 50-50 split on taxes collected through the sales of marijuana – there
would be a 50-50 split with the federal government and the province. We're
hearing talk now that the federal government is going to revisit that. I ask the
minister if he has any comment on it. Is there a goal or – I should just explain
for a second because I realize there's an anticipation, but also an unknown
about the sales and the potential revenue. We're hearing from provinces on the
high cost of implementing the requirements for the legalization of marijuana.
The
province has said here as well – has publicly said – the responsibility of much
of the administration is borne by the province and the cost comes to the
province. There have been thoughts and concerns expressed that a 50-50 split
with the federal government on taxation revenue would be inadequate and it
should be a split that more favours the province.
I ask
the minister: Are there efforts underway by your government to increase that
split from the 50-50 split?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member for his question. The 50-50 split is not acceptable. It's not
acceptable to this province or any other minister of Finance in any other
province or territory. We have been dealing with and dialoguing with the federal
minister of Finance over this particular issue.
At this
particular stage, we're still in dialogue. I won't say what the outcome of that
dialogue will be until the dialogue is concluded. I will say that the federal
minister has already come out and said that he is open to an arrangement other
than 50-50, so we will continue that dialogue.
In
reference to earlier questions by the Member, I do want to just clarify some
language because what we've done here is simply updated the language. Some of
this language was already in place but somewhat updated.
There
are two bills. There's one bill, the
Liquor Control Act, and the other bill is the
Liquor Corporation Act. I believe this
one is under the Liquor Control Act: “A licence shall not be granted to a person
unless the applicant qualifies under the regulations in respect of his or her
eligibility and conduct, and the management, equipment, accommodation and
facilities of the applicant's premises (a) are so located as to not cause
inconvenience to a church, school or hospital … (e) are suitable for carrying on
the business of selling alcoholic liquor in a reputable way, and are constructed
and equipped so as not to facilitate a breach of this Act, or the regulations
and have been approved in writing by an inspector as appropriate to become a
licensed premises.” Very similar to the previous act, I would say.
“A
licence shall not be granted to a person unless he or she is an appropriate
person to keep and operate the kind of premises in respect of which the licence
is sought and he or she has not been convicted within 3 years before his or her
application for the licence for an offence under the
Criminal Code ….”
It goes
on to say that “the board may refuse an application for a licence or refuse to
approve the transfer of a licence where (a) past conduct establishes reasonable
grounds for the belief that the applicant will not carry on business in
accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty; (b) the applicant is
carrying on activities that are, or will be, where the applicant is licensed, in
contravention of this Act or regulations; and (c) in the case of an application
for a licence, the issuing of the licence would not be in the public interest
having regard to the needs and wishes of the public in the community in which
the premises will be located.”
“The
board shall refuse to issue a licence to a person or shall cancel the licence of
a licensee who has been convicted of an offence under section 124.1.
“The
board may cancel a licence where the licensee has been convicted of an offense
under the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.”
This act
was updated a couple of times, including 2005 and 2009.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 8
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 8 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?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Liquor
Corporation Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 23
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I move that the
Committee rise and report Bill 23.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 23.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker and Chair of Committees.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 23 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 23 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, reported received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from
the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 21.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak to this particular bill, An Act to Amend the Members of the
House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and the Portability of Pensions Act. I
was actually sitting in the Chair that you occupy, Mr. Speaker, when this issue
first came to light and was dealt with by the Management Commission.
The
provisions of this act come from the recommendations of the Management
Commission. They've been passed by the House of Assembly Management Commission –
or I should say they come from the recommendations of the MCRC, have been
approved by the Management Commission and now on the floor of the House of
Assembly.
Just to
give the Explanatory Notes: “This Bill would amend the
Members of the House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and the
Portability of Pensions Act.
“The Members of the House of
Assembly Retiring Allowances Act would be amended to clarify existing
provisions of the Act that relate to entitlement and calculation of registered
and supplementary allowances to be consistent with the terms of the pension
plan. The Act would also be amended to provide that a member of the House of
Assembly who is elected for the first time to the House of Assembly on or after
November 30, 2015 must reach the age of 60 years before he or she is eligible
for a pension; is not eligible for a reduced pension; accrues a pension at an
accrual rate of 2.5% of the MHA's or minister's salary per year; and is not
permitted to be credited with pensionable service under the Members of the House
of Assembly pension plan for service accrued under another public sector pension
plan or a pension plan of another government or entity.
“The
Portability of Pensions Act would be
amended to exclude a member of the House of Assembly or a minister elected for
the first time on or after November 30, 2015 from the application of the Act.”
So, Mr.
Speaker, this is in keeping with the recommendation put forward by the MCRC, who
is chaired by Sandra Burke, and it's also been in keeping with what was passed
and debated at great length in the Management Commission – I got you, Madam
Clerk. I'll look after it; not to worry.
It is in
keeping with the Management Commission, Mr. Speaker. It's in keeping with the
decision of the Management Commission and it's now on the floor of the House of
Assembly. So I'm delighted to speak to this act and I'm delighted to have second
reading of the act – the seconder for this particular act is the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 21 entitled, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring
Allowances Act And The Portability Of Pensions Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly
Retiring Allowances Act And The Portability Of Pensions Act.” (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Everything I said before, ditto.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So much
for prep time for the hour to get ready for it; in response, I'd like to echo
exactly what the Minister of Finance just shared with the House of Assembly.
It's a privilege to stand and speak to the amendment to Bill 21.
As the
minister so eloquently outlined earlier, just to give our viewers a little bit
of understanding of how it works, every time after a general election, and a
General Assembly is put in play, a commissioner is appointed and a commission to
oversee the operations of the House of Assembly, particularly around the
compensation for its Members.
Obviously, it's a moving target relevant to the economic situation, the
attraction to the office, the makeup of a particular office for an MHA and the
compensations that are related to that. People would say over the years there
are certain packages around the pension plan for MHAs that were fairly
lucrative. If you come from an area where you get a civil service pension or if
you come from the private sector where there are no pensions, it was a very
lucrative program.
To bring
it in line, from a financial point of view, a full review is done and there are
interviews that take place with staff within the House of Assembly, entities
outside but, particularly, MHAs who are interested in meeting with the
commission and outlining some of their concerns or issues or clarifications. But
it's also particularly for the commissioner and their staff to ask questions of
MHAs for clarification, how they operate, how they operate their offices, issues
around travel, issues around compensation, what's expected of them from a
financial point of view, what are some of the challenges they may have. It's
finding that balance between what is a proper compensation for an MHA in their
operations versus what's acceptable by the general public when they see an MHA
offer themselves for office and get elected, and what's a workable and palatable
process there from a financial compensation.
What
people don't realize, there are a lot of integral parts there. There are
different variations of travel, for example. There are some MHAs, colleagues
here in this House, who have to take helicopters to get to their district. What
does that mean from the way of what kind of a travel budget they would have?
There
are other ones who have to travel hundreds of kilometres any given time. There
are some who travel by ferries. There are some who can just walk out their door
and be at Confederation Building and their whole district is within a two- or
three-kilometre radius. So it depends there. It's not as simple as people saying
here's a budget for everybody to operate and everybody operates the same way.
There has to be that type of dialogue. I give credit – I've been here for three
of those, and everyone is unique, because a new commissioner comes in and has a
different perspective from sitting outside. It's always – my three times,
it's somebody with a legal background, because it is a legal document and it's a
piece of legislation. So they have to understand the integral workings, because
it's a contract between the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the MHA who
signed on and was elected by those people.
It's very encompassing at some times for the discussion of
understanding, as I mentioned earlier, the balance between what it takes to be
able to run in office and be an MHA and represent your district in a holistic
approach, and being financially fiscal to be able to ensure the job gets done,
but the taxpayers are not paying exorbitant amounts of money. And, just as
importantly, that it's fair across the board. That every MHA, regardless of the
size of their district geographically or the population, have the ability to be
able to represent their
constituents and have contact with those constituents. There may be various ways
for that to be done. So there is a whole compensation process. I just outlined
this to give our views there a better understanding of what it is that we're
debating here.
If there
are major changes, some may be just operational, but if they are major changes
that affect the legislation – and the compensation is put into legislation
around our salaries, the compensation for travel, the processes there and the
pension plans, particularly. In this case, one of the big ones here is around
the pension remuneration and the process. It also includes when you can pull
down on your pension. When, at the end of the day, what that compensation would
be.
Issues
around if you had a previous pension within the civil service, how you roll that
into an existing one, and are the benefits to the taxpayer or are the benefits
to the MHA or is it a balance there to make it attractive enough and not to make
it such that a person who's committed their career for a number of years in a
pension plan in another program would lose or in any way financially be
detrimental to that ability to draw down on that. While at the same time, it's
also to ensure that it's lucrative enough to be attractive, but not too
lucrative, that there's segregation between those with pension plans and who pay
into it, to those who don't have it and that big gap.
There
has been discussion over the last number of years – this is not the first time
that the pension plan process has been reviewed and changed. A number of years
ago, the same review was done and then it was a recommendation to move it down.
This will be our third or fourth movement from a pension plan over the last
probably four or five Assemblies, and reviews.
At one
point, it was extremely lucrative. There may be some Members here, which I think
there are, who are on the higher pension plan. It was reduced and reduced again
now. It's at a point now where it's in line with the civil service and the norm
of what a private sector pension plan program is about. It's reduced to 2.5 per
cent annually for a Member in the House of Assembly, but it also notes some
other changes in when you can draw down on your pension. You can't do it now
before the age of 60, to be eligible; you're not permitted to be credited with
pensionable service under the MHA Pension Plan for service accrued under other
public sector pension plans. So you can roll those into it, but now you have to
wait longer to be able to draw down on it.
What
that basically says there is that the pension money, which is the public purse,
can't be drawn down until a particular time. That gives, obviously from a
financial point of view, an opportunity to be able to spread the payments out
over a period of time and it makes a commitment that if you're going to go into
the public service, particularly as an elected official, that there's a certain
commitment you have to make and there's a certain service you have to provide
before you can draw down on it. That's basically what was being discussed, but
the crux of the whole process here was to ensure that the financial liability
was in legal par.
Now,
there's been some debate – I went and met with the commissioner for a period of
time and outlined some of my concerns relevant to equality across the board.
Some of it was relevant to my own district and some of my own concerns. A lot of
what I discussed was what I had heard from my colleagues and had watched in the
House, how some of the other ones have some particular challenges around travel
and compensation and what was reasonable at the time.
The
commissioner, we had a good, open debate. We had a follow-up debate in this
House after hours in a round table discussion with the commissioner about some
of the recommendations. No doubt, some we fully agreed with. Some we questioned
whether or not they were in the best interest of the MHAs when it came to travel
and these types of things, but there's always going to be a difference of
opinion. Somebody from outside would see it from a different perspective than
somebody who deals with it on a day-to-day basis and understands that.
There's
nobody in this House who doesn't understand the reality that we have to deal
with when it comes to being open and transparent and showing to the general
public that this is about a career choice we've made, that people have entrusted
us to do and that fair compensation is fair compensation, but elaborate
compensation is not acceptable. It's beyond the norm.
I think
we've come to a good balance, particularly around pensions. The travel things
are out-of-pocket expenses. If you take on any job, you don't expect to lose
money out of your own pocket when you take that and you provide the service.
Those
things were debated, and at the end of the day an acceptable agreement was put
in play. Some had benefited a little bit more because of the challenges they may
have in their districts. Some other ones, it took away from what was already in
place but everybody understood this was about being fiscal, showing that we all
do our part here and we all try to have a balance done as we look at that.
The
pension plan; it's unfortunate that not everybody is on the same system. That's
based on the principles of when the review was done and the recommendations by
the commissioner would outline exactly what at the time. It's a snapshot in
time.
When
things are financially good, an extra 1 per cent on a pension is not a big issue
for people. I say people from outside, from a different perspective who are
looking at it, and saying: okay, well that's reasonable. But a different
snapshot in time, and there are more challenges financially or these decisions
having to be made around program cuts or services, then that extra 1 per cent
adds up to X number of dollars, which people then see. Maybe it's money that
could be better used to either provide a new service or continue an existing
service. So it was a balance there.
The
other thing is there's an understanding, while being a politician is a unique
job, and coming from somebody who was a civil servant realizing at times you'd
say you'd never want to be a politician and there are times being a politician
you'd say you'd never want to be a civil servant because of the challenges and
that there. Now what we've done with the pension plan, we've brought it in line.
The pension plan for MHAs is in line now with the pension plan for civil
servants.
There is
a continuum there. There's an even line that we all service the people in
different capacities and that the pensionable years – and there has to be.
That's one of the attractions of going into public life, but particularly as an
MHA, that there is pension plan.
Now, I
know people say lucrative pensions and all of this, but what people forget is
this is no different. I explained this to some of my bureaucratic friends only
recently when we were having a debate about it. The pension plan for an MHA now
under this new section is the same as for them. Keeping in mind, the longevity
in politics, at best, is eight to 10 years in most cases. If you draw down at
2.5 per cent from that perspective, it's not a big pension.
A number
of years ago, there were people who left the House of Assembly after 10, 12, 15
years when the pension plan was 5 or 7 per cent. It was a little bit more
lucrative and there were higher salaries at those times. Keeping in mind,
salaries for MHAs have been rolled back over the years. There are a number of
things there. At that point, it seemed really lucrative. That's why I want to
just explain that things have changed dramatically to bring things in line with
the other jobs that are within the civil service, so that there's a comparable
process as part of what's being done here and the taxpayers get the right return
on the salary base and the compensations that are being put forward.
As we do
know, obviously we're in the midst of the civil service and the various
bargaining units looking at exactly what would be an acceptable agreement to
sign off on. We all understand that everybody has to do their part from a
financial point of view. That's part of the whole review process, after the
election and every General Assembly by the commissioner, is to look at, for the
next four years, what's a proper compensation process. What's fair and
equitable, and what sends the right message to the general population out there.
The
right message is we're all in this together. In hard times, we all try to dig in
and do our part. Sometimes we have to bite the bullet, as they say, a little bit
and take a little step back from a financial point of view. In good times, when
the money is there, you plan properly and maybe the compensation is to get back
to where you were.
That's
how it works within the civil service, how it works within government and
that's, I think, the compensation that came through here. It wasn't always
exactly what we liked and it wasn't always what we agreed to. The difference
here, when people come into – sometimes in a General Assembly the changing is
you come in on a job with an understanding this is what your compensation is
going to be.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, in this process the compensation review process
dictates that they can then implement mid-stream – like what's happening here –
changes to the compensation process. That then becomes, is it fair? If you take
a job with a company, if you take a job in the civil service, you know when
you're coming in, you know what the compensations are for that job, you know
what the pay scales and that are as part of that.
That's
the process. That's why the review process is there, and the MCRCs are there for
that particular reason. The commission does a review; they come back with a set
of recommendations. Then the Management Commission reviews that. They'll do a
debate on that. They may want to try to go back to the commission. They can
accept all or none, or some of the commission's recommendations.
In most
cases, unless it's extremely off to one side, they'll try to define a happy
medium there and try to come up with something that's sellable to the general
public and acceptable in the House of Assembly. Sometimes it's not always the
right plan, but in this case decisions were made. There was a lot of debate. At
times a lot of clear understanding of why people had some concerns and some
challenges around the commission having a better understanding of exactly the
roles of MHAs.
Maybe
that's a role we need to play. We need maybe somewhere down the road to get it
out there more of exactly what the operation is of an MHA. It's not only just
sitting in the House or attending somebody's function, but the whole operations
of getting to your constituents, dealing with your constituency issues, the
travel parts, all those types of things.
There
may be some recommendations down the road around the configuration of the
commission, what that looks like. Maybe the traditional way we've done it isn't
in the best interest of those being elected or those people who are elected to
serve when it comes to developing a proper compensation package that will be
acceptable and will be in the best interest. There has to be a happy medium.
That it's attractive enough to be able to ensure that there are a multitude of
people who put themselves forward as candidates.
In this
day and age where we have booming industries in the oil industry and the
construction industry, we have some very healthy salaries out there. What was
considered a great compensation package as an MHA – and still there are. From an
everyday point of view, it's a decent compensation package that we have, but for
the amount of work that people put into it, there has to be at least an open
dialogue as to what's needed when you're travelling, when you're working within
your district, when you're trying to communicate with your constituents.
So there
are a number of changes there that we're still – it's a living entity. We've
managed to make some changes to some of it that we feel was in the best interest
of serving our constituents, and that would be through our communications and
our access.
The
pension plan, while there was a lot of debate, it never got to where I think
everybody would have wanted it to go at the end of the day; but it was a
recommendation that was put forward by the commission and was adopted by the
Management Commission. This is what we're here now debating, this part of the
bill itself, as part of it.
While
I'll be supporting that, I do think that it should go on record that the whole
review process has to have a different configuration. Maybe there needs to be a
component there of either former MHAs or Citizens' Rep, or somebody else who
also goes to that legal counsel, to look at the whole perspective. Maybe there's
a better way as part of the whole compensation package that we can better serve
our constituents, and that could be through the use of technology, it could be
how we travel, it could be how our offices are set up or it could be how we
communicate.
All of
these things are important when you look at how you're going to serve your
people in your districts, how you're going to recruit candidates and how you're
going to follow the procedures in the House of Assembly. That all has a bearing
on the compensation package that's offered and it has a bearing on how often and
to what degree you can meet with your constituents.
They are
all very important issues that have to be put out there. This particular one
here is around the pension plan and the drawing of the pension plan, and there
are a number of changes, as I noted here, about the age when you can draw down
on it, how long you must serve to get elected to be able to do it, the
percentage now has dropped dramatically from the previous proportion.
The
other issue here is that there was a lot of debate around if you're going to
change the legislation it should be on a go-forward basis. Those who were
elected were elected based on a formula and a compensation package that they
felt was comparable to either the careers they were coming out of and would keep
their own lifestyle and understand that would still make them be able to serve
their constituents.
We had
recommended that and we had lobbied for that that this would be on a go-forward
basis like it has been in the past. When they made a change, it would be the
next by-election or the next general election. Unfortunately, that wasn't the
recommendation by the commission, so this is one of the few things that become
retroactive to when people got elected. So it's a unique set-up, one of the few
times I've seen it in government where something is retroactive to take away
from a particular group who came in with an understanding of what a compensation
would be or what the benefits would be or what they were entitled to.
That's
one issue I have with this, particularly around that. The compensation, that's a
negotiated thing. I understand the philosophy behind it and I can see where it's
transparent and clear that we're all on even keel, but it does not put it
because you come in with a different expectation – and unfortunately, some
Members here are going to lose because of that and came in with a different
understanding and a compensation package that has changed midstream, and changed
midstream that it goes back for them.
So it's
unfortunate, but we will be supporting it. The Management Commission have
decided that; the commission had made the recommendation. It does fall in line
with the pension plans of other civil servants, and similar to what may be in
the private sector. We do understand the intent of it.
Mr.
Speaker, on that note, I will sit down and say that we will be supporting this
amendment to the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand and speak tonight to the bill that we are dealing with. I'll
get the full name to put it on the record: Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Members
of the House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and the Portability of Pensions
Act. I thank the Minister of Finance for bringing it forward and I thank my
colleague for Conception Bay East – Bell Island for the good explanation he just
gave of it. I won't have to repeat a lot of what he said.
I think
it is important. I am a Member of the Management Commission at the House of
Assembly, so I was part of the work that went into looking at the issues that
are involved with here in this bill with regard to the pensions. We did come to
an agreement with regard to accepting the recommendation of the MCRC, the
Members' Compensation Review Committee.
I think
it's important for the record and for the public that we do just a little bit of
reflection on where the MCRC came from, and why I think it was so important that
we accept recommendations of the MCRC. In 2006, Chief Justice Derek Green was
given the unenviable job of looking at the whole issue of the House of Assembly,
and why we had come to a point where we'd come, which led to Members of this
House actually being imprisoned because of abuse of use of funds.
It was a
very difficult moment for everybody. I was just coming into the House of
Assembly at that time, being elected in a by-election, and it was not an easy
time for anybody. I think for people who may not remember 11 years ago – and I
can't believe it, but it's 11 years ago since that commission was set up. I
think it's good for us to remember what it was that Chief Justice Green –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Who, by the way, we
recognized in the House last month and who did retire on November 30. I think
it's really good to remember what it was that he was dealing with and where the
MCRC came from, where the Members' Compensation Review Committee came from.
Chief
Justice Green was dealing with a system in this House – and I hate to say it; I
think there are still systems like it elsewhere in the country – which fed and
led to what had happened in terms of abuse of funds by MHAs. He was shocked – I
remember meeting with him in the summer of 2006 and his own reaction to the
system that we had, the system of the Internal Economy Commission, which was an
internal committee of MHAs that was secretive, that did not even include all
political parties that were sitting in the House of Assembly, that made its
decisions without any public accountability whatsoever. The MHAs set their own
salaries. The MHAs often did that secretively and what the new salary was didn't
even come out publicly.
It was a
shocking system that we had. In his report, Chief Justice Green wrote: “It is
time to return to a more principle-based system. The need to rebuild public
confidence requires it.”
It is in
that spirit of trying to restore confidence in the House of Assembly and
confidence in the Members of the House, confidence in our whole system, it is in
that spirit that he made the recommendation and he created, basically, the
Members' Compensation Review Committee.
What he
stipulated in his report was that an MCRC would be set up after every general
election, so every new session of the House of Assembly. I think we're now in
the 47th session. After every general election, when a new session started, an
MCRC would be set up.
Now,
it's interesting to note that there have been three MCRCs since his report was
done. When he did the first report, we had already had a general election. So
after that session, it was a little bit later into the session before that MCRC
was set up.
Then,
the next time, which was 2011, it was set up a bit earlier on. I'm happy to say
in 2015 it was set up rather quickly, which was good. But the bottom line is
that it's always been there since his report was passed in this House in 2007.
It has always been there that the MCRC is going to be set up, and there must be
an expectation by MHAs that changes are going to happen because the MCRC has
been set up.
That was
the argument, actually, that was used by the MCRC when we met with them, when
the House of Assembly Management Commission met with them to go over the
recommendations. That was their argument for the fact that Members who were
elected in 2015 would be affected by the pension decisions that they were
suggesting, just like all the rest of us would be affected immediately by
whatever recommendations they came out with.
For
example, two MCRCs before that we had cutbacks in salary as MHAs. We were
literally cut back and then we were frozen, the salaries were frozen. That
happened immediately. We got elected, there was an MCRC, recommendations were
made and we immediately had cutbacks in our salaries. We all accepted it because
it was the MCRC recommendation.
One of
the things, then, that's so important is that the MCRC has to make a report
respecting the salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions to be paid
to MHAs. That's what they're set up to do, nothing else. That's what they're set
up to do. In actual fact, the MCRC that was set up after the election of 2015
was the first one that really took head-on the issue of pensions. The other two
had sort of talked about it and sent it back to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Final
warning.
There's
one Member who's speaking right now in debate. This childish behaviour of
barking out little comments is going to stop.
Please,
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As I was
saying, the MCRC, when it was struck – no matter which one it was – were of the
understanding that they were making recommendations affecting the people who
have just been elected. That's the whole idea. That's why, as a Management
Commission, I remember with the very first recommendations of Chief Justice
Green himself, we felt we had to let every recommendation be tested. We have
since made changes to some recommendations, but they're thought out very, very
carefully.
He wrote
the legislation that we passed. We passed that legislation because we had to
show that we were willing to have a third party make decisions. We were willing
to have a third party come up with the recommendations that affected us as MHAs,
as public servants, as people who are paid from the public purse.
So when
the MCRC for 2015 finally took head-on the whole issue of pensions and came up
with recommendations, I personally, as a Member of the Commission, really
believed that we had to listen to their recommendation. We obviously did, as the
Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island explained.
We did
have quite a bit of discussion in the Commission. There were differing positions
and we worked it all through. It was all worked through publicly. It was all
there for people to see and the decisions are there.
Even
though it took a lot of discussion, we eventually came to the point of realizing
that in the spirit – it was certainly my understanding – of the report written
by Chief Justice Green, in the spirit of his recommendation, that we make
decisions based on principles. The principle that we had to make our decision
based on here was that we put our affairs in the hands of the third party, the
MCRC, and we follow what they recommend.
I guess
in one way I do disagree with what was said by the Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island. That's a struggle he went through; it wasn't one for
me. I didn't feel that we had a decision that was a retroactive decision; it was
a decision no different than the decision that was made when our salaries were
cut. They were cut immediately and we accepted it. We had been elected with one
salary and a year or a year-and-a-half later – I can't
remember the timing – our salaries were cut.
Based on
that, I, as a Member of the Management of Commission, right from the beginning
thought we had to go with the decision of the commission. The commission is set
up so that we have objective decisions made. The commission is set up to listen
to the public and to get opinions from the public. The commission is set up so
that the benefits, the salaries and other compensation that we receive as MHAs
are part of a very public open and transparent process.
This is
what the MCRC is specifically charged to do, to review the salaries, allowances,
severance payments and pensions. After they go through the process, they're the
ones in the best position to issue the recommendations. Right from the
beginning, I, and the caucus I represent, believed that we should follow those
recommendations.
I wanted
to go through all of that so that those who are listening or who may be reading
Hansard down the road will remember
the history that led to where we are tonight, and the history of how the
decisions are now being made, where the recommendations are coming from as they
relate to salaries, benefits, pensions and severance, et cetera.
There
will be other things that we will be dealing with here in the House as well.
Tonight it's the pensions, but there are also changes around severance as well.
I feel good that we're following the recommendation of the MCRC. I think we
should be proud that we're following the recommendations of the MCRC and that we
have been doing that. I think it is important that we do it.
As the
Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island said, we do now have a pension
situation where things are more in line with the public service pension. If we
had the same process 20 years ago that we have now, it would have been that way,
I would suggest, right from the beginning. I think it's important that we
realize it needed to change, but it's one of these things. At some point the
change had to happen and now is the time for making that change.
Having
said all that, I want to thank, once again, the Members of the Commission
itself, our own Commission, the House of Assembly Management Commission, for the
work that we went through. It took months for us to struggle with this one and
to come to the decision that we came to.
I also
want to thank the Members' Compensation and Review Committee for finally taking
head on the issue of pensions and giving us a recommendation that we struggled
with and have finally come to an agreement with and that we're dealing with
tonight in the bill that I hope we will pass.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take too long, but I am going to make a couple of comments.
I guess
being an independent Member, I don't sit on the Management Commission nor am I
represented on it. I find out about it through – I can obviously watch the
meetings, I can read Hansard and so
on, but I'm not part of that group or not part of that decision-making process
and I don't have anyone who is representing me on it. So I did just want to, for
the record at least, make a couple of comments on this.
As has
been said, and I'm not going to belabour the points that have been made, we all
know how the Management Commission came to be. We know how the MCRC came to be.
It all stemmed from the constituency allowance scandal that happened and so on
and Chief Justice Green's report. He put in a number of measures to ensure that
we had openness and transparency when it came to Members and limiting their
ability to determine their own benefits and salaries and allowances and so on
and to do it in an independent way, to do it in a public way. That's what this
process is about.
I'm not
going to argue the merits of the decisions that were made by the commission, the
MCRC. They were set up as an independent commission of very qualified
individuals. Members may agree with all, none or some of what the
recommendations they made are; but, at the end of the day, whether we agree with
it all or some of it, or none of it or not, it's irrelevant.
The fact
of the matter is we put these people in there to review Members' benefits. It
happens every four years, basically. They review Members' benefits, including
salaries, including pensions and so on. They make a number of recommendations.
The recommendations go to the House of Assembly Management Commission, which is
made up of Members of the three parties, and they can either adopt all, some or
they can reject all the recommendations.
I do
understand why the Management Commission does have that ability, that they don't
necessarily have to accept everything that is brought forward, but I do strongly
believe that if we truly want to be true to the process and we want to make it
independent, and we want to ensure the public have confidence in the
recommendations and have confidence in Members of the House of Assembly, then I
think it's important, unless there's something that's totally out in left field,
that we should be accepting the recommendations of the commission as made.
I think,
for the most part, that's what's been done. Certainly these particular
amendments here – we've had others, but these particular amendments here in this
bill relate to MHA pensions. Obviously, it went through the process. The
commission believe it's fair. All Members may or may not necessarily agree, but
at the end of the day it's the process we all signed up for.
We knew
this process existed. Certainly, we didn't know what the findings at any given
time every four years when the MCRC do their deliberations and they review these
things, we don't know what the outcome is going to be, but we do know it's going
to happen, and we do know when it happens things could change.
Things
could change, whether that be changes that we like, whether it be changes that
the public likes. That's always debatable I guess, but at the end of the day we
know that process is there. We know change could come. We know it's done in an
independent – we would hope – fair manner. I believe it is, and I think it's
incumbent upon all of us to accept all the recommendations, including this one
here.
So with
that in mind, I will be supporting this bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I think everybody has had their comments on this. I'm not going to
prolong the debate because it is something that was put forward by the
Management Commission as a result of a recommendation of the MCRC. It went
through a great deal of debate and I think all Members of the House now agree
with this particular legislation.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 21 be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act And The Portability Of
Pensions Act. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill “An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring
Allowances Act And The Portability Of Pensions Act,” read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 21.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly
Retiring Allowances Act And The Portability Of Pensions Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Members Of The House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act
And The Portability Of Pensions Act.” (Bill 21)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive, shall they carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried
On
motion, clauses 2 through 7 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?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Members
Of The House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act And The Portability Of Pensions
Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 21
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 21.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 21.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 21 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 21 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 3, second reading of Bill 3.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
continue on where I left off as it relates to Bill 3, which is the
Court of Appeal Act. This is a brand
new piece of legislation.
Just to
provide you some background, I actually spoke to this on November 14. At that
time, I had an opportunity with – that day we had the presence of Chief Justice
Green who was the chief justice of the Court of Appeal and who has since
retired. We wish him well in his retirement and thank him for all of his years
of service.
I took
the time during that part of the debate to stand and speak to what the
independent Court of Appeal Act is and
what an independent Court of Appeal is. I think how I would put it out there to
the layperson is that anybody that's using this court will not actually see any
change in how the court operates. They're not going to see a change in how
matters are heard; they're not going to see a change as it relates to how the
procedure works, but there's been a history.
I went
through Hansard from what I said that
day. It's amazing when you go back and read what you had to say for a piece of
legislation. Sometimes you're half scared if you're going to be able to make any
sense of it or not. After going back and looking at what I said that day I can
pick some sense to it, thankfully. I think I put a bit of an explanation on what
we're trying to do here.
This
really is a perception thing where if you have these two courts, the Court of
Appeal is hearing appeals from decisions from the Trial Division. Having them
theoretically in the same division, under the same act can create a perception
that it's not truly independent. That's what we're trying to do here. If anybody
asks questions on, well, why are we doing this, there's a lot of theory and
reasoning behind this.
What I
would also say is every other province has moved this route. As I said before,
some have changed their judicature acts, some have created stand-alone pieces of
legislation. That is where we have gone. It's been a significant amount of time
in the works. This is one of the bills that came up when I first got into this
role after having discussions with the chief, with justices, with people in the
department. So I was happy to work with them.
It's
amazing when you're going through this where you might have a simple concept in
mind that you want to do, but if you're not careful how you legislate, how you
draft up legislation – that's why I speak so highly as it relates to the Office
of the Legislative Counsel and to the staff who do this work, because you can
basically cause yourself possible harm down the road if you're not careful in
how you put the wording now.
I think
this was a case where – we all want to make sure because a lot of times when you
read the legislation, in some cases, the original drafters may not be around to
talk about what the intent was. We have to look at it now.
I think
we have a good piece of legislation here. I know that the Court of Appeal is
certainly supportive of this; I know the judiciary is supportive of this. I
think it's the right move. I'm happy to answer questions to it. I will say I
wish Chief Justice Green was here to be able to sit in this House and answer
them because he'd do a heck of a better job than I would.
I'm
going to try my best to stand up and answer questions. I look forward to the
comments from my colleagues on the other side as we continue on into Committee
after this.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to
rise very briefly on this bill this evening, on Bill 3, An Act Respecting an
Independent Court of Appeal in the Province, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you on this
side of the House, we certainly support the bill and credit the government, but
also Justice Green, in speaking with the minister and seeing this done.
I know
Justice Green is soon reaching his retirement at the end of this year. We
certainly wish him well. To see this happening, which most other jurisdictions
have done, is a good thing and good progress.
Mr.
Speaker, in 1975 the Judicature Act
was created. It created a separate appeal division within the Supreme Court.
This act will essentially separate those two courts, the Supreme Court Trial
Division and the Supreme Court of Appeal division, as it's known, Court of
Appeal – separate them as two separate courts, separate and be distinct from the
Trial Division. Some jurisdictions, as I mentioned, have created a separation
and have done so under the Judicature Act,
which is what the province is suggesting through the process of this bill. It's
what will happen to create that separation.
Mr.
Speaker, I thank Justice Green again. I use this opportunity to thank him for
his – I don't remember – 42 or 43 years of service in the province to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador and the justice system; a highly regarded Supreme
Court justice, as he's been known to be. I wish him well. This is probably one
of his official last – I can't say decision, but last pieces of work that will
significantly change how the judiciary is established and set up in our province
into the future.
In
closing, Mr. Speaker, we support the bill. We intend to support this bill under
Bill 3, the Court of Appeal Act.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to take just a moment to speak to Bill 3,
Court of Appeal Act.
While
the bill itself is fairly thick, it's kind of deceiving in a way. I know there
are a number of things that have to be done, from a legislative point of view,
just to make it all right and proper. But at the end of the day, as the Minister
of Justice has indicated, really all we're doing here is we're just trying to
change the set-up, if you will, with the Court of Appeal to make it an entity
onto itself.
Nothing,
as I understand, as the minister said, is going to change in terms of the
day-to-day operations of the courts. I'm glad to hear that the judiciary and the
legal community have been consulted and they're all on board.
I think
it's important to note, and really what this is about is a matter of perception,
as the minister said. Perception can sometimes be reality in many people's
minds. It's very important that people have the perception and the confidence in
our court system. I think it's important, in this case, that people have the
perception and the confidence that indeed the Court of Appeal is a separate
entity and that it's not simply a rubber stamp.
No
different, Mr. Speaker, than when you look at the workers' compensation system
and you have an internal appeal process. Many injured workers would tell you and
feel that's something that, in their mind, is only just adding to the process
and lengthening the claims because it's really a rubber stamp in most people's
minds.
You have
the person at the desk next to the person who made the decision, who is
basically reviewing the decision of their colleague. In many cases, it just gets
rubber-stamped. That's how injured workers feel. That's why we have a workers'
comp review division, which is a separate entity unto itself, so that people can
have their matter independently appealed and they have some confidence that
indeed is going to be an independent look at the case.
This is
no different in the sense that somebody goes to provincial court to the Trial
Division on the matter and if they're not satisfied with that decision, they
have the right to appeal. People just need to have the confidence that that
truly is an independent entity, an independent body that's actually reviewing
that appeal and it is not simply a rubber stamp.
We know
it's not. That's not how the system works. The courts are set up independently,
but I think, as the minister said, the idea is to remove any perception that may
be there that that's what's going on. That's really all that's being done here.
It's
being done in other provinces. It makes sense, as I said. From what I
understand, it's certainly something that Chief Justice Green had his hand in.
It's something that the judiciary agrees with. It's something the legal
community agrees with. I have no reason to believe that it's not the right way
to go, given that they're doing it in other jurisdictions and it seems to be
working fine there. So with that in mind, I will be supporting Bill 3.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
am very happy to stand to speak to Bill 3, which is the bill that will “enact
the Court of Appeal Act to establish the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland
and Labrador as a separate court which is independent from the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Currently, the Court of Appeal is a division of the
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador by virtue of the Judicature Act.
“The
jurisdiction of both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Newfoundland
and Labrador would be unaffected by the Bill.”
I would
like to thank the folks from the Justice Department who gave us a very thorough
briefing. When we first arrived, Mr. Speaker, they had smiles from ear to ear on
their faces. They said you are going to be so happy about this bill. They were
so proud to present this bill. They said it's a good-news story. It's a
good-news bill and it truly is a good-news story. It truly is a good-news bill.
I want to thank them for their dedication, for their patience and for the
thorough briefing they gave us.
They are
right; this is a good-news story. I understand entirely why they were so happy
to present it to us. I can imagine that the Minister of Justice himself is happy
and proud to be able to present this bill to the House at this time.
Currently, the Court of Appeal is created by Part I of the
Judicature Act and, in fact, up until 1974, there was no separate
Court of Appeal in the province, and an appeal was heard by three other Supreme
Court judges. In 1974, the Judicature Act
created our Court of Appeal, and here we are today in 2017 looking at a new
piece of legislation, a bill which will create a new act, which will create the
Court of Appeal under its own legislation. It means we'll also have to clear up
some of our Judicature Act. So 50 per
cent of it is on this new act for the Court of Appeal; 50 per cent is sort of
cleaning up our legislation to align it with the fact now that the Court of
Appeal will have its own act.
It's
terrific, it's absolutely terrific that here we are today modernizing our
justice system, and one of the key persons responsible for this work is our
soon-to-retire Chief Justice Derek Green. Earlier in this session a few weeks
ago when he did come to the House when the minister introduced this legislation
and first spoke to it, I said that Chief Justice Derek Green is really a justice
superhero, and I still want to make him a cake that he can wear. What incredible
work that he has done pushing for the modernization of our judiciary system and
of our court system. This is part of modernizing our justice system and how we
make laws, and that's what we're here today to debate.
I
totally and wholeheartedly support this legislation, and I could not imagine
that anybody in this House wouldn't. Again, I think we can be proud of this, as
all the Justice officials are proud of this bill, as the Minister of Justice is
proud of this bill, and I'm sure the judiciary, and especially Justice Derek
Green is proud of this bill. It creates a new act, and it basically pulls out
the legislation found in Part I of the old
Judicature Act and places it in this new bill with amendments to modernize
it and make amendments to the remaining parts of the
Judicature Act to account for the fact
that the Court of Appeal is now in separate legislation.
That is
an exciting thing, Mr. Speaker; it's something that we can all support. The
officials who did give us a briefing, the deputy minister Todd Stanley and
Kendra who has been working with the Department of Justice – I've sat on a
number of briefings that she has given. She's very dedicated; she has expertise
and is so willing to explain to us who do not have a legal background the
intricacies of the bills that she presents before us.
One of
the things those officials described in the briefing – Kendra and Todd – is that
drafting new legislation for the Court of Appeal from the
Judicature Act is akin to untangling two plants which have grown in
the same pot. So there was a lot of untangling of roots.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say again that I believe this is a wonderful step
forward. There's still work that has to be done in the modernizing of our
judicial system. A lot has been done that's exciting, particularly in the
administration of our courts and in the administration of files, but we still
have a way to go. I believe that this Minister of Justice is very committed to
that. I look forward to seeing what other work we will do together in this House
of Assembly in regard to our justice system.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank my colleagues for their thoughts on this piece of legislation. I also
appreciate the kind words that they expressed about the staff of JPS and I agree
wholeheartedly with the comments that they make. This is a group of people that
do tremendous work.
This
stuff can be very difficult even for someone – I have a background in it, but
the way that they can take it and explain it certainly makes it easier for me
and makes it easier for those with a non-legal background as well. I appreciate
that skill set.
I want
to thank them for their work. This has been some time in the making. This is
something that's taken a long time to get done. Even though it is a positive
bill, as I said, this does take time. There has been a lot of work put into
this.
On that
note, I will close debate on second reading and I look forward to the Committee
stage.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 3 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, Court of Appeal Act.
(Bill 3).
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “Court of Appeal Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a
Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 3.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 3, Court Of Appeal Act.
A bill,
“Court Of Appeal Act.” (Bill 3)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
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:
Clauses 2 through 48
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 48 inclusive.
Shall
they carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 48 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:
Court Of Appeal Act.
CHAIR: Shall the
title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I
report Bill 3 carried 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. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would move that the Committee rise and report Bill 3.
CHAIR: The
motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 3.
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask
leave to sit again, the Speaker retuned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER
(Trimper): The hon. the Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the
Whole.
MR. WARR: Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report Bill 3 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 3 without
amendment.
When shall the report be received? Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
call from the Order Paper, Order 4, and we will continue second reading of Bill
19, which I believe left off with the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll be
very brief because I did speak at some length on this the last time it was
called in second reading. I spoke for about 25 minutes on it. Bill 19 is An Act
to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
No. 3. The bill is to make some changes under operations of the House of
Assembly.
As I
spoke in second reading, there would be changes to the act to impose a duty on
the Commission, officers and staff of the House of Assembly service to document
advice, deliberations, decisions and recommendations of the commission;
establish a penalty for failure to document advice, deliberations, decisions and
recommendations; require the Audit Committee to review and report on whether the
Speaker and the Commission have complied with the act in relation to
consideration of recommendations; and also to change the quorum of the
Commission to a majority of its members, from which one shall be the Speaker or
Deputy Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the last time I spoke – there's one other section there that's being
changed and that's to correct some inconsistencies in reference to severance,
pensions and so on – I did raise a concern in second reading and will do so at
the point in time when we go to Committee in debate regarding the quorum. I will
not take the time tonight to repeat all that I've previously said at second
reading, but I know the Government House Leader and the government is aware that
we plan to speak further on concerns around the quorum changes when we get to
Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a moment to speak to Bill 19, An Act to Amend the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 3. I'm not going
to repeat what has been said. This has been discussed now – I know the Leader of
the Official Opposition spoke to it for well over a half an hour and the
minister have spoken to it. So I'm not going to repeat it all. I'm just going to
say for the record that the concern that the Leader of the Official Opposition
has around quorum, I think it's fair to say that would be the same concern that
I would have. I would suspect it would be the same concern that the Third Party
would probably have as well, Mr. Speaker.
I think
it's important that when you look at this, really, the issue is going to be
that, in theory, now the government – regardless who the government is because
it's not about this government; it could be a new government at some point in
time and the same thing would apply. Basically, when they're having meetings of
the House of Assembly Management Commission, all you need now is a simple quorum
which means, in theory, a meeting could be called and you could have none of the
Members from any of the Opposition Parties there as part of that process.
The
Commission is really set up in a way that you have government Members and you
have an equal number of Opposition Members and you have the Speaker there, if
there was a tie, to break the tie and so on. I think that the concern would be
that meetings could be called and could go ahead, in theory, with just
government Members, without input of the Opposition Members.
It's
fine to say you can attend a meeting the same as government can attend a
meeting. But if you look at the mere numbers, in a lot of cases, the government
holds the vast majority and a lot of times the vast majority of Members in the
House. Opposition might only have very few Members in any case and so the
availability of those Members – I understand they don't want Opposition Members
to be able to avoid meetings intentionally because there are things they want to
delay and so on. I understand that. I understand the importance around meeting
and having meetings.
Perhaps
there are other things we can do, other things we can look at in terms of the
scheduling of the meetings of the Management Commission, when it's done, to make
it a more convenient time so that there will be people available from both sides
of the House of Assembly.
To
simply have the ability for the government Members to just have a meeting and go
ahead when there are no Opposition Members present, personally I have – it
doesn't impact me; I'm not on the Management Commission as an independent
Member. I wouldn't be on the Management Commission. But in fairness to the
process and not just this situation with this government, with these Opposition
Parties, it could change at some point in time where there'd be different
governments in power, different Oppositions, different makeups and so on. There
could be more independents, who knows, but the fact of the matter is that I
think if you're going to have this, the quorum should include Members of all
parties –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
– and rather than just simply
say that government can go ahead without Opposition Members, I think we need to
look at other ways of ensuring that Members from all relevant parties are there,
and deal with that as opposed to just simply going ahead without them. That
would be the concern I have for the process.
The
other changes that are being made here around the Clerk and reporting and
documenting what's happening at the meetings, I think that's actually happening
anyway, it's just that it's not covered off in the legislation. I don't see any
concerns with any of that.
The
quorum, for me, is something I would have a concern about. But I guess we'll
wait until we get to Committee and some questions can be asked. Perhaps we'll
see what comes back on that or even if the government is willing to look at
making some changes or whatever.
Again, I
just want to put it on the record that I do have concerns about the quorum
piece. The rest of it I have no issue.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to make a motion to adjourn debate. We will pick up this discussion
tomorrow on this particular bill, Bill 19.
MR. SPEAKER:
On Bill 19.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will
continue on with Bill 19 in the near future.
At this
time, I would call from the Order Paper, Order 3. This is a motion regarding
Standing Orders.
I'll
just clarify with you, Mr. Speaker, when I entered this one previously I read
the motion in its entirety. I don't know if it's necessary that I do this again.
I don't believe so.
For
anybody who is watching, it's quite lengthy. It has been read into the record
once, so it would be in Hansard; it
would be found on the Order Paper, which can be found online. To those
individuals who may be dying to know what the motion says, I'd say there are
means to see what we have here.
What I'm
going to do is I'm just going to speak to this and give some background to the
Standing Orders. I'm not going to belabour it too long. I know my colleagues
across the way will also have their opinion to put on this.
To those
who may be watching: The Standing Orders are the rules that guide us in this
House of Assembly. They're obviously quite dated and they extend from many, many
years ago. I know over the years there have been attempts to modernize them, to
change them. Some have been successful, many have not.
It's
funny, the book itself is not a very big book when you look at the Standing
Orders, but it is a sizeable amount of work. It's a sizeable piece of work when
you look at it all and trying to change it. These have been around in some place
– they guide the MHAs in what they do.
Upon our
election in 2015, I was placed on the Standing Orders Committee. What we've done
since that time – again, certainly, it's not what I would call an all-party
committee that we think about, but it does have Members from all parties. There
are, I think, a couple of Members besides myself from the government, there are
two Members from the Official Opposition and there's a Member from the NDP who
would sit on it.
What we
decided at that time was we wanted to look at the Standing Orders and was there
a way to change these in some way? Can we look at them with the view of
changing? I'm not into changing something just for the sake of it, but it was
something that was also in my mandate letter. When we talk about modernizing the
House of Assembly, when we talk about making it more accessible, when we talk
about enabling Members to do a better job in representing their constituents and
in doing better work here in the House of Assembly, this is what all forms part
of it.
What we
decided, instead of taking it and doing a wholesale change, which might take you
a number of years – and I know it's been looked at in the past and nothing
happened – what we said was as a committee we would sit down and identify a few,
work on making that change happen.
It was a
lot of work; we sat down on a number of occasions. We'd sit down, we'd identify
what we wanted to look at, we had research done – and I thank the staff for
everything that they've done to enable this – we've had some debate, there's
debate amongst Members, debate amongst caucuses on do we like the changes, do we
not like the changes?
Then we
come back and at the end of the day there's a motion that comes to the House
that, as Government House Leader, I move this resolution that will be debated
here in the House. Government can't just change this just because they want to.
Government moves it, but it's a resolution that will be debated by all Members
and voted on here in the House by all Members.
In the
past we've looked at things – in fact, I remember when I was in Opposition.
Perhaps the biggest issue when I was in Opposition first starting off, when we
got elected in October of 2011 as the Official Opposition, was that government
at the time didn't open the House. There was a lot of fuss about that publicly.
One of the first private Member's resolutions that I moved in the winter of 2012
was to amend the Standing Orders, and not the Standing Orders themselves, but
the appendix which had the sort of schedule that was not followed to make it
more official.
What I
will say is that didn't go well. The government of the day voted it down very
strongly. It was actually a contentious debate over trying to put in a fixed
schedule. What we did is when we had the opportunity we looked at this, we
debated it, we talked about it and it's something that we put in place.
We put
it in provisionally, had a look at it, see how it worked. It's giving us some
consistency. Members know when the House is going to open; media know when the
House is going to open. Do you know what? More importantly than that, in my
opinion, staff know when the House is going to open, bureaucrats know when the
House is going to open, departments know. It allows them to do a better job of
planning.
It could
be a very short notice in the past, whereas now we have a very good idea of when
the House is going to open, similar to what happens in Ottawa where you know a
significant period of time in advance when the House is going to open. That's
just one example of something that we changed. We've worked as a committee for a
couple of years. It doesn't get all the attention of something like a
legislative committee – which is also something that we're going to work on –
but it's very similar in the sense that we've worked together as legislators, as
MHAs, to make the House better.
So what
we have here is we've changed a couple of small things. Some of these are very
minute and obscure in the sense of they may not matter to individuals outside
the House. One of them is just something as it relates to the vote for a
Speaker. This is just to aid in that vote. Mr. Speaker, you were a part of it
not too long ago.
A lot of
times we also take advice from staff. I've only been here six years, some of the
staff we have had have had the benefit of being here a lot longer. So they can
see how these Standing Orders apply, they can see how, in some cases, they're
limiting, in some cases they're there for a reason, but always we can look at
the possibility of change.
In this
case we have the annual calendar which, again, we've been working on this
premise. This is something we're bringing forward now to change. What we're
saying here is “the House of Assembly shall meet each year” – not may, it shall
– “(a) for the Winter-Spring sitting, commencing not later than the first Monday
in March and concluding not later than the first Thursday in June ….” Then for
the fall sitting we're having some consistency here.
It lays
out a House schedule that all Members – that everybody – can look to and have a
better idea. We've had situations where governments have chosen not to open the
House. That still applies here. That's still something a government can choose
to do, but in this case, we like what we have and it's something that, I
believe, all Members of the House are going to support. I think it will be
unanimous.
We talk
about daily sittings. One of the things we did was brought in another sitting,
back on Wednesday mornings, to allow for more time to debate legislation, to sit
here and do the people's work. We needed more time. Previously, Wednesdays were
only a PMR day, whereas now this allows for a better flow of legislation through
the House and through the different stages. There are still parts when we talk
about extended sittings.
One of
the big things that get a lot of attention is a filibuster. What we've talked
about here is, again, we can't limit the ability of the House to sit. We're
sitting here tonight; it is 9:42 p.m. on the clock. Normally we'd be closed at
5:30, but in some cases you have to sit past that hour. What we wanted to do was
to limit it. We felt that it's better for everybody. It may – we'll have to do
an analysis of this – do better in attracting people here to the House.
I can
tell you I've been through sittings where you never knew if you were going to
sit at night. We sat at night very frequently and it's tough on everybody,
especially tough on those with families in the area especially.
What we
have here now is that the House – and I can still remember one of my first
debates where a Member of the Opposition, my colleague, who was the minister of
Municipal Affairs, stood up at 5:30 and because he had stood up at 5:30 the
debate continued on. Now, what we have here as you know, Mr. Speaker, is that
the House Leader is allowed to ask that the House not adjourn, but unless that
motion is made, the Speaker will adjourn at 5:30.
It
continues on here. We've reduced the number of Member's statements. This is just
more to make it proportional. The number of Members in this House has changed
from time to time. It's been at 48. It's been higher than that, it's been lower
than that and in the last two years we are now at 40 Members. It seemed not to
be the right fit. If we had six Members' statements for 48 Members, right now if
you're dropping it by eight Members, it would make more sense to have five.
That's just something where there's a system used to come up with that number;
it's not just tossing it out on a whim.
The
other thing we've talked about here, too – and this is one that really does, I
think, matter to people – is petitions. Petitions are something that is so
important to democracy, so important to this House. Every Member in this House
has either put one in the House at some point or read one or seen one. We
realize their value. Petitions do have value; they can be used to create change.
I have seen it happen and it's very positive.
What
we've tried to do is to make them more accessible. There are ways to go here,
too. One of the things we've talked about is online, but that requires some
resources that may be outside our grasp right now. A lot of it, too, is written
in a much older language, not as accessible to people as what we should have
now.
We've
actually changed the petition template that's in the appendix. We just can't
allow anything to come into the House; it has to be done by a certain format.
That's fine, but what we've done here is changed the background. It's laid out
very clearly, I think, where we lay what exactly needs to be included in a
petition to be admitted into this House.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't think this is going to be extremely significant to those
outside, but that's fine. Because Members who sit in this House, who have sat in
this House and who will sit in this House, this matters to us. Our job is to
represent those individuals that are out there. I think what we've done is
modernize the rules that govern this Legislature, to modernize the rules that
govern us as Members. Do you know what? People who say that we can't have
committees here and can't work together, quite simply, they're just not paying
attention.
This is
something we've been doing for two years. We've had multiple changes and we've
had very good meetings with very civil debate, actually. There have been
disagreements amongst Members. Just because we all agree on something doesn't
mean we get there by snapping our fingers. We'll sit down and have very good
debate from a number of viewpoints and a number of perspectives and that's what
we've come up with here.
The
changes we made in the last couple of years may be the first changes that we've
seen to the Standing Orders in some time. I'm happy to see progress there. I
thank the Members for their co-operation; all Members who sat here, as well as
the staff who helped put this together.
On that
note, I've said my part. Obviously, we will be supporting this. I look forward
to the comments from my colleagues across the way.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand and talk about the Standing Orders Committee. I have
to agree 100 per cent with the Government House Leader about the intent of the
Standing Orders review, the benefits and the process that was used. It's been
very beneficial.
I was
privileged to fill in a number of times with the committee and be part of the
whole debate, as part of the process, for a fellow colleague and now I'm the
permanent Member on that. I have to echo what we talked about here: There is
open discussion. All three parties are represented there. Staff are there giving
their due diligence, their advice and doing the research to ensure the whole
review is very professionally done, it takes in multiple jurisdictions and it
really meets the intent of what the Standing Orders Committee was all about.
As the
Government House Leader noted, this was about improving the process in the House
of Assembly, making it more family friendly, making it more community friendly
when it came to everybody who's involved. That includes not only us as elected
officials, but everybody who worked to ensure the legislation we put through,
the access the general public had through the mediums that we use here and
ensuring that the information and research is done in a professional manner,
that the best decisions on the best pieces of legislation are put in play.
That's all relevant to how we operate the House of Assembly.
Having
set schedules makes it very professionally run, people can work around
constituency-oriented stuff, staff can work around the time frames on preparing
legislation. The other staff that we have here, who are responsible for the
security and the operations here, would know exactly when the House is sitting
and the time frames. We know exactly when we start and end and the processes
that are put in play.
There
are a number of pieces of legislation here or changes to the Standing Orders
that particularly address how we make everything have an even flow and
everything is consistent. What I particularly liked about it was this wasn't
etched in stone, we came to a consensus. We will adopt certain things, put it in
as a pilot. If we find, for some reason, we didn't take into account a
particular nuance or a particular issue that may be relevant –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
wanted to ensure that we came back and we tweaked it, if necessary. Or if we
felt this wasn't in the best interests of the operations of the House of
Assembly, we could go back and change it again.
It's
been a very open dialogue process, very professionally done. What I do like is
in the dialogue with staff, they'll take the lead and go get the information and
come back, share that with us. Then we'll have another open debate about what we
like in one jurisdiction versus what we don't like in another one. We'll take
parts of it and say: In the scenarios that we have in how we operate the House
of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador, here's what we feel is in the best
interest of being able to operate it so that the general public are confident in
what we're doing in here, they understand the process and they know how it's
going to unfold.
We, as
MHAs, while we're here, obviously this is a living entity and we're building
this as we move through it, but anybody else who's out there thinking about
throwing themselves forward as a candidate would now know this is how the House
of Assembly operates. I know scheduling. I know calendars. I know what it would
take to work in my district. I know what time is allocated.
One of
the particular things that I like – and I can't even attest to being close to
understanding what some of the MHAs who represent rural and remote communities
go through – about having, particularly when the House is open, that
constituency week; just as you fall behind on everything else, being able to get
back to your district and start catching up on issues that need to be tackled,
knowing that most that live in remote and isolated areas, for travel time, lose
a day.
We get
out of here Thursday evening; some don't get on the road until Friday morning.
Some don't get home until late Friday night and then they have Saturday to make
up their constituency stuff. Don't forget, they also have a life. They have
their own families, they have their own responsibilities. Then, in some cases,
Sunday they're coming back again. So it's part of that whole process.
Having
this constituency week to get back in your district, to catch up on some things,
to fulfil your responsibilities that people elected you for – we all get elected
to represent our districts in the House of Assembly. That's very important.
That's where our legislation is done, it's where we set the laws and the
policies that are going to guide us and it's where we debate the financial
spending and operations of this province of ours. But to do that, you need to
have certain equitable rules and regulations or practices that work for
everybody's benefit.
That's
what the Standing Orders Committee has taken on as their task. I give full kudos
to the Government House Leader and the government for instituting this and
making it a priority.
No
doubt, I was one, when I went, that I would be sceptical that this was going to
be here are what we want to implement and because we have a majority, no matter
what the Opposition or the Third Party says – we can have a debate and all that
– this is going to go through as is. It hasn't been at that level. We've had
some debate, as was mentioned; we've had some lively debate. We've had debate
that came back to the House on some changes to the Standing Orders. But at least
the opportunity to have that debate, have that argument as to why you feel this
is in the best interest, or how it should be changed to better modify the needs
for everybody in the House of Assembly.
We've
had a good, open dialogue when we look at what the House Leader has outlined as
the particular things that needed to be addressed. It clearly outlines exactly
the process. As I mentioned earlier, this is an ongoing process. This will be
years in the works, particularly in updating some of the outdated legislation or
process of how we operate in the House of Assembly – some of it going back three
and four decades since it's been reviewed, looked at, updated.
So now
we're trying to make it modern; we're trying to make it fit with a new approach
to government, open and transparent, where people would know where we are, what
we do at any given time. They wouldn't be having to check are they in the House
of Assembly, what are they doing now, what are their time frames, when can I
watch them, how do they distribute information, these types of things.
It was a
good exercise that, no doubt, will continue as we move forward. There will be,
as the minister had noted, big debate over changes here. A lot of these now are
ones that we've already, in some cases, have tried as a pilot. They're ones that
we've added on to existing ones. They're ones that we've reviewed the existing
legislation that we have in the operations of the House and made modifications
to it.
Where we
are now is in a good place, in my opinion. We're in a place here where we can
debate, and I would think we can have a healthy debate, but we have a process
for that. We know what changes we're making would be in the best interest of the
operations here. They're in the best interest of being able to modify the House
of Assembly, but particularly let the general public know what our role is here.
Again,
there is an underlying process here of encouraging more people to stand for
office. The more things are clear, and the more people understand what it is
they're committing to and work their own personal lives and their schedules
around the House of Assembly, the easier it is and the more fluent and the more
productive it is for us to be able to debate legislation and outline exactly the
future for Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
standing committee here, as the minister was taking us through all the
particular ones, gives you time frames and dates, puts a continuum line as to
how things fall into play, as you know when there's an election, when the House
opens, when the House closes, the length of debate, how you can go.
There
was some debate on filibusters, which was a big debated issue over the last
sitting or so about the process. Now it's confined to certain time frames.
That's fine; that's where we are with that now. We had some debate over where
that went, but there were arguments about how it's done in other jurisdictions
and what would be in the best interest here of ensuring that you could still get
your information out to the general public and still take your stand on a
particular issue; be it a policy issue, be it a financial issue, from an
Opposition point of view, and still would let the government have the time
frames to be able to pass legislation and move things forward. Because we just
can't stall things for the sake of stalling them, but we do have to have the
democratic process to be able to play out the way it should.
We've
managed to move some things down, some things up, to find that happy medium, to
ensure that the representation that we're using and what we're doing here serves
the purpose of the Standing Orders Committee. We talked in the debate around
things that people before may not have given a lot of notice to, like petitions.
The world has changed in how you can present petitions, how you can access
petitions. We've talked about electronic petitions, the number of names, where
people must reside. Can it be people who are part-time residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador? Do we open it up to everybody as long as it's a concern of them
that affects Newfoundland and Labrador citizens or Newfoundland and Labrador
programs and services?
We've
had a good, open debate around what works, but we haven't done this in
isolation. As I mentioned earlier, what we've done here is we've looked at not
only jurisdictions in our own province, but how the commonwealth, some other
places does it. While we don't have to follow other people, we're unique that we
make and design our own programs and services and laws that reflect the needs of
the citizens of our province and the operations of how we operate the House of
Assembly here, we've been able to do that. It's been unique in a couple of cases
where we've taken a piece from a jurisdiction in Canada and something that's
been done in another country and evaluated that to say this is what would work
best in Newfoundland and Labrador and let's try it.
What I
like about this is it's open to try things. If it doesn't work, there's no cost
to the populous. There is no program that's been taken away from people. There
are no expectations set to the general public and then all of a sudden you're
taking that back from them. It's our own internal operations to find the best
way to provide the services that we are elected to provide in the House of
Assembly to our constituents. Sometimes the modifications are more beneficial to
certain MHAs in certain areas, and that's fine, because at the end of the day
not every MHA has the same challenges that another one would have. So you need
to be reflective of those when you outline your Standing Orders.
We know
the things we changed the last time, sitting on Wednesday mornings, which gives
us a direct time – there's no Question Period in that – for legislative debate.
You're not rushing legislation. You have an opportunity to debate it. It's not
distracted by petitions or anything else that may not be in the same realm. Once
you start the debate, that debate continues for that period of time and then it
flows into a Wednesday afternoon. So you're not losing a day of debate. You're
continuing the debate from the previous day or a new bill at that particular
time.
So that
was one key thing that everybody agreed made sense. We get more debate time,
more opportunity to talk on legislation. More opportunity for the government to
put legislation through, an opportunity for staff to know when they're putting
in the line departments, the legislation, and for the House of Assembly staff to
be able to reflect on exactly what are the operations and what fits under the
criteria.
It also
gives the Oppositions an opportunity to review it, make amendments, have debate
on these types of things. So it's been a great exercise. There's no doubt, I
think it's going to move to the next level where once we've started to put in
play what we feel is a good working operation here, then we might take on some
heavier things.
There
are a number of other issues that are still outstanding over the next, no doubt,
year or two that we'll get heavy into, which would mean a little bit more
research. It would mean changing a little bit more of the Standing Orders but
will also include, to a certain degree, I suspect, a lot of debate because some
of it's going to be controversial. Some of it is some of the heavy stuff in
Standing Orders of how we operate the House of Assembly. That's all healthy
because a lot of this hasn't been debated, as I mentioned earlier, in decades.
The two
benefits here are the general public get an understanding as we debate what it
is the House of Assembly has as its operational model. We as MHAs, particularly
here – I think it's probably the largest group of new or first-term MHAs – get a
better understanding of exactly how the House operates and, more importantly,
how it should operate to reflect their ability to actually provide a better
service and be more engaged in the House of Assembly.
It also
reflects the needs of all the people who support what we do here in our
districts, but particularly in the House of Assembly and in government, the
ability to be able to more efficiently do their jobs because they know exactly
what it is that is expected of them. They know the time frames related to it,
and they know the regulatory process that's going to be used.
So we're
in what I feel is a good mode moving forward on this. I'm looking forward to the
next step. This will be the start of implementing, as part of the Standing
Orders, the first of the legitimate legal changes that we'll put through.
A lot of
other ones we put through before the last sitting were based on the principle
that if they didn't work we could revoke them. We wanted to test them, and we
did test them. To date, there hasn't been any real issue. No real fallout from
it. No real push back. It has benefited people. I've heard the media say they
like the schedule. I've heard the general public say they like knowing the
schedule of when the House is open.
I know
as an MHA, knowing where the schedule is works perfect. Knowing how some of the
other legislative things we've changed, the time frames. We know what will
happen at 5:30 on any given evening. We know what can happen at 10 o'clock at
any given evening. We know what can happen at 12 o'clock on any given evening.
We know on Wednesday mornings what we're doing. We know when we're going to
break. We know what we're dealing with on a Wednesday morning on legislation. We
know then what we're dealing with on Wednesday afternoon. We know what we're
dealing with any other day of the week when we get into legislation as part of
that process.
There's
a whole open discussion here. What I didn't realize until I got on the Committee
was how much of a process there is in the House of Assembly. When you do your
orientation, it's not about the logistics of it. It's more the simple things:
You're an MHA. Here's your responsibility to your constituents. Here's the nuts
and bolts of the House of Assembly, but to understand the day-to-day operations
here and some of the nuances that need to be addressed and could be improved on
and making it a new modern House of Assembly.
We've
definitely come a long way over the last 18 months or so since the Committee has
really taken on moving things forward. We've had ideas coming from all three
parties. We've had ideas being shared by staff. We've had ideas being put
forward by former Members who said: Look, if we were in the House of Assembly
years ago, this would have made it easier and it would have been more
beneficial. You've learned from those types of things.
It's a
process now where I think we can catch up on 20 years of not reviewing this,
very quickly in the next two years and really improve how the House of Assembly
operates, really improve how the perception of the general public is around what
we do in the House of Assembly and, particularly, make it family friendly,
citizen friendly and staff friendly. That would improve the whole dynamic of how
we operate here and make it more efficient.
I do
like some of the other things we had talked about here as we move forward around
private Members, and this is no ill respect to anybody who's ever presented a
private Member's resolution, but they're almost in the same theme. We've been
doing that continuously. So we're having dialogue and discussion around how
private Members' resolutions are presented and the debate around what they are.
I think
that's a new fresh perspective. It's not something we're going to propose that's
going to be entrenched. It will be something that may be a little bit different
and may be a spinoff from what we've already been doing with another added from
some other jurisdiction or another approach that's been brought to our
attention, or something that we think may work.
We'll go
through that exercise after we talk about it in Committee and then bring it here
for the debate. After it's adopted then we'll put it into practice. If it finds
this is in the best interest, that we're getting either the quality or we're
getting the community more engaged on the private Members' resolutions, or
there's a different process we use from a Committee point of view that presents
those, then obviously we entrench that for an ongoing basis.
We've
had a lot of opportunities to have that dialogue, and as we've talked about,
this is another example of how you can prove that the Committee structure works.
I'm a real believer in the Committee structure. I think we need more of that in
government to get to that point. I think there's an opportunity here for
all-party committees to look at legislation, policy, programs or operations in
government to ensure we get the best bang for our dollar.
We've
only sit here for a short time in the House at any given time because we all
have responsibilities back with our constituents. So you want to maximize the
use of that, and the best way to do that is having Committee discussions so that
at the end of the day you have an agreement on how we're going to move forward.
Everybody has their input, everybody brings their experiences or their party's
beliefs, or their understanding from the general public of what has been said,
or what's needed, or what's missing and then collaboratively we have that
discussion and we come up with a consensus.
As is
indicated here, as you note the number of clauses we put through and the number
of amendments under Standing Orders is significant. They're the first step in
actually making a full continuum from when you come into the House of Assembly,
understanding the operations, to the time frames, to the responsibilities. As we
get a little bit further down the road, we're going to get into some of the
heavier things around the structure and that, then, I think will be the meat of
what we do.
I'm
hoping, I'm confident, what that will then show is the all-party committee
process can be expanded. Not only because of Standing Orders, but this will
prove if we can come to a consensus and make major changes in our operations in
the House of Assembly, we can do that in how we operate the government in
Newfoundland and Labrador; and how we come to a consensus in advance, how we can
come up with better ideas of implementing programs and services, how we can
support what we're hearing from our citizens, and how we can then
collaboratively come in here as a collective body and have the general public
have respect for the debate we've had, have respect for the decisions that are
being made and, more importantly, have support for what we've made because it
reflects their own needs.
Not
everything will be perfect for every citizen out there, but the process we use
will be more open, more engaged and more inclusive.
So, Mr.
Speaker, with that I'll take my seat and say I will be supporting these
amendments.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's – Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to rise today in this debate related to changing the Standing Orders of
the House.
For the
benefit of the people who may be listening at home, the Standing Orders of the
House are sort of like the rules in which we govern our affairs here in this
House and govern the debates we have. The first place we look, if we want to
determine if what we're doing is right, is the Standing Orders of the House. If
the issue we're dealing with is not spoken to in the Standing Orders of the
House, we then look to previous practice in this House of Assembly or previous
practice in other Legislatures as well for guidance in to how we operate.
The
Standing Orders of this House are very important documents. Not very often are
they changed in a significant way, but I think these changes that have happened
here are very significant. I'm very pleased I've been a Member of the Committee
that brought forward these changes.
The
Standing Orders set out the calendar of the House and the way we deal with
various issues. It's sort of like the
Robert's Rules of Order for the House, the Standing Orders that guide our
actions in the House.
This
motion that the Government House Leader has brought forward outlines some
changes to those Standing Orders. The changes are really brought forward by a
Committee called the Standing Orders Committee of the House. This Committee of
the House has representatives from all parties here in the House. I think the
changes they've brought forward have been very beneficial.
One of
these changes is the Standing Orders 4 and 7, which deals with the way we elect
a Speaker here in this House. This is sort of a new practice for this House. It
used to be that the Speaker was chosen by the Premier and put forward a motion
and it was ratified by the House. That's changed to now we have an opportunity
to vote on who becomes Speaker.
One of
the changes to the Standing Orders sort of clarifies some of the ambiguity
around the process for electing the Speaker. That is sort of some of the growing
problems, or the problems we're refining as we implement this new process of
electing Speakers, a relatively new process, Mr. Speaker.
Another
major change we've brought about here is having a set schedule. It used to be
the House would be called back at the will of the Government House Leader.
Government could sort of change the schedule and the amount of time that the
House sat on a whim, or whatever was politically beneficial to them in some
circumstances. So this change gives us a fixed schedule, or a more fixed
schedule which allows for more certainty from the MHAs point of view, but also
from the point of view of the staff of the House in terms of when they have to
have legislation ready to bring forward – departmental officials, when they have
to have legislation to bring forward to the House. So it adds to the certainty
around the operations of the House.
Another
very significant part of those changes to the schedule of the House is the
establishment of what is commonly referred to as constituency weeks. I think
that's a very positive change in this House because it allows us to better serve
our constituencies.
When
we're in the House of Assembly we have the demands of constituency issues,
people bringing things to us they would like us to deal with, people wanting to
have meetings with them, especially for Members who have districts outside of
the capital area. It's very difficult for me to get time while the House is open
to meet with someone during regular business hours, for example.
For
example, the Bay St. George South Area Development Association wanted to have a
meeting with me and because we had a fixed schedule, we have this constituency
week, I could set a meeting with them and be certain I was going to be able to
make it to the meeting at that time. There are many other examples like that
that I could use.
These
constituency weeks allow for more certainty and allow us to better serve our
district. Basically, how it works, we have three weeks with the House open.
Members often go back to their constituencies during the weekends, Friday and
the weekends, but the travel time – the time we have in our districts are
limited while the House is open. So this constituency week, as others have said,
allow us to catch up and allow us to do some of the business that we have in our
constituencies and to serve our constituents better, which is very important.
Another
part of this is we know the schedule of the House well in advance. We know when
we're going to be in the House so we can plan our own affairs in a better way.
Also,
the motion allows for flexibility in terms of emergency items that might come
up. For example, a month or so ago this House came back to deal with the issue
related to special ballots. That wasn't something we had scheduled to do, but
this bill continues to allow for that flexibility to call the House back if we
have some items that need to be dealt with on an emergency basis.
Another
thing in relation to schedule is the daily schedule of this House. We usually
meet here Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. We come here at 1:30 p.m. One of the
things we've done is added a Wednesday morning session, which allows us to get
more legislation done, but it also allows us to continue with our Private
Members' Day on Wednesday where we bring in private Members' motions. Private
Members have an opportunity to bring forward items for debate, items they want
to have debated in the House.
Other
Legislatures across the country have more robust Private Members' Days. They
have private Members' bills; they have private Members' motions. They have some
other sort of items like that that allow private Members to bring forward items
and have them debated and dealt with in the House. So that's something maybe we
can look at in the future as a Committee in terms of bringing forward changes to
the Legislature. The way Private Members' Day is dealt with, I think, is a
positive thing.
Another
way Members bring forward things to the House is through Members' statements. We
have one-minute statements in the House; now we have six. This change brings it
back to five. So five one-minute statements by Members from every side of the
House and there's a schedule done up which rotates.
Also,
the duration, they're very short, one minute. In our House, the Members'
statements are of a non-political nature, non-controversial topics
congratulating people who've done things, special things in the community,
recognizing someone in the community, to recognize a group. So there are always
these sorts of very positive statements and recognition of what the people are
doing in the community.
In other
jurisdictions – for example in the House of Commons, the members' statements are
very political. Sometimes these are the ways that members get in their political
digs. So it's very different in this House. I think, personally, that
restricting it to non-controversial items, non-political items, is a very
positive aspect of what we do here in this House. So it's a very positive thing.
This
motion also brings about changes to the Standing Orders in relation to
petitions. Petitions are very important things. They're one of the few ways that
citizens can bring forward items to this House of Assembly that they feel are
important. They've been around for centuries. One of the main points of a
parliamentary system is that people have a right to petition their government on
issues that they think are important. Petitions, this sort of sets a more, I
guess, standardized form, a simpler form, a more direct form for our petitions.
So it's a very positive change to the Standing Orders.
Again,
just in conclusion, I think it's very positive changes that we're bringing
about. I look forward to continuing to work on the committee and bring forward
other changes to the way the House operates, and other positive changes.
For
example, others have mentioned the committee structure, the all-party committees
and the fact that we can – the time in the House is very valuable and it's
expensive to keep this House in operation in the evenings. If we can take some
of this work and some of the debate away to a smaller committee, all-party
committees, where people have a chance to look at some of the defects of a bill
before they come to this House, I think it's a very positive thing. Rather than
us bringing legislation to this House and seeing it for the first time on the
day that we debate it, or the week that we debate it, I think there are many
positive changes we can have in terms of the way committees can help the work of
the House.
I'm
looking forward to some of these other changes being looked at by the committee.
I'm very pleased to see these changes brought forward to the House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to this motion tonight, the motion to do with changes
to our Standing Orders. I'm a Member of the Standing Orders Committee, along
with my colleagues who have spoken. I could stand and say ditto and sit down,
but I'll say a few more things than that because we did work through all of this
on the committee together. I think it is important work that we're doing on the
Standing Orders Committee. Some things are a bit more difficult than others in
discussing them. But with most of the points in the motion that we're discussing
tonight, we came to agreement fairly quickly because one of the principles that
was guiding us was to make our work, and the Legislature itself, more family
friendly, but a work-life friendly place to be.
So the
various things that my colleagues have spoken about, things like having a
calendar so we have an idea of what our year is going to look like, the concept
of having some restrictions on how late we sit, the change to having a Wednesday
morning for Legislature so that we cut down on the number of nights that we
might have to sit to discuss legislation, all of these things were there to make
sure that we'd have work-life balance.
One of
the changes which was quite significant, I think, is that for every three
sitting weeks, we have a constituency week. The main purpose for that was
especially for the MHAs who do not come from the greater St. John's area, so
that they'll have a week where, after three weeks in the House, they're back
home in their constituency, dealing with constituency issues. Because for some
of them, when the House is open, between the time of travelling home on Friday
and coming back on Sunday, they don't get a lot of time in their constituencies.
Even for
myself, being here in St. John's, when you're sitting in the House and dealing
with all of the issues that you have to deal with, you can't give as much time
as you'd like to your constituency issues. So having that week after three weeks
in the House in order to do that, I have found very, very beneficial, and I've
heard other MHAs say the same thing.
I agree
with my colleague for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, and I think also with
the Government House Leader, that while we are making changes tonight and
passing this motion, which I know we are going to do, at the same time none of
it is written in stone. There are some things that we probably will look at down
the road. For example, maybe we'll look at the whole thing of the fall sitting.
Is closing at the end of the first week in December, is that good; should it be
a bit later? Should we open up a bit earlier in the fall, the same way in the
spring?
So I
think that what we're allowing ourselves now is the flexibility to realize it's
in our hands and we should let our experience dictate whether or not this stays
for as long as what was there before stays, or in a year's time we may say let's
consider some changes here.
Being in
the form that it is, the Standing Orders are in our hands, and we can make
motions and change it. I think what's really important is that we do that in a
congenial kind of way, in a collegial way. I do say that the discussions have
been collegial; I want to echo that as well, what has been said by my
colleagues.
The one
point I'm going to make is about the petition. I think it's going to be really
good to have a petition in more modern language. The thing I always laugh at –
and this is serious, but not having to deal with the old English spelling of
sheweth, that has always caused problems for MHAs the first time when they see
it. And people who are doing petitions, they see this formula that they have to
use when they come and ask what is the formula that they must use if they're
going to do a petition to have presented at the House of Assembly. So coming to
some modern language for our petitions, I think, is also going to be very
helpful, just user friendly, really. I think that's what we're doing here. We're
modernizing our House of Assembly, the motion and all of the points in this
motion that have been pointed out, I think at least three times, that all of
them are about modernizing.
We have
other work that we want to do, as has been indicated by my colleagues also. I
think we all realize on the Standing Orders Committee that we are going to be
working right through for the next two years throughout this session of the
Legislature. We have much work to do and we will continue doing that work and
bringing motions to the House as the work proceeds. I think in our caucuses we
talk about the issues so that when we go back into the Standing Orders
Committee, we know what the caucus Members are thinking.
I think
the independent Member would agree with me when I say his opinion has been
listened to and sought as well. If he wants to say that's not the case, he can
say that when he stands. But I think it's true that we have wanted – he has sent
letters to the Standing Orders Committee so we have tried to make sure that his
experience is also reflected.
I'm glad
that finally we're getting this piece to the House. Some of it we've been doing
and testing it, some of it we haven't. For example, we have made a change to the
number of Members who do a Member's statement on a daily basis in the House.
That's based on the difference in the number that we have in the House.
We used
to have 48 seats in the House prior to the 2015 election and so having six
Members a day was necessary. Now that we only have 40, having six Members a day
basically meant that you were doing a Member's statement almost every week. The
change to five Members is in keeping with the ratio more or less. As I said,
some of the changes are bringing us up to a more modern time and some of them
are just necessitated by changes here in the House such as that.
That's
all I want to say, Mr. Speaker. It's good to finally get this much stuff agreed
to by motion, but knowing that even after passing a motion, we still have
flexibility.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand in the House, once again tonight, to speak to this motion. Of
course, as has been said, we're discussing changes to the Standing Orders of the
House of Assembly.
Of
course, it's the Standing Orders which govern how we operate here in the House
of Assembly so that everybody understands what the rules are. Obviously, it's
something that we would all hopefully agree to and something that we're required
to agree to and to stand with.
Like
anything, all legislation and so on, over time there's a need to do some review
and to make some changes which reflect the reality of the situation at the time.
We all know that things always change. Sometimes technology changes and
processes change. It's important we have legislation that is fluid and
legislation that changes with the times. Certainly, that can apply to any
legislation in the House of Assembly and it can apply to the House of Assembly
Standing Orders as it has today.
There
are a number of things here that we've seen that are – there are a number of
things which have changed, in practical terms, and there are some other things
that are being suggested that we would change. Some of the things we've actually
been doing, it's just not changed in the Orders. There are other things we're
not actually doing that we're going to adopt and start doing.
The
first one relates to the Speaker of the House of Assembly. Basically, it lays
out a process for the election of the Speaker of the House of Assembly. We have
a process now for an elected Speaker. I think everybody agrees that an elected
Speaker is a good thing, versus appointing a Speaker.
I have
no objection to this particular change. The only thing I would just throw out
there, though, is if we truly wanted to make the Office of the Speaker truly
independent – and I know it has nothing to do with these Orders. If we want to
think outside the box, why not make it truly independent, why not elect the
Speaker? Why not allow the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to elect a
Speaker?
Have a
provincial election. If someone wants to be the Speaker of the House of
Assembly, they run, they're independent, they don't represent any party. They
run province wide. When people are voting in all the different electoral
districts there would be a special spot on the ballot for Speaker. Anyone in the
province could run to be the Speaker and be elected by the people. If you want
to make it truly democratic, then that's something that maybe, at some point in
time, we might consider looking at doing.
The next
item here refers to the annual calendar that's been put in place. Standing
Orders 8 to 11 were deleted and they've put in changes to put a calendar in
place. This is a very good idea. I think, as has been said, it's particularly
good for – well, it's good for all Members, certainly. It's good for the public
to know when the House of Assembly is going to be open, when it's going to be
closed. It's obviously beneficial for the media; it's beneficial for the
Members.
If we're
trying to make the House of Assembly more family friendly, I think that's
something we certainly could do – well, it's something that we've done. I think
it's a positive thing to put an actual calendar in place so that everybody knows
well in advance when the House is going to be open, when the House is going to
be closed and so on.
Mr.
Speaker, part of this, of course, is the constituency week, as has been
referenced. Again, I think that's a really good idea. It's not something that
would be as critical for someone who is a Member here in the Greater St. John's
area. I certainly find it beneficial. The Member for St. John's East – Quidi
Vidi indicated that she finds it beneficial to have that constituency week where
you can really focus on issues in your district.
There
are some people who say: Well, that's what you have a constituency assistant
for. There's no doubt, we all do have constituency assistants that answer the
calls, field a lot of the calls and do a lot of the research on issues on our
behalf. That's very important, but in addition to that, a lot of people want to
meet with their Member. I've had people who have said: I appreciate speaking
with your constituency assistant, she's been very helpful, but I want to speak
with my Member. There are people who just insist on that and fine.
There
are groups and organizations within your community. It's not just necessarily
individual constituent issues, we all deal with those, but we also have many
groups, whether they be community groups, service groups, associations that want
to meet with the Member to discuss issues, to lobby them on concerns they have.
It's not
necessarily just groups in your community like your local sports groups, service
clubs and so on, but you also have people representing different associations,
whether it be the diabetes association, whether it be MS, whether it be people
in the construction trades, whether it be Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as an
example. There are numerous lobby groups or groups out there that have issues
they want to see pursued in the House of Assembly. They want face time with
Members from all sides to be able to discuss their issues, their concerns, to
get your ear so that you understand where they're coming from, to do
presentations and so on.
We get
that as well. It's not just constituency issues per se, but you get from
provincial organizations, regional organizations, chambers of commerce – all
those types of organizations – business organizations, that all want to meet
with you on various issues of importance to them in terms of public policy, to
give you their point of view. Perhaps there's legislation that's going to be
coming forward in the House of Assembly at some point in time they're aware of
and they want to meet with you to explain their issues, their concerns and their
input on that legislation. So that when the legislation comes before the House,
you can debate that legislation in an informed manner and understand everybody's
point of view.
Having
that constituency week, for all of us, is important to be able to schedule in
those meetings, whether it be with your individual constituents, whether it be
with your local service groups, whether it be with your regional provincial
organizations. It's important to do that. Having that week is important.
Obviously, if you're representing a rural area, it's even more critical. One of
the advantages, certainly, that you have here in the greater St. John's area is
that while your time frames are pretty tight – because the House of Assembly is
open on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as we know, from 1:30 to 5:30 and, of
course, on Wednesdays you have your morning sitting and your afternoon sitting –
you can squeeze in an hour here or there, even though a lot of times you're
doing briefing on bills during those times as well. There is some opportunity at
least to be able to meet with some of these groups and constituents in between
if you're in this area, if your constituency is in the greater St. John's area.
If you
are a rural MHA, that's just not possible; it's just not on. The reality of it
is that if the House of Assembly is open for a month or two – like in the
spring, 2½ to three months, whatever it is – then under the old system, if you
will, it was extremely difficult for your constituents or any other groups or
organizations to get face time with you as an MHA. It was very difficult to do
that because you were always here in St. John's because the House of Assembly is
open.
At least
now for the rural MHAs, when they have that constituency week, they know that
one week out of every four they're going to be in their district, they're going
to be available and then they can schedule meetings during that time. I'm sure
that it's extremely helpful for rural MHAs in particular. I think that was a
very good move and I'm certainly supportive of it.
We go
down through this a bit further and we get into some of the times in the House.
Of course, in terms of the times, one of the changes we made in the timing was
the idea of utilizing Wednesdays, which is Private Members' Day, utilizing a
morning session, so going from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. That's an extra 2½ hours
that now is basically devoted to just debating legislation.
During
that period, there's no Question Period, there are no petitions, there's none of
that – Members' statements or anything – it's just debating legislation. It's a
good opportunity for government to try to get through some of the legislation,
more time for debate and it helps speed up the process.
Members
are here anyway. That's the important thing to remember: Members are here
anyway. They're all in town anyway, just as well to utilize that time. I think
that was another positive move that was made to do that.
Also,
this idea of more certainty in terms of when the House would close; the House
now can't close unless the government gives notice that it's going to do an
evening sitting. Even then, there are time restrictions. You're not going to be
here at 2 and 3 in the morning. Besides the fact that I think it could be argued
any debate that happens at that hour of the morning is probably not great debate
anyway, because people are tired and maybe not thinking straight.
I think
it's important to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Thank you for the protection
there, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker,
for the protection.
Mr.
Speaker, as I was saying, I think it's important we acknowledge that when we do
these things, like that, in those hours of the night, that it's certainly not
going to be very productive. I think to do this, to make this change, is a
positive change as well.
As we go
down further here, we talk about notices for private Members' motions. On the
private Members' motion piece, even though it's not here, I do want to reference
private Members' motions. I think that's another change I would like to see
that's not here, but I think would be a positive change.
Private
Members' motions are supposed to be just that. It's supposed to be an
opportunity for each Member who is not a Member of Cabinet on either side, to
present a motion of importance to them to their district. Currently, under the
system we have, Mr. Speaker, it goes back and forth: government, Official
Opposition; government, Third Party and so on. At the end of that particular
sitting of the House, when the House breaks and we start again, we go back to
that same process again.
Mr.
Speaker, if we were to do it fairly and the intent of it, in terms of private
Members, then I believe that through an assembly, which is really the four-year
period, there's ample opportunity for every Member who's not a Member of Cabinet
to have a private Member's motion. They might not have it this year. By the time
it gets around to you, it might be year two, year three, whatever, but at least
you have an opportunity and a fair opportunity to get a private Member's motion.
Under
the current scenario, a Member such as myself, I will not get any private
Members' motions at all. As someone who is duly elected, as a private Member, I
should have that opportunity like everybody else. That has not been addressed
here.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You left.
MR. LANE:
I'd say to the Member for
Labrador West, I didn't leave, but anyway.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes, you did.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
I say to the Member for
Marystown: I didn't leave.
Mr.
Speaker, I just didn't vote to tax citizens into oblivion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, the other issue
that I see here is section 25. We're talking about –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you for your protection
once again, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the other changes here; we're going to take the Members'
statements – currently, we do six Members' statements per day. Because the
number of Members in the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
for the co-operation of everybody here in the House.
I've
recognized the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands and that's who I
wish to hear.
Order,
please!
MR. LANE:
Thank you once again for your
protection, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, what we're doing here, of course, we're going to go from six Members'
statements per day down to five, in recognition of the fact that the number of
MHAs have gone from 48 down to 40. I do understand the rationale behind that,
although I'm sure there are some Members here who – if you had the opportunity
to do a Member's statement every week or two a week, I'm sure there are lots of
people in our district they could do it on. That being said, I understand the
rationale. So I have no problem with what they're doing there.
Mr.
Speaker, then we move down to the section on petitions. I think it's good that
we're going to modernize petitions. We're going to modernize the way petitions
are being presented in the House to make it more modern, more user-friendly and
to set out quite clearly the layout and the form the petition must take. That's
particularly helpful, I think, to newer Members.
Certainly, when I was first elected and saw the petitions, I was a little bit
confused over the way they were done. I guess going back to the old Westminster
system, but we are bringing it into modern day to some degree. I think that's a
positive thing as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I would say on the piece for the petitions, though – and I think
someone did mention it; I did write the Standing Orders Committee on this one as
well – I think the time has come for us to consider electronic petitions.
Granted, I think the committee is looking at it. There's no doubt that it would
require, I would imagine, some additional resources and IT work to be done, but
it is being done federally. You can go in and present a petition online as long
as you have a Member of Parliament. In this case, we'd just need a Member of the
House of Assembly to sponsor the petition.
I think
it's just bringing it in line with the technology that's available today in
modern times. The idea is to make the House of Assembly more accessible to
members of the general public. If we want to do that, we should be embracing
technology to make it as easy, as simplistic as possible for people to
participate.
Currently, with petitions the way they are now on paper, you have to have
someone who has to go around if they have issues, distribute them to different
community centres, stores, whatever, in their community, gather up signatures,
collect them all up and mail them in. Where it would be much more simplistic if
we could have an electronic format where people could do it online. I think it
would be welcomed by the general public. Particularly the younger generation, we
want to get them engaged and involved. I think it's somewhere we do need to go
in the future, Mr. Speaker.
On that,
Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to mention – and it's not here, but I do
want to mention this as well because it is related to improvements that we
should be looking at – is the idea of the closed-captioning. That's something
that, again, I had written the committee on.
I know
recently, I believe, we had a letter or something from a lady here in the
province. Within the last month or so I think she may have written the
commission or contacted other Members about having closed-captioning. I believe
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi, if I'm not mistaken, had responded
to her as well and indicated she was certainly supportive of that initiative. I
hope that's something we can look at and all Members would be willing to adopt.
The
other thing – and it was mentioned here already, it's not in this but it is
related – is the whole idea of legislative committees, all-party committees, to
review legislation before it comes forward to the House of Assembly. I think
that would make the process here run much smoother. There would be much more
input and opportunities for change and better legislation if we were to do that.
I see
I'm out of time, so I will be taking my chair now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I would
like to make a correction of something I said earlier today when I was being
talked over by a Member from the other side. I did point out that it was the
Member for Bonavista. I would like to correct that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it
wasn't the Member for Bonavista.
I'd also
like to just speak very briefly to the motion we are looking at here this
evening. Some of the measures we are looking at here this evening are about
making our House of Assembly more family friendly. I'm just wondering if anybody
sees the irony in the fact that it's 10:47 and we are debating about making our
House of Assembly more family friendly.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I thought the speaker was
going to go a little bit longer seeing it's only 10:47 tonight.
Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great privilege to get up here, as I always say, to
represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. That's a part of what we
are here for, to represent our districts. I always get up and say it and people
make fun of me on the other side. Do you know what? It's true. It's why we're
here, to represent our constituents.
I've
been here now for a few years. I went through three elections. I like some of
the changes that are being introduced here tonight and I like some of the
changes that have been brought in in the last little while.
I'm no
angel in this House of Assembly, but I know that Speakers, and you in
particular, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you for trying to keep decorum
in the place and make sure that people respect what we do here. It's very
important to understand – I'm just going to go back to the days of when my
father was here in the House of Assembly.
I, as a
young man, and I know there are other representatives here who had family
members, mothers and other family who were involved in the Legislature and how
proud we were to be a part of them, to know they were here speaking in the House
of Assembly. I know how proud I was of my father, him being a representative. At
that time it was called St. John's East Extern. I know the Finance Minister, I'm
sure you had the same pride when your mom got elected and everything else.
This
place holds a lot of respect, a whole lot of respect. It's so important that we
take it that way and understand that sometimes we chirp in the House of Assembly
and sometimes we shout stuff across the House of Assembly, but we always have to
remember where we are and how fortunate we are to be able to be here to sit and
represent districts like Cape St. Francis, the beautiful District of Cape St.
Francis. I'm sure every Member in this House of Assembly considers their
district as beautiful as I do.
I really
wanted to get up tonight because I know the changes that are being made here,
and I agree with them. I always look at a way to try to engage people into
politics. The last election in the province, I was very proud because my
district had the highest turnout of voters. I really was proud of that because
that meant we engaged 70 per cent.
I have
never not voted in my life, and I look at 70 per cent thinking it's high. I
really think it's low. When we look at what's happening in our province, we just
had a by-election in Mount Pearl. Every party here in the House of Assembly
worked so hard to be able to get what they could out. I'm sure every door in
Mount Pearl North was probably knocked on three times. I'm sure they received
probably 10 pieces of literature; yet, we only got 44 per cent of the people out
to vote.
I really
believe pieces of legislation and motions like we're doing here today, that we
really have to figure out a way to get more people engaged. I want to see young
people engaged. I want to see middle-class people engaged. I want to see people
who need our help every day engaged. I know the one group I really don't need to
worry about, because as you knock on doors they were engaged, are our seniors.
So if we had people that could really be engaged, like our seniors.
What
we're doing here, it's good because we need to attract good candidates; we need
to attract people to the Legislature. So when we set up a calendar – and I agree
with the House Leader how important a calendar is. It's not only important for
us as people to know when we're going to be back in the House – and I'm sure
every Member of the House of Assembly has heard this: When are you going back to
work? When are you going to go back to work?
Most of
the general public look at the House of Assembly as the only time we do any
work. I try to explain to them there are a lot of times we don't get the work
done that we need to do because we're in the House of Assembly, when people call
us. So everybody, they'll always say to you: Oh, that's good, b'y, the House is
open on Monday; you can finally go back to work.
We need
to educate people. We need to let people know that we work – I know this weekend
alone – it might not be considered work, might not be considered work at all –
but I had four tree lightings, I had three Santa Claus parades and I had two
breakfasts with Santa Claus. I'm expected in my district – as their
representative I'm expected to show up to that stuff, and I do. I'm sure most of
the people here that were out in their districts this weekend did the same
thing, because they're expected to show up. Now, people might not look at it as
work, but I had a lot of lights to put up this weekend and I couldn't get it
done on Saturday, I got it done on Sunday morning because I had a Santa Claus
parade, I had tree lighting and I had breakfast. But that's just part of it.
We need
to work in this House of Assembly so we can engage the general public in knowing
what we're doing, engage people to be able to come and say I want to be a Member
of the House of Assembly; I want to go in and do that job. That's important. So
setting a calendar so that people will know, okay, this is when the House
starts, this is when it's finished, that not only helps us as legislators, but
it helps our staff. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, your staff must be very pleased with
knowing there is a calendar now, because the House is open – preparation for the
House of Assembly, for those out there who don't know that are watching this
tonight, there's a lot of preparation that goes into a House of Assembly.
I'm
pretty relaxed now in how I talk, but I can always remember when I first came
into the House of Assembly almost 10 years ago, that doing a speech like I'm
doing tonight, I'd have to have everything wrote down, everything in front of me
would have to be wrote down. I'd be after practising it about three or four
times. I'd be up the night before looking at it and everything else. It takes a
lot of preparation.
There
are a lot of people that work behind the scenes in every one of the offices. For
everybody that's here tonight, there's a constituency assistant, I bet you, that
does just as much work or more work than any of us. And there's a lot of work
that goes into it. Those are the things people don't realize: how much work goes
into being able to be here to represent – the privilege to be able to represent
them in the district.
So doing
things like setting up a calendar is a good thing. I also look at things like –
I know the Member across the way, he just mentioned – and I wrote it down –
about electing the Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to see you lose your
job. I think you're doing a great job, but that's pretty interesting because
then you have a non-partial person that's up there.
I told
you before I think you're doing a fantastic job. I have no qualms at all with
the job that you're doing. I think you're doing a fantastic job. But it's an
interesting concept that you brought up because people probably say, well then,
that guy is really non-partisan, but that's an interesting thing.
The
other thing that we talked about here tonight and it's very important – I
noticed that city council in St. John's has changed so much this year. They
talked about how there are a lot of young families involved in the council down
there and some of their members have some young children. They sit, I guess, in
committee meetings in the nighttime, they have to be in early Saturday mornings,
and maybe sometimes it's hard to get a babysitter. It was the interesting, the
concept they brought up to be able to have someone in there. That's great for
even the staff members, I suppose, down there because, again, it goes back to
our people.
We have
people in this building tonight, just not only the people who are here tonight,
there is staff in Hansard, there's staff in the Broadcast, there's House of
Assembly staff and everything else here at 11 o'clock in the night doing what
we're doing.
I don't
mind night sittings. I really think that this a good way to do it, but the only
one thing I really was disappointed in – and I guess most Members are going to
disagree with me, and I don't blame them. The one thing I found out in the last
number of years that I've been here, I really like the filibuster. I know it was
hard and it was difficult. I can remember going home getting my three hours
sleep, beating it back again, having to do 10 minutes and 10 minutes, but it was
the one time that the morning news, CBC, VOCM, the first item in their news –
and that's how we engage people, was about the filibuster that was on the night
before.
As bad
as it sounds, that was good because that was a way that we engaged the general
public. That's what we have to do. I know that we're not going to do it anymore,
and I know that the House Leader basically says you can still filibuster, but
there's a pause now. There's a stop.
When you
talk to the general public when you're in a filibuster, they really appreciate
what you're doing. I was on both sides of the House. I was there when we were
government and the Opposition here, they did a great filibuster and we did one
ourselves.
But it's
a way to engage the general public and that's what all these Standing Orders and
everything that we should be looking to do – we should be looking at some way,
some mechanism so that we can get – I don't know how many people are watching
this tonight. I don't say there are a whole lot of people up watching this
tonight, but I'd like to see more people watch it in the daytime. I'd like to
see more people engaged, and changing the process sometimes will do that.
The
sittings on Wednesday morning, I think that's a great idea also because we get a
couple of hours. Sometimes there's legislation that really needs to be debated
and you need to talk about it. Two hours on Wednesday morning is not a bad
thing. Maybe that will eliminate 11 or 12 o'clock that you're here in the
nighttime.
I only
wanted to say a few words. The other one I want to talk about, I know one of the
Members mentioned also reducing now from six Members' statements down to five.
The one thing that as a person that was here in the House of Assembly – never
had the opportunity to sit in Cabinet, but had the opportunity to be a
backbencher, we call them – to always get up and be able to talk about your
district or talk about somebody; I know we had one here today.
When we
recognize people in this province that are over 100 years old – and I think the
Member for Virginia Waters today did it. Do you know what? That makes me proud
to be here, too. That person, I hope he was watching today. That showed that
he's legislated – we are his workers. We work for the people. We were up today
and we applauded him on his 103rd birthday. What a great feeling that was to be
able to do that.
That's
what we're here for. We're not here all the time. I know sometimes we'll argue
back and forth, and we'll roar and bawl at each other and everything else, but
in general terms the general public has to know that we all have to work
together.
If I
want things done in my district, I have to work with the ministers. I have to be
able to go over and talk to a minister. I can't be up here roaring and bawling
at him and then expect to walk across the floor five minutes later and ask him
for a new fire truck or ask him for a road to be done down in my district. Or
the Department of Education, if I have a problem with something in education, or
talk to the Health Minister, when somebody has issues with me, we have to show
each other respect. That's where the respect comes to in this House of Assembly.
I
started off talking about how my father felt about the House of Assembly. That's
what I thought about it back then, too, and I still think about it today, the
respect that we have to have in this place. Once we respect each other, the
general public will get engaged and they'll be more in here –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
I've got one of the ministers
there now giving me a hard time. I don't need a fire truck, so I'm not going to
say anything to him.
It's all
about respect in here and –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm always looking for a fire
truck, I know.
This is
all about the people's House. This is what this is called: the people's House. I
applaud the House Leaders; I applaud what they're trying to do here. I
congratulate everybody that's on that committee because I think you're doing a
good job. Anything that we can do to make it easier for people to get engaged.
Now, the
Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands mentioned petitions. Again, it's another
form in this. I had a group in my district and they had a huge issue with Indian
Meal Line. I went to the minister, I spoke to the minister and we tried to look
for solutions. They said: How about if we get a petition? I said: You know what,
that will give you a voice in the House of Assembly.
I
congratulated the people who went out and took that petition. They went and got
300 names. I got a call from them tonight because I presented it again today for
the third time. He said: We're so pleased that you're up in the House of
Assembly representing us and putting our petition forward. That's what we have
to do. That's how we engage.
I know
you mentioned electronic petitions. I've had petitions given to me that I really
don't want to present here because I don't agree with them sometimes. Do you
know what? The general public out there should have that voice. There should be
some way that we can say to the public: Put in your petition. It will probably
go through the House and go through your office to be able to see if it's in
order. Then people can say: Okay, that's another way that I can have my voice
heard.
I think
that's a great idea. I really do. I know there will be petitions that will
probably come forward that will not be in order or not something we should be
debating here in the House of Assembly, but the opportunity to let people be
able to do it is a great thing. I think that's where we should be. I think if
they send it in electronically or they write the Speaker and they have a list of
names – that people are interested enough to present this – then we should be
able to get in this House and debate some of the things on petitions.
Over the
years that I've been in the House, I have to say I have the utmost respect for
ministers in the House of Assembly. I really do. I understand what they do. I
always look at them to run the departments that they have to run, like the
Minister of Health or the Minister of Transportation. There are a lot of people
underneath them.
When you
look at the House of Assembly, sometimes – I'd like to see some changes in
Question Period where probably the Speaker can say: That's not the question you
were asked; answer the one that you were asked. I know it happens in all
parliaments all over the world.
No
matter what you do, if you watch the House of Commons, you'll see that a
question gets asked and you'll never see the answer. But, sometimes, when
ministers stand up and they just don't give anything near what they're asked –
maybe there's some way we can have the Speaker say you have to ask or at least
mention what the question was about.
I tell
you, that's the one thing I hear from the general public a lot. I'm not
criticizing government now; I'm criticizing us when we were here, too. I know we
never did it either, but I think there are some changes that we could probably
make. The general public out there, when they do watch Question Period, all
shake their heads and say: The question you asked they never answered, or that
had nothing to do with what's happening, so that's a change.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't know if there are other places in the world you could look at
that could have something in those lines that questions come in; maybe something
like petitions. It could be something like people could write in and ask their
questions sometimes. We could have a period sometimes that our constituents, the
general public – as long as the question was in order and the question was
(inaudible). It's another way of engaging the general public. I really believe
that.
What
we're doing here, again like I said, when I looked in Mount Pearl and saw that
only 44 per cent of the people got up on a beautiful day to come out and vote –
we need to do things, we need to change things. Things need to be changed. I
applaud this committee for what they're doing, but in order to get people
engaged – and I really want to see young people engaged. I'm all the time trying
to figure out how to do it.
I know
that today social media is a huge, huge forum. I know that when the last
election came I really wanted to get young people engaged. I have a son and a
daughter. At the time, my daughter was 29 and my son was 26. I was talking to
them. I said: Now, how do I get all your friends? How do I get people down this
way? How do I get them engaged?
They
started a Facebook page. I didn't have a clue what they were doing because I
wasn't too familiar about the Facebook part of it. But the next thing I knew,
somebody called me one day and said: You know you have 2,400 members on your
Facebook page that says re-elect Kevin Parsons? I said: How did I do that? I
didn't know, but it was all through the young people that I had in my campaign
engaging; they got young people out. All of a sudden, one friend tells another
friend – I don't know how it works.
Maybe we
can do stuff in here that can really engage the young people because they're our
future. They're the future of the province; they're the people that we want to
see here in the Legislature. I look across the way and there are some people
over on the other side there and my young companion right here on the side of
me, this young lady here. We need to engage young people. We want young people
to be able to come in here and feel like they are. That's what we are here for.
So these changes that are being introduced here tonight, I hope – I really hope
– that they bring people to our Legislature, that it brings people out to want
to come out and vote.
I go
back to people like Jack Byrne. When I was in the House of Assembly when Jack
was around, I tell you, I met Jack Byrne and all of a sudden I thought he was
the finest man I ever met because he was here for the right reasons. He was a
good man. I've learned so much about him, even since his passing, because there
were a lot of times I went to people's houses and they told me stuff that Jack
did for them. I was just proud to be his friend.
That's
the respect we have to earn in here. We have to all earn it together, and you
start by respecting each other. That's what happens in here. If you don't have
respect for each other in here, you can't expect people to have respect for us
outside. That's what has to change in here.
We all
have to work together. We have to work for the betterment of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We really have to do it because people depend on us. This is our
province. This is where we live. This is where we chose to live. The people we
represent, like the beautiful people in Cape St. Francis, we have to make them
proud that we do what we have to do.
Making
some changes like we made, I'm glad we made those changes, but do you know what,
Mr. Speaker? There are other changes that need to be made. We need to figure out
how to engage the general public. We need to figure out how to get more people
interested in politics. The more people we get engaged in this province, the
better this province will be and the better results we'll have for people.
That's what we're here for.
All
we're here for is to make sure that the people of this province get the results
they need. We live in the greatest province in Canada. We live in the greatest
country in the world, and I happen to live in the most beautiful district in the
country.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
colleague from Cape St. Francis, I can tell you he's a hard act to follow in
many ways. He says a lot of things that are relevant and important because what
we're discussing here is we're discussing a motion to change Standing Orders.
Standing
Orders have been in the House for a while. I have a copy under my desk, as many
Members do, and they are essentially the orders and rules of how the House
operates and conducts the order of business and very steeped in parliamentary
tradition on how Houses operate.
Sometimes people say things: well, you do things a little bit differently or
inefficiently, if I can say that with respect, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes we do.
We have steeped traditions, or traditions that are steeped in history that
provide for decorum and order and a process that was designed many, many, many
years ago to be effective, to be important to the process and to create
legislation. That's what the Legislature is for.
I've
talked about it in the House in the past at times where there are three branches
of government. There's the Executive Branch, which is made by the party that has
the most Members in the House that form the government. The Premier and the
ministers run the Executive Branch of government.
There's
the Legislature, which is where we're here in as legislators. We all have one
vote. No matter which side of the House we're in, or if we sit as a government
party, or as the Official Opposition where we are, if you sit as a Member of the
Third Party or as an independent, each person duly elected in the province sits
as one vote in the House of Assembly at any given time.
Mr.
Speaker, we pass bills. That's what we're doing here today; we're changing the
Orders we have. The government's responsibility, the Executive Branch, brings
bills to the House of Assembly. The Legislature debates them and either passes
them or doesn't. It normally passes them, sometimes with amendments and so on.
Then, the Executive Branch of government, meaning the Cabinet and government
itself, operate and run government under the legislation that is passed here in
the House.
Then, of
course, there is the judicial branch and one of the key factors in the judicial
branch being the courts. The courts will hear grievances from people. If people
want to decide a legal question, or a question about if they've been treated
fairly, or they have a grievance against somebody else, then it's the courts
that do that. The courts are separate.
One of
the facets of our particular system is that while each system has some
overriding features to them, to others they all act independently. The Premier
can't tell the Speaker what to do. The Premier can't tell a Member of the House
what to do or the Leader of the Opposition what to do. The Executive Branch
can't tell the House what to do. The House can't tell the government what to do,
other than the fact that we pass bills which become the policy or become the
legislation and guides how government executes that legislation and those bills,
those laws. Then, the courts determine the application of those laws. They're
all together, yet there is a separation in each one of them.
The
House is run under a set of rules as well. There are a number of rules, but some
of those rules are considered to be the Standing Orders of the House of
Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the copy I have here in front of me from my desk
indicates they were actually adopted on May 18, 1951, with amendments to and
including March 16, 2005.
When we
look at the Standing Orders of the House – which this motion before the House
today amends some of these Standing Orders – they are steeped in tradition even
beyond 1951; this particular version came from 1951. I see here one that was
amended in 1999 and 2005. Amendments are listed here, but 1951 was the current
Standing Orders that we follow.
There
are a number of things that have been talked about here by Members of this House
that are going to make changes. Section 4(6) and (7), are being repealed with a
change made. Under section 4 of the Standing Orders is a section that relates to
the election of a Speaker.
It's
very early in the Standing Orders, like I said, it's under section 4. It deals
with the secret ballot in the election of a Speaker. In the House here we don't
do secret ballots, not routinely, but we do a secret ballot for the election of
a Speaker. So there are some changes there on the election of a Speaker. There
is an allowance as to how that happens.
I heard
from the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands, he commented that maybe there
should be a separate election for a Speaker or a public election. I'm not sure I
agree with that approach.
As we go
to a general election as we did in 2015, people of the province get to elect
their representative to the House of Assembly, or as referred to Member of the
House of Assembly. The party that receives the most votes forms the government –
that receives the most seats, not the most votes, but who has the most Members
elected forms the government.
Then, a
Speaker is elected from the Members of the House. It doesn't have to be a Member
of the governing party. It could be a Member of the Opposition Party or the
Third Party. That's happened in legislatures where there's been a very close
House and government said if we have one of our own people as Speaker, it could
put the balance of power to the Opposition. So they would elect having the most
– the Speaker gets to vote in that process as well because he's not the Speaker
at the time, or she's not the Speaker at the time. Then the Opposition
(inaudible) wait for the Opposition, so they'll have an Opposition person
nominated to become the Speaker to try and keep the power in the House. So that
can happen as well.
This
process that's before this motion here, Motion 3, brought forward by the hon.
Minister of Justice and Public Safety, is to amend a couple of sections here
about the balloting process and how the candidates' names are presented. It's
not a significant change in the Standing Orders.
Also,
there is a change to Standing Orders 8 to 11, and this has been talked about by
colleagues ahead of me as well. This is on the annual calendar. I agree with
this change, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a good change because of a number of
reasons that have been pointed out by Members earlier, that it does provide a
better and I believe an improved structure and expectation.
As other
Members have talked about, there are legislatures who do that. Parliament does
that, and not only do they have a schedule in place, but because there are
enough Members in Parliament, I know caucuses sometimes will as well take
Members and say here's your week for your consistency week, or here's a period
of time where if you need to travel in the country to do the work you're doing
as an MP and so on. The House can continue to sit while certain Members are
pulled out or able to leave to do the business of being an MP outside of the
Legislature.
It can
be really tough. If you live anywhere outside of Ottawa and you're in Ottawa –
no different here in St. John's. We have many Members here, my colleague for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, as an example. It's pretty much a day's work for her
to get home, especially this time of year. If you don't want to be on the
highway after dark, then she has to leave here in the morning to drive home, and
then would have to leave in the morning from there to get back in another day.
It's not an easy thing to do and therefore it takes her out of her district.
For me,
my district is in the capital region. I'm a 15-minute drive to the boundary –
probably a little less than that – of my district, probably around 25 to 30
minutes to the furthest end, probably less than 30 minutes to the furthest away
of my district. I drive through my district every day to come to the
Confederation Building or come to the House when the House is open. Not
everybody can do that. Not everyone in the House can do that.
You, Mr.
Speaker, certainly can't because you have to get aboard an aircraft to get home
on the same day and have to get an aircraft to come back. I look at my colleague
and probably it still takes two days to get home to the North Coast of Labrador.
It can take him two days depending on what flight he gets. If he doesn't leave
here until the afternoon, he can't get home until the next day if the flights
are still the same way they were before. It's very inconvenient for Members to
get back.
For me,
if the House is not sitting in the evening – if the House sits in the daytime
and I have an event in my district in the evening, quite often I can get out of
the House and get to an event in my district on the same day. It's not everybody
who can do that where they're left to, quite often, the weekends to try and get
home on the weekend, spend some time in their districts and get back for Monday.
In the case of my colleague for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, for her to go home
on a weekend and be back here for the House at 1:30, Monday, she actually would
have to come back on Sunday. It's certainly inconvenient.
Part of
the changes that are being made here between sections 8 to 11 would be to
provide for a parliamentary calendar. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary calendar,
as suggested and scheduled, allows for that time to spend in your district. It
provides for a three-week sitting period, a constituency week being held at
every third week.
Under
section (3), it points out that “during the sittings held under Standing Order
8(1), there shall be (a) one constituency week for every three sitting weeks
unless varied by the calendar provided by the Clerk under Standing Order 8(5);
and (b) a break commencing after the end of the sitting day on Maundy Thursday”
– which is also known as Holy Thursday – “ until the third Monday following the
date.” So that provides for a break during the Easter period, for a two-week
break after the Easter period no matter when Easter is held because it does
change on the calendar, but to start on Holy Thursday.
“In a
calendar year in which there is a general election, the Government may indicate
to the Speaker that the commencement of a sitting will be postponed or varied or
that there will not be a sitting and the Speaker shall inform Members.” So that
can happen as well on an election year, especially if there's a change in
government in the fall of the year and could impact the calendar in that regard
as well.
It goes
on: “On or before January 31 of each calendar year, the Clerk, following
consultations with the Government House Leader shall distribute to all Members a
calendar indicating the intended sitting days for the next calendar year.” So we
knew in the spring when the sitting was going to be and we knew coming in this
fall when the House was going to begin and when the House would end, being
Thursday coming, based on the parliamentary calendar that was in place.
It
actually lays out when those sittings would be, when they would start. For
example, for the fall sitting right now, it would commence no later than the
first Monday in November and conclude not later than the first Thursday in
December. And for the winter/spring sitting it would commence not later than the
first Monday in March and conclude not later than the first Thursday in June.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we've talked about family friendly here and I know my colleague for St.
John's Centre rose and made comment on it, noting the hour of the night and that
we're here talking about family friendly. At 11:20 on a Monday night while we're
here in the House debating bills and discussing a bill such as a change in
Standing Orders, I have to agree it's not really family friendly; it really
isn't, depending on your circumstances.
My
colleague for Cape St. Francis referenced the demographic of what was just
elected to municipal council in St. John's, and it's probably a good example
because if you want to elect young people with young families, it's got to be
inviting to them. It's hard to entice them to consider following a career in
politics and running for office when, especially if you have a young family, at
11:20 on a Monday night there's an expectation that when the House is sitting
you could be in here debating matters such as this.
But that
right now is the choice of the government if they wanted to stay. The minister
is allowed to set down a motion, as he did. He set down a motion on our last day
we sat, saying that the House would not adjourn at 5:30. Under our new Standing
Orders that we've been following in practice, then we sit until 12 o'clock.
While it's 11:20, that's why we have another 40 minutes. Up to that point in
time, the minister or the Government House Leader could decide to adjourn the
House as he wishes.
Generally, I give credit to the minister. The Government House Leader will,
quite often, consult with the Opposition House Leader, the Leader of the Third
Party and will talk about bills that they plan on calling and try to give a
little bit of notice on what bills are going to be called and when and, also, to
have a discussion about when the House would sit and when the House would
adjourn. Normally, under section 9, the House would adjourn on Monday at 5:30.
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday at 5:30 the House will adjourn. On Wednesday it would
adjourn at 5 o'clock.
Under
section 11: “The Government House Leader may move that the House not adjourn at
5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons but notice of this motion
must be given at a previous day's sitting and once put by the Chair is not
debatable.” In that case, Mr. Speaker, when the House gives notice and the House
does not adjourn at 5:30, which is what happened today, we find ourselves here
at 11:20 at night and can sit until midnight, I believe, is the time we can sit
until tonight.
As my
colleague talked about – filibusters. There was a time, before that rule was put
in place, we could stand and talk into the night. That would happen basically
under Committee. In second reading, generally, Members of the House get 20
minutes to speak. The mover of a bill gets an hour; the first responder from the
Opposition would get an hour; I, as the Leader of the Opposition, would get an
hour; and Members in the House would get 20 minutes each to speak. But once
you've spoken for your allotted period of time, then your time has expired and
you can't speak to it again.
When we
get to Committee, in the Committee stage, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, Members
can have consecutive speakers. Any Member could rise and speak over and over
again as long as there's a speaker in between, as long as there's someone who
rises in between that speaker. So if I'm speaking for 10 minutes and I sit down,
if no one from the government side – it happened earlier tonight, no one from
the government side wanted to get up to speak to it; my colleague, the
Government House Leader, got up and spoke for a couple of minutes. He sat down
and then I was able to get up again.
In the
old days as a filibuster, we could actually do that into the night, into the
morning, into the next day, the day after that and the day after that. Those
things have happened in the past. Under these new Standing Orders, that's no
longer going to happen. At 12 o'clock we know the House will adjourn for the
night, and on Thursday, this Thursday, as per the calendar, the House will
adjourn then until the winter/spring session, until that takes place.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that's a significant change. The other aspect of that change is there's
also a contingent of staff that's required to run the House of Assembly. We have
officials here, the Table Officers in the centre of the House. We have Pages. We
know you have staff in your office and the Clerk's office that are quite often
here into the night. As well, there are people who run the Broadcast and Hansard
and security and so on; technical staff and security that are also required to
be here as the House sits. So as we sit here now at 11:25 at night, those staff
are required to be here as well to support the operations of the House.
At one
time when we had filibusters in the House, it could continue for days and days
and days as people spoke for 10 minutes at a time and kept the House open, staff
were required to be here around the clock. That's simply not family friendly,
but not only is it not family friendly, it's not a healthy thing to do, Mr.
Speaker. It's not healthy for any Members in here. I agree, you can do that for
a day or two, but from my own experience, after having sat through a few
filibusters here in the House, it tends to get testy and non-productive and
nasty. I know you've had to speak a few times tonight to bring order to the
House, but if you'd been here for two or three days, then things start to erode.
As my
colleague for Cape St. Francis talked about, the respect for each other is
critical in order for the House to produce properly. The tendency is, after time
goes on, for the respect to leave the Chamber and for the decorum to erode.
That's not beneficial for anybody. So having this current process in place to
keep us here until 12 o'clock when absolutely necessary is not a bad thing in
the House at 12; however, keeping us here late at night sometimes is not in the
best interest anyway.
Mr.
Speaker, another section that's being amended and dealt with here by this motion
is to delete section 24(3) of the current Standing Orders and to replace that
with a new 24(3), and 24(3) refers to Wednesdays and what happens on Wednesdays.
We do a
normal course of business where the government brings bills to the House, debate
it and vote on it here in the House. That happens on Mondays, Tuesdays and
Thursdays, but on Wednesdays it's an exception here in the House. We still do
debate, but it's a little bit different.
There's
been a change made to allow the House to sit in the morning. It used to just sit
from 2 to 5 in the afternoon, but it has been changed now to allow the House to
sit from 10 a.m. to 12:30 on Wednesdays, whereby regular debate can continue,
motions of which notice has been given to the government can be debated in the
House.
Then
there's a break from 12:30 to 2 o'clock. At 2 o'clock, then, we follow what has
been the tradition in this House known as Private Members' Day, where Members
who've given notice of private Members' motions and then they can debate those
motions under a somewhat separate set of rules for the House. Many rules are the
same, but the process is a little bit different.
The
alternating parties in the House can give notice on a Monday, there's a schedule
known for that as well and coordinated through the Clerk's office, through your
office, Mr. Speaker, where Members can bring private Members' resolutions.
They're debated and then voted on in one day, one afternoon in a three-hour
period here in the House. So that's the exception. The change on Standing Order
24(3) is that we now meet on Wednesday mornings for two-and-a-half hours to do a
– I'll call it a regular debate, or a debate as we're doing here tonight.
Under
number 4, Standing Order 25 is repealed and substituted by a new Standing Order;
and 25 is about Statements by Members. It used to be limited to six minutes for
Statements by Members. A Member, other than a minister, may be recognized or
make a statement. The statements are generally about something in your district
or something that's relevant to you or your district, or someone who is
important to you, and usually of a non-controversial type of matter held to
statements about anniversaries, historic events, a particular accomplishment,
the death of a notable person, matters of local, provincial, national or
international significance of a non-contentious nature.
“Statements by Members shall not be used to comment on aspects of provincial
government policy or to reflect on a decision …” – that's not the intent of it.
And they'll “not pose a question but rather express the opinion of the Member.”
There's
a change to section 25(1) to say that, instead of having six minutes, “On each
sitting day, up to five Members, other than Ministers of the Crown, may be
recognized to make a Members' Statement.”
Right
now, ministers can't make a Members' statement; they get to do Ministerial
Statements, bring in bills and so on. This will allow Members who get less often
to speak or rise in the House or to address matters regarding anniversaries,
historic events, accomplishments, deaths and so on, it gives them a time to
raise those matters publicly here in the House of Assembly. Instead of having it
limited to six minutes, it's now going to have five Members, other than
Ministers of the Crown, may be recognized on a given day.
“Each
statement shall be no more than one minute in duration.” Right now there's been
kind of a practice on the number of words allowed, but we're going to change
this to allow Members to have no more than one minute in duration. If you want
to talk fast, you get more words and if you want to talk slow, you get less
words. The clock ticks off one minute at the same time, no matter how fast or
slow you provide your message.
Standing
Order 91 is also going to be repealed. That has to do with petitions. Our
colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands, referred to this one
earlier. I always found it quite interesting in petitions when I first came to
the House. When I talked, Mr. Speaker, about some of those historic processes,
methods and traditions that happen in the House, when you look at the wording of
a petition today, it's kind of interesting but kind of leaves you scratching
your head. The way it's written is in very old traditional format. We're
changing that now to modernize the process somewhat and, also, to reflect
requirements on openness and transparency, but also on people's privacy.
When
this is passed, the form of petition will change. It indicates here “(1) A
petition may be either printed or written and must be substantially the same
form as the Form of Petition contained in the Appendix. (2) The prayer of a
petition must appear on each page of the petition. (3) A petition must be
written in English or accompanied by a translation ….”
Also:
“6. Standing Orders 93 and 96 are repealed; and 7. The petition template in the
Appendix is repealed and the following is substituted ….” So now we're going to
change the wording a little bit for the petition and a little bit around the
rules of the petition as well. There's now a wording for the petition which, I
think, is a little bit clearer.
It also
points out: “This petition may be tabled in the House of Assembly. If tabled,
the petition will be a document of the House of Assembly and the name and
address of every person who signs it will be available to the public.” I think
it's an important addition knowing that we live in a day and age where we have
to be cognizant, conscious and aware of people's privacy and their right to
privacy, but also the right to know that, if you're signing a petition, their
names could become a matter of a public record.
I did
see one case of this in the past where I saw a person's name on a petition. It
was actually a petition that was published in a public document and it lead to
some discussion of how that happened and why the person whose name was there
wasn't aware it was made public and so on, but anyway it was. Now it's going to
be quite clearly laid out to people that if you sign a petition, it will be
public.
Mr.
Speaker, petitions are an important tool in the House of Assembly especially for
Members of the Opposition because as a Member of the Opposition, people quite
often – as I've learned over the last two years and all of us on this side have
come to understand better – will contact us and say: I have an issue or a
concern and I want to bring some attention to it.
Earlier
today in the House, we passed a bill on the
Highway Traffic Act and the minister
had a number of people sit in the gallery here with us while the minister
delivered her commentary and presented the bill for consideration by the House.
Many of us, including myself, acknowledge the work they do to heighten awareness
around the matters important to them. It was about highway safety. Tragically,
some of the people who were here today were here because they lost a loved one
to a traffic fatality and wanted to see changes made to help strengthen
legislation and make steps to continue to raise the issue as an important one
for Newfoundland and Labrador.
I use
MADD as an example today who do great work in constantly sending the message and
reminder of don't drink and drive, don't drink and drive, don't drink and drive,
and even use messages: If you see someone who is drinking and driving, stop
them. If you can't stop them or you see someone who you believe is driving while
impaired, call the police. Those are very important messages. We can't forget
them. They have to continue to be pushed out and put in people's minds and
encouraged and so on in people's minds and constantly have to be pushed along.
Petitions do that as well. Sometimes people want to see change. As I again
talked about earlier today, the House of Assembly is here because it creates
change. There are many times, such as the
Highway Traffic Act today, where a bill is amended. One of the ministers
opposite – I think it was the Minister of Justice; I stand to be corrected –
made a comment about the Highway Traffic
Act and said it's probably one of the most – and I said it as well –
frequently changed bills or pieces of legislation that comes to the House for
amendment. It's a big piece of legislation. It impacts virtually everybody in
the province on a daily basis and it's constantly being changed, amended,
improved, updated and modernized and so on.
Sometimes people have matters such as that that they want to bring to the
attention of government and for whatever reason don't feel it has gotten the
attention that it needs. Petitions are a good way to do that. A petition can be
presented – quite often we'll hear from people that say: Look, can you help me
with a petition? I would like to do a petition on this; I want to make sure it
meets the format and so on. We help them, assist them with that. We'll take it
to the part of the province or in different areas of the province and secure
signatures, bring it back to us and we present them on behalf of the people of
the province here in the House of Assembly.
We do it
every day, essentially every day, except if the clock ticks out on Wednesdays at
3 o'clock. The House sits at 2, and at 3 o'clock we start debate on private
Members', and sometimes there are matters that occur that don't allow for much
petition time on Wednesdays. But generally speaking, there are a number of
petitions that are tabled here, and we've used them to bring matters to the
attention of government. It gives any Member of the House – I think three
minutes is that the maximum amount of time to speak on a petition. It gives you
three minutes to stand uninterrupted and to read the petition and discuss the
contents of the petition and make commentary on it.
It's a
good way where you continue, much like advocates do in our province for many
areas of concern or matters that are important to people, it's a good way in
order for parliamentarians every day in the House to get up and bring matters
forward in a respectful way here in the House that are important to the people
of the province.
It's not
to be confused with Members of the House advocating; it's bringing the message
forward on behalf of citizens. I go back to one of my earliest comments. We're
here elected and people say you're my representative in the House. They expect
us to represent them in the House of Assembly, and they want that matter brought
to the House of Assembly, do it by petition, then we stand in our place and
bring it forward, which is done pretty much on a daily basis.
So to
modernize and update the petition process is a good thing to do. The Member for
Mount Pearl – Southlands referenced online petitions, which we know there is a
significant growth in online petitions. I heard a couple of people say, yes, it
is a good time to look at it and it should be done. Technology changes very
quickly.
I think
the petitions brought in the House should have to have some type of a
standardized format, which we have laid out here, and there has to be some way
to be reasonably sure that a person's name and signature means something. That's
usually done – when you look at petitions, quite often, you get an idea if it
looks to be consistent with an area. For example, sometimes people put a
petition in a store, in a community somewhere in the province. When the petition
comes in, generally speaking, the names on that petition are going to be people
from that region, that town or that neighbourhood area. You'd know, okay, I can
see where this petition came from, or if you receive in the mail or a
constituent brings it to us, we can see where it came from. So it gives us a
little bit of assurance that it is where it is and the names on it were brought
forward by the people listed there.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that's some of the changes, and I haven't outlined them all, but I've
taken some time to go through many of them. The form is about having the House
of Assembly where we can be productive – yes, we can have banter, and we're
going to have that; it's going to happen. It happens in every legislature. It's
part of what takes place here and a lot of it is about trying to apply a little
bit of pressure and trying to apply some pressure to people. If it's something
being said you don't like or someone over opposite doesn't like and they don't
agree with, they heckle you and distract you and do all of those things that
happen in a legislature. It happens in every one.
I saw an
incident in Parliament last week where an MP was heckling and didn't stop
heckling and then left the Chamber. We've had similar kinds of incidents happen
here from time to time. Not very often, thankfully, but from time to time
tempers flare up a little bit and those kinds of things happen.
That's
why we have Orders and you call the House to order, and we have Standing Orders,
which are the standing rules and policies and process that we –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker,
under section 48(2).
MR. SPEAKER:
Point of order, the hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, we're quite willing to
have this debate on the resolution. In fact, we've been up for 33 minutes, and I
think the Member has, as all of us have, taken the opportunity to go through
this resolution in very fine detail and talk about the Standing Orders. But
48(2) talks about repetition and relevance, and what I would suggest is we are
going to a rehashing of the point of Standing Orders, which I believe the Member
may have referred to earlier on in his speech, and certainly other Members have.
So at
this point I would just caution that once we get into too much repetition, then
we are in breach of the Standing Orders.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity to sit down for a moment.
Mr.
Speaker, I've taken my time to go through the variety of sections in this motion
here tonight, and I have to say it's most unfortunate the minister feels that
way. I'm certainly not intending to be too repetitive, but sometimes a speaking
point and tool used by many Members in the House would be to –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If I
may, just according to the procedures in the House, I do need to rule on the
point of order.
I do
agree with the Government House Leader's statement, and I would ask that the
Leader of the Official Opposition continue to make remarks relevant to the
motion before us.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll try
to be more specific to the bill. I've gone through most of it. I wasn't
intending to go through the rest of it that I haven't covered, but maybe that's
what I should do, instead of trying to make my points in the way that I've done.
Yes, I
sometimes use repetition. Sometimes that happens in the House where Members –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Late at night.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's that?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Late at night.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, it's late at night. Yeah,
I know we're a little bit tired, but sometimes Members opposite, government
Members and ministers actually will continue to repeat themselves to make a
point. That's all I was doing, Mr. Speaker, was trying to make those points. If
I repeated what other Members said, I will try not to do that as well.
I'll
have a look at the motion now, Mr. Speaker, and see what sections I may have
missed out when I spoke earlier. I wouldn't want to miss out on any of them.
I'll use my time up and I'll use my time to speak to them.
Mr.
Speaker, I referred earlier to the fall sitting and the spring sitting. I didn't
refer to: “The House shall not meet on the days which are paid Government
Holidays.” Each year the government sets out what are paid government holidays
on the government's calendar.
Mr.
Speaker, what this recognizes is that: “The House shall not meet on the days
which are paid Government Holidays.” I wasn't going to raise this and I
apologize for raising it, but I want to keep in line with what the Government
House Leader has asked me to do, not to be repetitive. So I'll take every detail
I can.
Section
8(2) says: “The House shall not meet on the days which are paid Government
Holidays.” Of course, if there's a paid government holiday, Mr. Speaker, that
would mean the staff would have to be brought in. There would be considerable
expense to staff for overtime.
Government holidays are usually observed for good reason. For the House to
actually specifically say that they will not meet on days when there are paid
government holidays, I think it's in keeping with the family-friendly commentary
and intent of these changes that were being made, not only for Members of the
House, but also for the staff.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader
on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Section 48(2), again, the
Member is quite clearly struggling to stay relevant here and is repeating the
same thing and said the same line twice there. I love being in the House just as
much as the other Members do, but I like to keep my commentary relevant. We have
a Standing Order to do this.
I would
say, Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite is repeating himself and struggling to
speak to this. He's exercised his time. We're quite willing to listen if he has
something new to say, but when you say the same thing multiple times, you're in
contravention of the Order, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition on a point of order.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I would agree
that I just repeated the line on 8(2) “The House shall not meet on the days
which are paid Government Holidays.”
Mr.
Speaker, I have to tell you, in all honestly, at 11:45 at night, with all the
noise that coming from over there, it's a little bit hard to focus. I apologize
for repeating it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
One
point I do agree on, and I'm surprised that the point hasn't come up much
earlier because the area of repetition and relevance I think is something that
we do need to discuss. I look forward to having that discussion probably in
February, prior to us reconvening.
Given
the hour of the day, I will let the Leader of the Official Opposition conclude
his remarks because I'm sure we're going to be concluding this session very
soon.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate your protection here tonight. I didn't refer earlier to section (5).
I spoke to it briefly, but I didn't read the section. Section (5) says “On
or before January 31 of each calendar year, the Clerk, following consultations
with the Government House Leader shall distribute to all Members a calendar
indicating ….”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, the noise level is starting to be distracting again.
I want to move on now, just give me a moment; I'd like to
speak to section –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If I may, we've done a lot of great work in the last
several hours, and I will decide that this House will now adjourn until tomorrow
at 1:30 o'clock –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER: I
can't do that. I'm sorry. I have to do it at 12, sorry.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't know – I just have to make sure: Is the Leader of
the Official Opposition done or am I being recognized to close debate on this
resolution? I have to have that determination of whether he is still going to
speak, if you're going to allow that.
Pursuant to Standing Order 48(2) –
MR. SPEAKER: I
would ask the Government House Leader to adjourn debate for the day.
I
apologize for my earlier direction, given that the Leader of the Official
Opposition was still involved in his remarks. I would ask him to take the floor
again and conclude, and stay relevant and avoid repetition, please.
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I move that we
adjourn debate.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure the
Member opposite can adjourn debate on the resolution. I'd like to continue. I
would actually, at this point, like to call the motion and speak to it, which is
my prerogative. I have an opportunity to speak to it.
MR. SPEAKER:
He can conclude his remarks?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
On the debate?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, so we're voting against
the adjournment.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
motion to adjourn debate, please say 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The debate continues.
The
motion is defeated.
The hon.
the Government House Leader, if he speaks now he will conclude the debate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you –
CLERK:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
I apologize; we are going
through some new procedures here.
If the
Leader of the Official Opposition has concluded his remarks – have you concluded
your remarks?
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) conclude my
remarks. Given the hour of the evening, Mr. Speaker, in respect for this House,
I'll conclude my remarks.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Government House Leader, if he speaks now, he will conclude the debate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Without
sounding too facetious, that's the best thing the Leader of the Official
Opposition has said all day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now, what I am going to do, I
have 10 minutes to speak to this notice, but do you know what? I don't know if I
need the 10 minutes. What I'm going to do is just thank the Members opposite for
their commentary.
What I
will say to Members opposite, I certainly consider myself a more tolerant and
patient House Leader than some we've seen in the past when I was sat on that
side because this place would have – probably the decorum may have gone
downhill.
I do
appreciate the commentary from the other side, what the Members had to say.
Again, you have to pick through it. Some of it was not relevant, it was quite
repetitive. I think the irony – and that's the word the Member for St. John's
Centre used was the irony, especially the Leader of the Official Opposition
stood up and complained about being here at 11:20 and continued to talk and not
know what he was saying because he had lost focus.
MR. P. DAVIS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order has been
called.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
on a point of order under section 49. The Government House Leader is being
disrespectful to Members of the House. He's using offensive words, Mr. Speaker.
The
Government House Leader has sat and adjourned debate. If the Member wants to
continue with debate, I fully respect his right to do so, but if he's going to
get up under section 49 and breach section 49, I'd ask that he not do that, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) just so we can
continue on, and I apologize to the Member for offending him this evening. It's
certainly not my intention.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll continue on. I'm happy
to debate here and we talk about improving the Standing Orders, but one of the
things it does require is co-operation amongst Members.
I'd like
to thank some of the Members for their co-operation, particularly the former
Member for Mount Pearl North who sat on this committee. He spoke about the
difficulty he had with these Standing Orders, because he would sit in a room
with us and agree and then he would go back to his caucus, have discussion and
obviously there was some conflict there. There was a difference in opinion,
obviously.
I don't
know what that led to, but I'm very happy to stand here and to continue to work
on something that they failed to do during their over a decade in government.
This is not something they could do. So we're happy to stand here and make this
happen. In fact, I know, even though sometimes I got lost in the meandering of
the points, what I would say is I think they're going to support this notice to
have this resolution regarding the Standing Orders.
I do
have to address one comment by two other Members. The Member for St. John's
Centre stood up and spoke very briefly about being here at 11:20 at night. What
I would say is that I think we're improving. We are getting better. Again,
sometimes you just have to look around you to see where the fault lies.
The last
thing I would say to the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands who stood up and
talked about being taxed into oblivion, what I would say to him is – again, I
come back to the Member for St. John's Centre who used the word irony. It's very
ironic that a Member could talk about taxing when he stood over here and voted
for Muskrat Falls and taxed every single person and their child and their
grandchild. If he has anything to say about this, what I would suggest, if he's
against Muskrat Falls he should stand up in this House and put it on the record,
but I have a feeling he won't.
On that
note, what I would suggest is I'm going to sit here. I appreciate the work from
the Members who sit on the Standing Orders Committee and I look forward to
supporting this.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that the following Standing Orders, as they appear on the Order Paper
today, are amended to come into force on the date of their approval.
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?
This
motion is carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On that
note, given the hour of the day, I would move, seconded by the Minister of
Transportation and Works, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House now stands
adjourned until 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.