March 21, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 60
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
I'd like
to welcome the Members back to a final day of the week and a nice little break.
We have
several visitors today that I'd like to introduce to this House of Assembly. In
the public gallery, first of all, I'd like to welcome Gail Dempsey, Executive
Director of Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador; Sarah Mercer, the organization's
Information Officer; and Lisa Pack, Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador's 2019
Purple Day Ambassador. They are visiting us this afternoon for a Ministerial
Statement.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the public gallery today, I would like to
acknowledge representatives from the Association of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We have with us the Executive Director Lynn Power,
and Communications Officer James Sheppard. They are joining us for the Second
Reading of Bill 57, An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act, 2008.
Welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I've also just had the honour to spend a few minutes
with a great group of people. They are representing and are from the
Environmental Policy masters program at Memorial University. They're in the
public gallery this afternoon.
They are visiting St. John's to participate in the 2019 Environmental Policy
Institute Case Competition. This is a collaborative venture between Grenfell
Campus, Memorial University and the Planning and Coordination Office, Executive
Council.
A great welcome to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
For
Members' statements today, we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the
Districts of Lewisporte - Twillingate, Fogo Island - Cape Freels, Conception Bay
East - Bell Island, Placentia West – Bellevue, and Conception Bay South.
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Central Newfoundland Hockey League had another very
successful and exciting year with six teams competing for the championship
title. Teams included: Grand Falls-Windsor Blades, Northeast Wildcats,
Springdale Braves, Straight Shore Beothics and, from my district, Twillingate
Combines and Lewisporte Seahawks.
After regular league play, semi-final action seen first
place Beothics eliminate the Springdale Braves, while two old rival teams, the
Lewisporte Seahawk and Twillingate Combines, battled it out for the final
position. After a hard fought series to a sold-out game five, the Seahawks were
successful in eliminating last year's league champions, the
Combines.
The opening two games of the finals were hosted by
Straight Shore Beothics. After very intense games, the Seahawks were heading
home with two victories. Game three was equally exciting, but the Beothics were
not able to keep up with the talents of the Seahawks and were sweep in three
consecutive games.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in
congratulating the Central Newfoundland Hockey League for another successful
season and to wish the Lewisporte Seahawks congratulations on winning this
year's championship title.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
MR.
BRAGG:
Mr.
Speaker, I have to go on the record and say that Member's statement was just bad
news for my team.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Badger's Quay Lions Club has been around for years
and they continue to impress everyone around them with ongoing acts of kindness
and generosity.
Recently, I was invited to attend one of their
presentations. It involved a young man, Mark Parsons, who, a few years ago, went
for a swim at a local
swimming hole. Little did Mark know, that day would change his life forever. Fun
and laughter turned into a fight for his life. Mark has been confined to a
wheelchair since that day and, as a result, access to outdoor activities would
be limited.
King
Lion, Eric Sturge, heard of Mark's need to put a lift on his wheelchair van. The
Lions met and discussed the needs and decided to help. They started a fundraiser
and even canvassed 25 other lions groups in their four districts.
Mark was
so humbled, he encouraged them to gift the money to someone else. The Lions
would have no part of it. They realized his family had just purchased a new van
and the $3,900 would come in handy.
I thank
the Badger's Quay Lions Club, and all other Lions Clubs, for their continued
commitment to our communities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
past Sunday, I had the honour of attending a very special event in my district;
and, no, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't related to St. Patrick's Day, but something much
more moving and important. I attended the Quilts of Valour presentation which
honours and supports injured Canadian Armed Forces members past and present.
Four
members from this province were presented with quilts handmade by residents in
our communities. The presentation of these quilts represents our community's
respect and admiration for those who serviced and continue to serve while
showing our desire to support our injured veterans in any way possible.
The
stories shared relating to their sacrifices and challenges they faced were heart
wrenching, but the stories related to the support they receive from family,
friends, the community, but particularly their fellow vets, was inspiring and
uplifting. Whether we know it or not, Mr. Speaker, we are all members of this
fraternity and have an obligation to thank, honour and support our veterans.
I
congratulate the recipients, Mr. Leslie “Bud” Churchill, Kevin Dunne, Shamus
O'Reilly, Wade Walsh, and a special thank you to retired veteran Joanne “Gunney”
Power for nominating, organizing, MCing and, most importantly, sharing her story
as to why these four veterans have made a difference in her life.
I ask
all of us to join in congratulating and thanking our Quilts of Valour
recipients.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, she's done it
again. Olympic Gold Medallist, World Figure Skating Champion, and now a Member
of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. Kaetlyn Osmond has consistently and
steadily rose to the occasion, to achieve and to accomplish.
Mr.
Speaker, what is even more remarkable about Kaetlyn's journey than her well
known athletic accomplishments, is her perseverance.
At the
exact moment of her initial rise in skating, she suffered a serious injury, that
to many would have permanently ended their competitive pursuits. But she vowed
to skate again, which makes her worthy of recognition beyond anything else, and
it is this fortitude that inspires so many young athletes across this country to
emulate her passion and poise.
It's for
these reasons last fall that I nominated Kaetlyn to become a recipient of the
Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was pleased she was selected, and honoured
when she invited me to join her and her sister, Natasha, brother, Gary, and
grandparents Claudia and Clem at Government House for the investiture by Her
Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, making her the youngest recipient ever.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Kaetlyn on making
history once again, and I also ask Members to join me in sending a message to
all of our youth who pursue excellence in their chosen field; don't ever let
anyone tell you that it can't be done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Winterfest in CBS was a huge success this year. The 11-day event kicked off on
February 15, and took place at various locations throughout Conception Bay
South.
Winterfest has become a tradition in our community. I attended many of the
events this year, and experienced first-hand the strong community spirit. I
would like to extend my congratulations and special thanks to the Winterfest
committee, sponsors, volunteers, as well as the Town of Conception Bay South,
for contributing to the festival's success.
Mr.
Speaker, Winterfest 2019 had activities for all ages and groups. I was so
pleased to have attended many of the events including the Fred Squires and Annie
Parsons Shield Hockey Challenge, as well as the Junior High Challenge. The
annual pancake breakfast was a huge success this year with a record turnout at
the new CBS arena.
This
year, there were some new added activities including a magic show, a Spirit of
Newfoundland dinner show, Stand by your
Nan, a CB Blues hockey game, a
pre-teen dance and many more family outdoor activities.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to add, too, my colleague for Topsail - Paradise also attended
many of those events with me. So we do a lot of things tag team.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Winterfest
committee and the Town of Conception Bay South for hosting the tremendous winter
festival. It was certainly a wonderful 11 days of events for the community, our
region and, indeed, our province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to acknowledge Epilepsy Awareness Month, and in particular – Purple
Day, which takes place on Tuesday, March 26.
Purple
Day is an international grassroots effort dedicated to increasing awareness
about epilepsy.
Epilepsy
can affect anyone, and according to the World Health Organization is the most
common serious brain disorder, with no age, racial, social class, national or
geographic boundaries. Epilepsy affects over 300,000 Canadians – 10,000 of which
are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize Epilepsy Newfoundland and
Labrador for the wide range of services and programs they provide, and their
continued advocacy work for people living with epilepsy.
I would
also like to acknowledge the 2019 Purple Ambassador, Lisa Pack, a young woman
from Hermitage, who says epilepsy has never and will never own her life.
On March
26, Confederation Building will be lit purple, and I encourage the Members of
this hon. House, as well as the general public, to wear this brilliant colour in
support of people living with epilepsy in our province. It's time to end the
stigma.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the Official
Opposition, I join with the minister in recognizing March as Epilepsy Awareness
Month, and specifically recognizing Tuesday, March 26, as Purple Day.
Purple
Day was created by Cassidy Megan of Nova Scotia in 2008, with support from the
Canadian Epilepsy Alliance and other epilepsy agencies. It has now grown into a
national awareness effort.
Lisa
Pack of Hermitage has been chosen as the province's 2019 Purple Ambassador. I
thank her for her advocacy efforts, and I encourage all Members to read her
inspirational story on the Epilepsy NL website. After reading Lisa's story, I
believe that we can all learn from her wisdom and grace.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the minister.
Epilepsy
has been such a misunderstood and stigmatized condition. Congratulations to
Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador, working in so many ways to fight the stigma,
and they support children and adults living with epilepsy. They are doing great
work, and we all have a responsibility to educate ourselves.
Congratulations to Lisa Pack, the 2019 Purple Ambassador. Lisa's story and
resilience is featured on the Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador website, and I
encourage everyone to read it.
Bravo,
Lisa, for the great work.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to inform colleagues about steps our government has taken to
manage government assets more efficiently, which have led to considerable
savings for taxpayers.
When we
announced The Way Forward in 2016, we
set out to reduce our building footprint by 40,000 square feet. By March 2017,
we had surpassed that goal, saving taxpayers more than $1.6 million a year.
We then
set a new goal to reduce leased space by an additional 10 per cent – or 77,000
square feet. By March 2018, we had also exceeded that goal, Mr. Speaker.
To date,
we have reduced our leased space by more than 103,000 square feet since 2016.
This equates to approximately $3 million a year in savings.
In
continuing to exceed our goals, we have set our sights higher by committing to
achieve a new total of 130,000-square-foot reduction of leased space by 2020.
In
addition, government has also set a goal to reduce its light vehicle fleet by 10
per cent. To date, 112 of our 1,100 vehicles have been removed from government's
fleet since April 2018. This is anticipated to lead to approximately $500,000 a
year in annual savings.
Finally,
last month, our government announced a new contract for ferry services on the
South Coast of the island. The total cost of the five contracts saves taxpayers
approximately $2.8 million annually.
These
three actions combined, Mr. Speaker, will save taxpayers approximately $6.3
million a year, every year.
Mr.
Speaker, we realize the need to balance how we deliver services and being
responsible to all taxpayers. The actions we are taking allow our government to
deliver services while we're realizing substantial savings.
We will
continue to find ways to optimize office space, identify vacant or underused
spaces and review our fleet so that we can continue to find ways to deliver
services more efficiently.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I'm glad to see the
provincial government is reducing its building footprint in our province but,
sadly, this government seems to have two left feet.
The
minister cites a reduced building footprint, this in spite of the Crown Lands
office moving to Corner Brook while the Howley Building, which is government
owned, stands half empty. In the last red book, they promised $50 million
annually in asset sales. Well, they've fallen well short of that.
As for
the provincial ferries, the South Coast passenger capacity, cargo space, cargo
capability, vessel size have all been slashed. So government isn't showing its
way forward. They are failing forward, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
I thank the minister for the
advance copy of his statement. Saving money in government is always a good idea
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
– but not at the expense of providing services.
You can
say hear, hear again now.
It is
one thing to save money by reducing leased space, but the minister speaks of
saving money on ferry services. The people of South East Bight are not happy
with his savings on their ferry. They say it is smaller and won't be able to
handle rough sea conditions the current ferry can. They rely on the ferry.
Yes,
saving money is always good, but not on the backs of people depending on
government services.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, the lives of a number of dedicated pharmacy assistants have been
turned upside down. You stated that the new registration process that you were
enforcing would not mean any present pharmacy assistants would lose their jobs.
Do you
still stand by this statement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much for the question.
The
changes to the regulations about pharmacy assistants and pharmacy technicians
falls solely under the purview of the pharmacy board, which is an independent,
arm's-length agency. They are the ones that make the determination as to what
qualifications are required.
We spent
well over $60,000 to ensure those assistants who wanted to become technicians
could avail of training during the bridging program. That bridging program has
closed and the Pharmacy Board have deemed that program at an end.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A number
of pharmacy techs who have to rewrite their registration exams are being forced
to go to another province and incur financial hardships to register because the
Pharmacy Board won't allow a rewrite in our province.
Do you
think this is right, and will you lobby the Pharmacy Board to allow rewrites in
our province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for this
question.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I have had extensive discussions with the Pharmacy Board around
their examinations. They are adamant that nine years' lead time is sufficient
and that they are within their rights, enshrined in legislation, as a
self-regulating province.
It is
not the role, nor should it be, of any politician to interfere with clinical
standards. They set them and I am quite happy that they have done their due
diligence. Unfortunately, these people are in a difficult situation and I
acknowledge that. We have provided them with financial help.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
minister is saying it's okay to have a double standard and better services can
be provided in other provinces because the legislative piece of information is
being shared with an agency. You're the minister responsible and it's your
responsibility to ensure we get the best quality health care and the best
opportunities for our people who are providing that health care.
Other
provinces and even other health authorities in this province are finding ways to
continue using pharmacy assistants in the delivery of health care services.
Will you
direct Eastern Health and other RHAs to do the right thing to ensure fairness
and consistency across the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question.
Mr.
Speaker, I take great exception to the gentleman's preamble about there being a
double standard. There is one standard; it is set by statute by a professional
group called the Pharmacy Board. They are the experts. We have seen all too well
what happens when the experts are removed from making decisions around areas of
professional expertise. I have only to relate to Muskrat Falls, for example,
where the PUB was chopped out of that process and we're still trying to untangle
that mess.
This is
not a double standard. This is within the realm of pharmacists and the pharmacy
board and there it lies, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take
exception to comparing the lives of dedicated health professionals who were
trained, who have been providing a service and turning around because of a piece
of legislation that would ensure some of these will no longer have jobs in the
health care profession – totally embarrassing here to be even having this
discussion.
Mr.
Speaker, it has been identified that there's a shortage of pharmacy technicians.
Yet, we have a number of pharmacy assistants who have been doing the job
previously and who are now being forced out and replaced with recent graduates
who are being offered $10,000 bursaries.
Is this
the best way to retain our dedicated, long-term health professionals?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, for the question.
There
was a seven-year introduction to this program and it ran for two years. The
Department of Health and Community Services provided the last tranche of money,
$60,000 to enable those assistants who wish to avail of the bridging program to
take it at no cost to themselves. That program has now come to a close. There
are jobs for those people who wish to remain as pharmacy assistants in some
areas.
The
facts of the case are, Mr. Speaker, this is about standards that are set by a
professional body that is totally independent from government and was enshrined
in legislation set up by the previous PC crowd.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
convenient for the minister when it's politically advantageous to interfere or
intercede or lobby on behalf of the health professionals, but in this case it's
seems not be an important issue, Mr. Speaker.
Type 1
diabetes is a serious disorder that many Newfoundlander and Labradorians face.
In fact, we have the highest rate of type 1 diabetes in the country and third
highest in the world. We have heard that a 10-year-old child has been denied
replacement of an insulin pump, pending the outcome of a review.
I ask
the minister: Is there a change in policy for insulin pump replacement? Surely,
it cannot be budget time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Okay, Mr. Speaker, I'm going
to break that down into two parts because there were. The preamble accuses me of
lobbying and interfering in the regulation of self-regulating bodies. If the
Member opposite there has any evidence at all, I put him to proof of that in
this House. He cannot sit there and make accusations about my name and not
substantiate it. I would almost regard that, Mr. Speaker, as a point of
privilege.
Having
said that, moving on, the issue of type 1 diabetes is important – and again, if
the Member opposite has a constituent who he feels has not has due process and
has an issue with his pump or supplies for it, bring it to me, that's his job,
and I will deal with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One day,
myself and the minister will have a discussion about Central Health and some of
the issues facing there.
Mr.
Speaker, research shows that complications from type 1 diabetes can include
heart attacks, stroke or kidney failure. I don't have to be a doctor to know
that these are serious health concerns. Compliance with prescribed therapy for
type 1 diabetes is critical to ensure complications are avoided.
I ask
the minister: How many other lives with type 1 diabetes will be denied access to
this life-sustaining device?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Indeed,
diabetes is one of our most prevalent chronic diseases, and I would draw to the
Member opposite's attention the fact that not only do we have an integrated
chronic disease strategy and plan; we also have now a very active diabetes
registry which is held through the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health
Information. We can identify type 1 diabetics now with a far greater certainty
than we ever could before.
We can
point these youngsters to the pump program. We can monitor whether or not their
management meets best practice guidelines in a way that hasn't been possible
before. We are very conscious of the impact of diabetes on this province, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
And I guess later on I'll
have to ask the minister again: Has there been a change in policy? We still
haven't got that answer.
In
January, the Child and Youth Advocate released her report into
Chronic Absenteeism in our school system. She reported that at least
10 per cent of the students in the English School District missed at least 18
days of school a year, with over 25 per cent of the students in grade 12 missing
at least 18 days.
I ask
the minister: What is being done to bring down this number?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you to the Member opposite for the question. We've worked very closely with the
Child and Youth Advocate, and certainly we take the recommendations very
seriously.
As you
know, absenteeism can be rather complex. There are many issues that determine
absenteeism. We work with interdepartmental agencies to identify and address
these issues, and we are continuing to work with that. We also reference the
Member to the Education Action Plan, where we've identified Recommendation 29
and 30, where we are going to be working with absenteeism and try to provide the
resources and opportunities so that every child is given an opportunity to get
an education in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the factors cited in the report is inadequate transportation systems.
Will the
minister finally abolish the 1.6-busing rule?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again I
thank the Member opposite for the question. We have had a number of discussions
on that 1.6 kilometre. As a matter of fact, I have challenged the Members
opposite, what do they mean by 1.6? What do they mean by eliminating 1.6? They
don't have the answer. Some of the suggestions to eliminate K to 6, and they
talk about safety, which means then students in grade seven, what message are
you telling them?
We have
provided, and we did something that the Opposition or the PC government never
did, and that was implement a policy. They had it for years and years and didn't
do anything. Last September, we listened to the people and concerns, and we
implemented a courtesy stop within the 1.6. We are now, Mr. Speaker, one of the
few provinces in Canada that has the best policy that's in the country.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Courtesy
stops mean nothing if there are no seats for a child to get on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Our philosophy and what we
stand for is about safety for the children travelling to and from school, Mr.
Speaker, and we'll continue to do that and keep looking for our blue book policy
on 1.6 busing in the near future.
The
report suggests that 75 per cent of students with chronic absenteeism in grade
six will not finish high school.
What is
your government doing to ensure our children finish high school?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell the Member opposite one of the things we do have that they failed to get,
it's called an Education Action Plan. It's a strategy we put in place. There are
82 recommendations. We went through a Premier's Task Force that identified
issues; 82 recommendations that the Premier has been very, very clear on, that
we're not going to let them sit on a shelf. We are actually implementing them.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the very short time we've had, we have over 35
that have either been initiated or have been completed.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we are aggressively implementing our Education Action Plan and we are
taking every situation that's dealt with and providing resources, and we are
making a difference. Something that hasn't happened for a long time, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Can the minister explain why
Canadian history and Canadian geography are being removed from the high school
curriculum in this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have,
in the department's curriculum, a department that reviews all courses and looks
at what courses are being utilized and what's best practice. It's a continual
review of all curriculum that we have – not only geography, not only history –
and we make it applicable to today, not back in to 1990. We're looking at what
would be applicable to today.
We
continually make changes to the curriculum so that we can implement the best
possible opportunity for students to get the best education they possibly can so
they can integrate into society in a manner that is something that they could
really work on and that can produce results, Mr. Speaker. So we continue to do
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it appears that the students will no longer have a choice between
taking history or geography and will now have to take a generic social studies
course.
I ask
the minister: Why has this decision been made to abandon educating children on
our history?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
not abandoning our history. We are integrating our history into the curriculum
throughout different approaches that we make to educate our students. It's
certainly not something we're taking away.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are in fact adding to and we are making
provisions so that our students are given the best possible education they can
get. We are continually looking at how we can improve our curriculum, how we can
improve what we're providing to students so that they can, in fact, Mr. Speaker,
get what we would consider to be a world-class education in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
We now
know how important consultation is to this government, or at least they say it
is.
Did the
minister consult with teachers, students, parents and educational experts before
implementing these changes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Mr. Speaker, thank you for
the question.
We do
have within our department professional staff that – we talk to teachers, we
talk to school boards, we talk to – we have been certainly talking within the
professional realm, and that's why we have a curriculum in the department.
We don't
have to have consultation with parents on this. We have a professional staff
that provides that expertise for us when we make decisions on any curriculum
changes that's available, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, this past fall,
government announced a deal with Timberlands International. This deal gives this
particular company access to over 80 per cent of the forest resources on the
Northern Peninsula.
Can the
Minister of TCII provide an update on processing plant construction, road and
bridge placement, and when will the first tree be harvested?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
very exciting to see, for the first time in a very long time, that there's
actually going to be some investment on the Great Northern Peninsula into the
forest sector by the private sector.
Timberlands International is looking at making an investment and using all their
own money to create jobs on the Great Northern Peninsula. Unlike the former
administration that used public money to – and put at risk taxpayer money that
led to not one piece of investment and no jobs being created and, basically, set
the industry on the Great Northern Peninsula into a significant downturn. It was
poor planning and it led to great disarray for the people of the Great Northern
Peninsula. They certainly suffered under the PC regime.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, we've learned
there has not been one piece of infrastructure developed or not one tree cut as
of yet, or planned to be cut; yet, 80 per cent of the forest resources on the
Northern Peninsula are now tied up for another five years. This has created a
huge amount of stress and concern.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
We've heard from the
residents of the Great Northern Peninsula who are concerned about this
allocation, and it encroaches –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
– on permits that were
originally intended for local residents, local processing and harvesting.
Is there
any requirement for any of the sawlogs to be processed on the Northern
Peninsula?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member opposite should get his facts straight. There are a number of local
contractors that have permits to the forest and they continue to operate. They
also have first right of refusal.
In this
particular agreement, that's a five-year agreement with Timberlands
International or Active Energy, this group, they would have the ability, over
five years, to look at doing sawlogs and other investment when it comes to
biofuels and bioenergy. That's certainly something that's important as we look
to diversify our economy on the Great Northern Peninsula.
We're
looking for business to come to Newfoundland and Labrador. We're also looking
for locals to make investment to attract and grow the economy.
This is
a deal that was done that cost taxpayers no money and can create jobs for the
Great Northern Peninsula and the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, almost 80 per
cent of the available forest resources have been tied up in this giveaway deal
to Timberlands International. Concerns have been raised that only 25 per cent of
the available sawlogs, estimated to be at 45 per cent, are required to be turned
into valuable timber, creating extra jobs in the area.
How can
the minister justify only requiring 25 per cent, which is below the economic
rate of harvest?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
say the Great Northern Peninsula currently, right now, has a sawmill in Main
Brook that's operating under capacity. It has no operations in Roddickton. It
has a closed operation that hasn't operated since 2012.
There is
opportunity. One, you can deal with small-diameter wood. You need to have that
ability. One, Kurger was unable to purchase because of the mill closing in
Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor. There was an over supply for
small-diameter wood.
This is
why we created a forestry action plan to be able to deal with the small-diameter
wood. Attracting a company that's going to be able to deal with that will allow
for more high-value sawlogs and other production to be created in the forest
industry.
Right
now, we've seen what used to be 400 jobs dwindle down to just a few, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Will the minister reinforce the requirement that the harvest and reforestation
of the people's forest resource on the Northern Peninsula be overseen by a
public committee similar to that of the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper advisory
committee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
practice silviculture here in this province. We have very high standards when it
comes to the replacement of our forest. We have certification, ISO standards for
our environmental and harvesting practices, and we must retain that. That is
something that I was very proud, when I was the minister of forestry and
agrifoods, that we achieved that certification and we continue to do so. We work
with the industry, we work with all the partners, because it is important that
we have those standards.
We also
need to look at all of the users of the forests. There are people that are
dealing with it in the outfitting industry, people in tourism, other operators
and other users of the forests. This is a renewable resource and we need to make
sure that we get maximum value from our resources here in this province, and
that's why the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources launched the forestry
action plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, I've read the
release and there is no mention of reforestation or management requirements
after the initial harvest.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, in addition to
the forestry giveaway and tying up the availability of economic activity on the
Northern Peninsula, is this deal exempt from the company having to pay royalties
on the resource?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for interest in the forest industry because that's something
that was dearly lacking when they were in charge of government. When it came to
under their watch, they saw two mills close. They expropriated Abitibi assets
and cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars federally and
provincially. It led to significant consequences.
What
we've done is we've been working with the industry to focus on forestry. We've
had success as a government. The Premier, when it comes to the waiver of
tariffs, when it comes to protecting hundreds and thousands of jobs that are
directly and indirectly located to the forest sector, we have strong parameters.
In this agreement there are measures that must be met to be able to ensure that
jobs are being created on the Great Northern Peninsula and that it's done in a
sustainable way, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
parliamentary secretary for Municipal Affairs indicated in the media he nor the
department knew what the numbers were, and they did not know where the revenue
from 7,500 residents removed from the waste management would be found.
I ask
the minister: Does he know where the revenue will come from?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
understand that the parliamentary secretary did a fine job yesterday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, we have asked
the Eastern Regional Service Board for a plan, now that they're going to
implement the directive that we've given them, and they have to come back to us
on April 1.
We await
that plan. They're alleging that it's $750,000.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LETTO:
I will inform the hon. Member
that the $750,000 would come out of an $11-million budget.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
As we
know, the Minister of Municipal Affairs likes to consult. Who did you consult
with before you made these changes to the waste management?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, when I became
minister, the first group I met with was the Eastern Regional Service Board. The
second group was the cabin owners. We met on several occasions after that to try
to come to an agreement on how we were going to deal with the cabin owners.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to table this document, so I'm going to read it first.
Talking about the regional service board and what they wanted to do, back on
November 28, there was a notice of motion brought forward in the future to cease
the provision of services, including curbside waste, recycling collection and
fire and emergency services on all roads and unincorporated areas not maintained
by the provincial government, unless explicitly instructed otherwise by
government. Should an unincorporated area want to avail of service from the
ERSB, they must form a local service district and then make a formal request to
the board.
That's
exactly what we have, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Communities, towns and local service districts have varying concerns with the
increased cost of waste management and the tipping fees at Robin Hood Bay.
Will the
towns and communities have to make up the shortfall?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure they
have a copy of the letter that I sent to the Eastern Regional Service Board. In
that letter, along with the directive on the unserviced roads, was that no fee
increases would be levied on the existing waste management patrons.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we are aware that as a result of the new vessel being unable to service
the Straits of Labrador region, the icebreaker
Henry Larsen has delivered 60 pallets of supplies to Labrador
Straits, with a further 60 to be delivered in the next day or so.
Minister, my question is: Do you think this new $140-million ferry decision is
the right one or was it a very flawed decision?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, as I've said
quite clearly in this House, we're experiencing ice conditions we haven't seen
in over 30 years. If you think about the service, we had an 18,000-horsepower
icebreaker that got stuck last week. At one point last week, down around the
Corner Brook area, we needed to use two icebreakers.
Mr.
Speaker, I would encourage the Member opposite to go onto Environment Canada and
look at the current ice conditions that we're facing. When we went out with the
RFP – our RFP was built on a previous RFP that the previous administration had
put together. Now, we improved it and we improved it a lot because we asked for
IA ice class. We asked for certain horsepower. We asked for a vessel that would
was the newer – we have a seven-year-old vessel, Mr. Speaker, that previously
operated I think in the (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
The time
has expired.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South for a quick question, please.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, you have a vessel that's not capable of doing the crossing.
So,
Minister, the cost of emergency delivery, will this be deducted from the current
contract which is over and above the $1 million per month cost to taxpayers –
will this be deducted from that or is it extra?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Premier for a very quick response, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, let's set the
record straight here. The motor the vessel,
Qajaq, has four engines. She has two
azipods, with dual thrust propellers on each pod. She's got a combined thrust of
7,500 horsepower.
Mr.
Speaker, that's not the problem. The problem is why a top-class Canadian
icebreaker with 18,000 horsepower, 11,500 more than the
Qajaq, 2,000 more than famous
Henry Larsen cannot get across the Straits. That's the question, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
for order.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In
previous questions on Muskrat Falls power reliability, the Minister of Natural
Resources deferred to the PUB instead of giving answers. The minister knows, or
ought to know, that the PUB is not the manager of Nalcor, her government is.
I ask
the minister, will she explain to the House what Nalcor's plans are to cope with
an extended outage on the Labrador-Island Transmission Link.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, it is confusing.
On one hand, they want the Public Utilities Board involved in Muskrat Falls and,
on the other hand, they do not want it involved in Muskrat Falls.
Mr.
Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro has put a
Reliability and Resource Adequacy Study to the Public Utilities Board. The
Public Utilities Board, who are experts in their field, are very knowledgeable,
will review the Reliability and Resource
Adequacy Study to determine if there's anything further required.
I will
say to the Member opposite, she's relying on a 2011 study, a 2011 report and
things have changed since 2011. There have been changes. The load forecasts have
changed; the availability of power from Nova Scotia has changed. There have been
lots of changes, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Yes,
there have been changes and there are changes to Nalcor. Nalcor does have a
backup plan for coping with an extended outage over the Labrador-Island link.
Will she tell this House what it is?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Newfoundland Hydro has put their plan before the Public Utilities Board, Mr.
Speaker. I can say to the Member opposite there's curtailment available from
various large – Kruger, for example, large companies. We have curtailment
possibilities. We have load forecast changes; load forecast has been lower. We
have availability of power from Nova Scotia.
Mr.
Speaker, all those things are in the reliability report and is before the Public
Utilities Board, which I will say is an independent quasi-judicial body. I
believe, and I believe the Member opposite believes, that the Public Utilities
Board are experts in this field.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
She
forgot the rolling blackouts.
Mr.
Speaker, the Consumer Advocate says back-up power from Nova Scotia is unreliable
and the province may have to install gas turbines at Holyrood to deal with the
prolonged failure of the Labrador-Island Transmission Link to the tune of
perhaps $500 million, plus annual fuel costs.
I ask
the minister: Will these extra capital and operating costs for turbines be
factored in to her government's much anticipated rate mitigation plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
think there's a person in Newfoundland and Labrador who cannot forget blackouts,
because we had them under the previous administration in 2014.
Newfoundland Hydro has put a tremendous amount of money into upgrading its
systems because of those circumstances, Mr. Speaker. I will say, the Public
Utilities Board has required a lot of investment by Newfoundland Hydro to ensure
that that doesn't happen again.
The
reliability and resource adequacy study does speak to what should happen if, in
the unforeseen circumstance, the Labrador-Island Link goes down. If that is not
sufficient, I'm sure the Public Utilities Board will make requirements of
Newfoundland Hydro to ensure their reliability.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
event of a failure of the transmission line from Muskrat Falls, government
claims Nalcor can access up to 100 megawatts of power from Emera, but a break in
the line would mean Emera wouldn't be getting the 177 megawatts it is entitled
to receive as payment for the Maritime Link.
I ask
the minister: What indication does she have that in the event of losing 177
megawatts of power in a Muskrat Falls line break, Emera would have 100 megawatts
to spare for us?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources for a quick response, please.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I've
already gone through that the Public Utilities Board is reviewing this very
issue, and they are the experts. They are quasi-judicial. They are independent.
They will have their eyes on this.
I will
tell the Member opposite, we do have large industrial customers that are willing
to curtail – that is under agreement. Mr. Speaker, the load forecast has changed
since 2011. We do currently today, and in the last few months, been able to take
50 to 100 megawatts from Nova Scotia.
Mr.
Speaker, all of these things make up that reliability study.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The time
for Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
To set
the record straight, I want to table the minutes of the board of directors
meeting of the Eastern Regional Service Board for November 28, 2018; and, I
further want to table the minutes of the board of directors meeting of January
30, 2019.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Further
tabling of documents?
In
accordance with section 19(5)(a) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby
table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meetings held
on December 19, 2018 and January 23, 2019.
Thank
you.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
again today about the hospital in Corner Brook.
WHEREAS
the successful proponents of the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to
be announced in the spring with construction anticipated to begin in the fall,
and it is estimated to be a four-year construction period, and there are
experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
To urge
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that are
awarded the contracts for the new hospital to hire local tradespeople and
labourers, at no extra cost to the taxpayers, so that they can work in their own
area, support the local economy and be able to return to their homes and their
families every evening.
Mr.
Speaker, it was good news yesterday when the Minister of Transportation and
Works said that this will go ahead this fall. That is great news. As I said when
I put it out there in the beginning, that it was the word that was put out and I
was asked to bring it up, which I did, and the minister confirmed that
construction will be starting this fall. I'm very glad of that, and I know the
people in Corner Brook and the surrounding area and all Western Newfoundland are
very proud of it.
Mr.
Speaker, again, I got to bring up and encourage the government to hire local
workers. I know last year there was a bit of a misstep with some people that I
was dealing with, who assured me there would be local workers working, which I
assumed there were going to be. When it happened, there were very few local
workers actually hired.
So,
again, I'm raising this on behalf of all the workers out in Western
Newfoundland, the Port au Port area, down in Baie Verte, the Northern Peninsula,
and the Corner Brook area, that they should be encouraged. Mr. Speaker, there
are always ways to encourage local workers, we know that, and we're doing that
down in the Burin Peninsula now. You don't hear much about it because we're
encouraging local workers to be hired down in that area now. This is nothing
that's unusual, but for some reason – and I don't want to cast any doubt on
anybody, but for some reason there's no encouragement for the local workers out
in the Corner Brook area.
I ask
the minister to continue the work he's doing. The Minister of Transportation and
Works to continue the work he's doing with the local contractors with
Construction NL – Trades NL, sorry, Trades NL – to continue the work he's doing,
because I know he's an advocate of this.
I trust,
Mr. Speaker, that at the end there will be local workers hired on the hospital
in Corner Brook, and I look forward – like I said before to the minister, if you
need any help, I have a good rapport with a lot of the unions, a lot of local
people in the area, that I'd be willing to step in.
So I say
we can work together, Minister, to get this done, get this resolved because it
would be great for the workers in Western Newfoundland.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, when I was responding to a similar petition, I mentioned
some of our large-scale infrastructure projects we're doing in the province and
how they benefit not only local workers but local companies as well.
Just as
a point in case here, Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation quite recently with the
contractor who's actually going to be building the new school in Coley's Point.
That conversation centred around things like the local companies that they will
be using for the construction of that new school in Coley's Point.
This is
a project that we're hoping to see get underway, actually, in the coming days.
The people of that area of the province, the Bay Robert's area, have waited a
long time for a new school. I can tell them today, it's a project that they're
going to see happen, not in the coming months anymore, Mr. Speaker, but in the
coming days.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, we have lots of
contracts on the go for smaller-scale construction projects, whether it's in
Paradise, whether it's in Bay Roberts.
Mr.
Speaker, in my own District of Carbonear, we have a great project happening out
in Carbonear general hospital –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, Sir.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
There
have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term
care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,
whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,
not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's
failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly to
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which
includes the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three
persons in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities
housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive
debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from
injuries, proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would
include the creation of a specific job position in these facilities for
monitoring and intervention as required to ensure the safety of patients.
I present this petition presented to me by people from
St. Stephen's, Peter's River, St. Vincent's, Hare Bay, from a variety of areas
in St. John's, Paradise and Mount Pearl. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House
of Assembly and as critic, when a petition is presented to me, I present it, not
as an individual but on behalf of the people who are writing. I ask the House to
accept this petition in that spirt of the people who have signed the petition.
Mr. Speaker, I won't go into the details of what people
are going through, that's in the pray itself, but I think it's important to
realize that the model of large facilities like Pleasant View Towers, facilities
like that are now passé, yet here we are in the present still creating large
facilities like that. We have a lot of other models of care that could improve
quality of life with more home-like settings.
We have them, for example, the Butterfly Home Project
in Ontario. There's also wonderful work going on in the UK called Dementia Care
Matters. In the USA, which can't match in health care, however, they have a
wonderful project called Green House Project. In these situations, staffing
ratios meet the needs of the people. People are in a home-like setting and they
are getting the personal care that this petition is calling for. I ask the
minister to look beyond and look at other models.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services
for a response, please.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I acknowledge the Member's comments when she said she's
bringing this forth on behalf of others. I know she's probably more familiar
with the intimacies of health care than some of the people, simply by the virtue
of experience. I think it's fair to point out, however, that long-term care in
this province is for those people for whom care at home is impractical or unsafe
and they require 24-hour care.
I think in the same spirit of offering a different
narrative, I would like to point out that as recently as yesterday, Western
Health and Central Health
each won national awards for the standard of care of the frail elderly, which is
somewhat at odds with some of the assumptions behind the comments of the
petition.
The
other piece is that whilst these institutions, as she refers to them, are large
they are what's called podded into families of small groups of individuals, in
clusters of less than a dozen, Mr. Speaker. So, there is a family environment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to present a petition on behalf of the constituents in my area – I
certainly spoke to this before – related to the Witless Bay Line, Route 13, a
significant piece of infrastructure, certainly a main piece of infrastructure
between the Trans-Canada Highway and Route 10 on the Southern Shore.
I call
on the current government to upgrade and perform immediate maintenance. This
time of year, with the thawing and freezing, there are significant issues with
regard to potholes, and to do immediate repairs to this and a long-term look at
upgrades to the piece of highway which is so significant for traffic.
We have
a lot of people that work on the other side, on the Trans-Canada in terms of
significant industrial sites, other occupations going back and forth across that
piece of infrastructure, certainly for the tourism sector as well and the amount
of people who travel that.
Now, in
previous years, we have invested a little over $1.5 million. There were a couple
of sections done. We've looked, over the past number of years, to complete that
and have further sections done, recognizing you can't do it all in the one time
but certainly do various portions and upgrades.
I know
the minister, I had discussion with him, he actually viewed it, I think, himself
a while back and did indicate it to me they were going to look at it at some
point to get the upgrades. But it's not in the Roads Program. I've tried to get
a rating for the particular road and where it would fall to, comparatively, with
other pieces of infrastructure and where it stands in the priority. There are
qualifiers in that evaluation related to health and safety, need, economics and
those types of things.
So, I
certainly call on the minister to take an immediate look at the maintenance
required and a long-term look at this season to get some work done on that very
significant piece of infrastructure that connects Route 10 with the Trans-Canada
Highway.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, we do understand the significance
of this piece of highway and I can let the Member opposite know that we will be,
very shortly, putting an application forward to the federal government under the
trade and transportation fund that will actually include this piece of
infrastructure.
We
realize that this piece of infrastructure will actually play a role in the
province's offshore future if you look at the developments in the Witless and
Bay Bulls area. So, Mr. Speaker, we see an opportunity with this federal
government fund, trade and transportation, to actually take this section of road
and actually include it in that proposal to the federal government. So it is a
piece of road that we will certainly be addressing in the near future through an
application to Ottawa.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
following petition I present is regarding the Foxtrap Access Road in CBS, which
is a vital link to the TCH and the Peacekeepers Way, as well as being a heavily
populated area. This road is in need of immediate repairs. It needs asphalt
resurfacing, as well as shoulder repairs. This road is listed in resurfacing for
2023 in the five-year Roads Program, but it's not soon enough and it needs
immediate attention.
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly to call upon government to provide
immediate repairs to the Foxtrap Access Road.
As I've
stated, Mr. Speaker, and I've presented this petition several times in the
House, I have a lot of them from residents in the area and it's a very important
road. It's sandwiched between Peacekeepers and Route 60, which Peacekeepers is
the second busiest, Route 60 is the fifth busiest in the province, so we
estimate the traffic – I don't know if anyone actually does a traffic count, but
I hear on a day-to-day basis about this road and it is in bad shape. The simple
fact of the matter, it's a vital link.
I spoke
to the minister about this. There has been a lot of good work done in my area
over the last year, based on, I guess, the population. It is the second-largest
municipality and the roads get a lot of use. This tied to the Peacekeepers Way,
the TCH, two high schools in there, and the road is a heavily populated road, a
lot of off-roads.
I just
want to reiterate to the minister the importance that I feel as the Member and
the residents feel that this road needs immediate attention. We understand, four
years' time, it's on the list, but four years' time is a long time with the
amount of traffic in over that road and its current situation, a lot of
potholes, a lot of cross-cuts, no shoulders in certain areas. It's quite
dangerous. Vehicles are cutting away from where there's no shoulder into the
other lane. It poses a serious safety risk.
With two
high schools in there alone, children walking the roads, it's a busy area, and I
call upon the minister – like I said, we've spoken, and I encourage him to give
this some serious attention in moving it up on the list as it requires immediate
attention now.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
When you
think about our Roads Plan and the success we've had with our Roads Plan through
early tendering, early starts, we've seen a way that we've been able to reinvest
in roads. The Member opposite talks about how – the specific project that he's
referring to today is the Foxtrap Access Road. That is a project that's
projected out, I think, four years.
But one
of the things that we've done since bringing in our five-year Roads Plan is
quite often, due to early tendering and early starts, if we're able to achieve
savings through that early part of the construction season, we then go forward
and look for projects that are emerging, projects similar to the one the Member
opposite is referring to.
So one
of the things we've done through the great success of our five-year Roads Plan
is having the ability to actually do work later in the season outside of the
current year's Roads Plan into outer years.
Mr.
Speaker, this is certainly a project that we realize the value of, and it's
certainly something that we will continue to monitor.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term
care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,
whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,
not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to the
government's failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows:
To urge
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which
includes the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three
residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities
housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive
debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from
injuries, proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would
include the creation of a specific job position in these facilities for
monitoring, intervention as required to ensure the safety of patients.
Mr.
Speaker, today I am presenting petitions on behalf of people in my late mother's
neck of the woods, actually: Centreville, Valleyfield, Wareham, Trinity, Pool's
Island and so on. We have a couple of people from Gander as well.
Mr.
Speaker, again, we present this petition on behalf of the group, Advocates for
Senior Citizen's Rights, and their thousands of members that they do have. I
recognize that the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi also presented a
petition on this earlier, and I do acknowledge the minister's response to it.
I would
say, Mr. Speaker, in reference to what the minister was saying, there are
certainly – I understand that staff are doing the best they can; nobody is
questioning that. I think it's great that they received some awards in a couple
of the health authorities for certain aspects of work they've done; nobody is
disputing it either.
But this
is about specific circumstances that people – if you go into their Facebook
group, the website they have set up, Advocates for Senior Citizen's Rights,
you'll see individual stories of situations where someone who has loved ones
with dementia or Alzheimer's disease, and to go into the facility and find the
food that was laid out for breakfast still there on the side of the bed on a
table because nobody bothered to feed that person, or wasn't able, or they were
busy or whatever the case might be, situations of loved ones lying in their own
waste for extended periods of time and so on.
This is
our parents, our grandparents we're talking about. It's important that we take
care of our seniors, and that's all they're asking.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 7, Bill 57.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
No.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oh, I'm sorry.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, that An Act to Amend the
Registered Nurses Act, 2008, Bill 57, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 57, An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act, 2008, be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008.”
(Bill 57)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's my
pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to introduce Bill 57, entitled, as
we've just said, An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act, 2008.
The
Registered Nurses Act, 2008 regulates
the practice of nursing in the province. The Association of Registered Nurses in
Newfoundland and Labrador is the regulatory body created under this act and is
responsible for acting in the interest of the public. It does this by looking,
promoting and advancing the ethical and professional standards of the nursing
profession, and also promoting proficiency and competence in the nursing
profession.
The
association's mandate is to ensure that registered nurses who provide care and
services to the people of the province are qualified, and that they provide
those services in accordance with professional and ethical standards applicable
to the practice of nursing.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 57 proposes to amend the RN Act in a number of ways; some major,
some minor. It removes the term association from the name of the Association of
Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador to better reflect its public
protection mandate. It removes the requirement to have a legislated standards
committee to approve a nurse practitioner scope of practice; and, finally, it
makes clarifications around the quality assurance process. And I'll go into each
of these now in a little bit more detail.
The most
significant amendment, obviously, and most noticeable is the change in the name.
The change proposed in the act is to change Association of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador to the College of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland
and Labrador. The association has requested that its name be changed to a
College of Registered Nurses to avoid confusion as to the nature of its
statutory mandate, particularly as it pertains to the role of other associations
and organizations.
The
ARNNL have advised that the term association in the formal title of a regulatory
authority has led to confusion, particularly amongst the public, as the term
association is more often understood to mean an organization that's solely
responsible for advocating for its membership. As I laid out at the beginning,
the act actually states the mandate is to advocate on behalf of the interests of
the public.
The
ARNNL has also advised that it's often confused with the other nursing
association, which is the Registered Nurses' Union of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So a change to the ARNNL name would clearly reflect its distinct role from the
Nurses' Union and would immediately, in the minds of all who saw it, identify
this body as the regulatory authority.
The
association has also advised that the name causes confusion amongst its own
members. It is to attract awareness and understanding about its organization
using both public and member surveys. These have shown that the results
demonstrate that while the public has a general awareness of the ARNNL, there is
a lack of understanding of its mandate with respect to regulating registered
nurses, rather than a role as an advocacy group for the nursing profession or as
a union. Further, a percentage of members themselves believe that the role of
the ARNNL is actually to protect nurses rather than the public.
Change
recommended in the statute amendment in the name of the ARNNL is consistent with
the names of the vast majority of health professional statutes currently in this
province. Of 23 self-regulating health professions, there are only two
regulatory authorities using the word association in their name. There's the
Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers.
Mr.
Speaker, the objects of the ARNNL are set out in section 4 of the act and its
public protection mandate will not change as a result of this amendment, Bill
57. Whilst the change in the ARNNL's name is of great significance, Mr. Speaker,
the other important amendment to Bill 57 is around the removal of the nurse
practitioner standards committee, and I will elaborate a little bit more on that
in case people feel that they're losing something by this.
A bit of
history: Back in the early implementation of the nurse practitioner role in the
province's health care – this goes back now to the late 1990s and early 2000s –
the practice of nurse practitioners was in its infancy; and so, as such,
legislation and authority for oversight was very prescriptive, and it was that
way in order for the ARNNL to meet its public protection mandate. This was new
ground. In actual fact, I think it's worthwhile stating at this point, in terms
of nurse practitioners in their role and their utility and employment within the
health care system, this province leads the way.
If you
go to federal, provincial and territorial health ministers meetings, we are the
jurisdiction that others come to when asking about issues concerned with nurse
practitioners. From Prince Edward Island, which asked me at their last meeting,
how on earth do you get nurse practitioners on the Island; to Manitoba, where
they actually have the same number of nurse practitioners as we do, but for a
population and geography – or, certainly, the population is considerably bigger
than us. So I think it's worth highlighting that we, as a province, blaze this
particular trail, and at that point prescriptive legislation was deemed a
prudent measure.
This,
however, still carries on today. So, as such, the RN Act currently requires the
association to appoint a standards committee consisting, among others, of a
representative of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and a representative of the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board.
There is also a mix of other members chosen by the ARNNL.
This
committee, the standards committee, is mandated to determine a scope of
practice, such as the forms of energy that a nurse practitioner may prescribe.
By which I mean heat therapy, ultrasound, that kind of thing, the laboratory or
other tests they may order, the drugs that may be prescribed, and the
circumstances under which those particular drugs may be prescribed to.
The RN
Act stipulates that decisions of this practice standards committee shall be made
by the majority. However, the kicker in the tail, as it were, was that
representatives from the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Pharmacy
Board must actually agree with a majority of vote in order for it to become a
decision of the committee. This essentially gives those representatives a veto
over changes to a nurse practitioner's scope of practice.
Since
the introduction of this committee structure, the education requirements and the
scope of practice of nurse practitioners have evolved and are much better
understood now than they were even 10 years ago, and certainly at the time of
the inception of the original legislation.
Nurse
practitioners in the province are now required to complete graduate level
education, write a national examination and they become an established and
important part of the health care teams in the delivery of health care services
throughout the province. You would have heard me on many occasions rise to
comment on their value and the contribution that they make in all sorts of
arenas, and more lately through the Towards Recovery: Mental Health and
Addictions Plan, as we were fortunate enough to have some of the first tranche
of nurse practitioners complete the Suboxone methadone prescribing courses to
enable better access for people with substance use issues.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 57, this amendment removes the committee requirement in
legislation; however, it, of itself doesn't purport to nor is it intended to
make any change to a nurse practitioner's scope of practice through this
amendment. The nurse practitioner's scope of practice is well established in the
current education programs and training. Any issues related to nurse
practitioners' practicing outside this scope of practice can be adequately
addressed by the ARNNL or the college when this legislation passes in accordance
with its authority under existing legislation
Both the
College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy
Board have advised themselves they no longer see a need for a legislative
standards committee which gives them decision-making authority or veto over a
nurse practitioner's scope of practice. So, essentially, nobody on the committee
wants it. While ARNNL may still decide to maintain a committee in a consultative
and advisory capacity, the committee would no longer be established in
legislation nor would it have any decision-making authority as such.
Mr.
Speaker, it has been the position of our government that the residents of our
province should be able to receive health care services from the right health
care professional at the right time. This is an essential prerequisite to the
primary health care model. To support this, where legislative requirements are
impeding a health care professional's ability to practice to their full scope of
practice, we need to take steps to address these impediments, and Bill 57 does
that.
Moving
on to the other amendments in the bill; the other one with a significant impact
on the ARNNL's ability to deliver its objects and mandate – again, a little bit
of history. In December of 2014, the RN Act was amended to establish a quality
assurance provision. The amendments in 2014, which are on the statute books,
require the association to establish a quality assurance program which will
enable it to address practice issues before they become more serious matters
requiring disciplinary intervention. While the quality assurance provisions have
received Royal Assent, they have not yet come into force.
The RN
Act currently contains provisions which establish a disciplinary process to be
followed where it is alleged that a registered nurse has engaged in professional
misconduct or conduct deserving of sanction, and that is common to pretty well
every other self-regulating profession. This process to resolve an allegation of
professional misconduct by the director, it has several mechanisms. It can
involve a settlement by the director of Professional Conduct Review, it can
involve a referral to the Complaints Authorization Committee to enter into an
investigation and, following which, that committee then could make an
adjudication tribunal recommendation to set up a hearing.
So the
act sets out a number of sanctions which can be imposed on a registered nurse
who has been found to have engaged in conduct undeserving of a nurse. They
include restrictions on the ability to practice, or even suspension or removal
of a licence. As you can appreciate, allegations of conduct deserving of
sanction are very serious issues and they are properly dealt with through a
disciplinary process.
The
problem existed in 2014, was a quality assurance regime. The aims of that would
allow the association to engage with a registered nurse to address concerns
about that individual's practice before it gets to the point where the big guns
and the big stick come out and they end up being sanctioned.
While
the ARNNL has been working diligently to develop such policies and to put
processes in place to make it ready for quality assurance provisions to come
into force, it discovered in the process of doing this, issues with the adoption
of the provisions in the 2014 amendment as they stood. The principle issue was
the authority to attempt to resolve issues in the context of a quality assurance
process, i.e. we want to educate you, we want to work with you and help you be
the better nurse, the better nurse practitioner, it didn't exist. The only
option the ARNNL had, if they identified a quality assurance issue, was to go
down a disciplinary route, and that doesn't serve anybody's interest. It
overuses a disciplinary process and basically stalls the whole principle of
quality assurance, which is around much less about attributing blame and fault,
and far much more around education and moving towards a better quality.
So, we
felt if it's appropriate for the ARNNL to attempt to resolve allegations of
conduct deserving of sanction in a disciplinary context, it also makes sense
that they should have some authority along the same lines to deal with concerns
that don't meet a disciplinary threshold, and that's what these amendments are
intended to provide. So because of that, they have requested, and we have put in
the amendments, a provision that will allow it to fully carry out its quality
assurance mandate. Without that amendment, the process of handling quality
assurance concerns is going to be way more complicated, and ultimately not serve
the best interests of the public, for whom it is set up to protect.
I am
advised that the amendment in Bill 57 that deals with quality assurance is in
keeping with the original intent of the amendment in 2014, so it's not contrary
to the spirit of either the 2008 act or as amended in 2014. Once this amendment
is made, I'm also advised that the ARNNL is ready to have the quality assurance
provisions proclaimed into force. So everything is ready, except we have this
barrier baked into the 2014 amendment, which we need to deal with, with Bill 57.
So, Mr.
Speaker, this clarification and the proclamation of the quality assurance
provisions will grant the ARNNL, or the College of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador an additional tool to address concerns early, rather
than to wait until they become more serious. It will enable the association to
fulfill its statutory mandate by ensuring that registered nurses in the province
continue to provide the highest level of care to the patients they serve, and it
does this by allowing the association to deal with concerns way earlier, before
they become serious enough to be conduct deserving of a sanction, which then
goes down a separate disciplinary process.
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, I wish to highlight that Bill 57 will actually come into force in
September, on September 1 of this year. The delay in proclamation contained in
the bill is at the request of the association and it's done to allow them
sufficient time to update their communication promotional materials as well as
signage to reflect the change to its name.
This is
essentially, potentially, a rebranding exercise for what will become the
college, the regulators. It's a huge opportunity for them to go to their
membership and the public and clear up some of these dilemmas that exist in the
minds of the people of the province, as well as their own members that I
referenced in my preamble earlier on.
There
are currently 6,400 registered nurses practising in the province and about 170
nurse practitioners. As I say, the same number as in Manitoba pretty well. They
practise within our acute health care centres, they work with children and
seniors and they are a vital part of our overall health care system. They are
becoming more increasingly valuable as we roll out our hub-and-spoke model
Towards Recovery and mental health and
addictions.
The aim
of Bill 57, the amended act, is to support the registered nurses that continue
to work hard, to continue to provide that excellent quality of care to the
residents of our province. It will assist the association in fulfilling its
mandate by continuing to ensure that registered nurses are qualified and
competent to provide that care and services and to provide early intervention
opportunities under a quality assurance mechanism rather than waiting for the
big stick and the boot, as it were, if they get that bad.
Officials in my department have worked very closely with the association, and I
acknowledge the presence of a couple of their executives in the gallery here
today. We've worked very closely with the association regarding these amendments
to ensure that what we have on paper here meets their needs. We really look
forward to this opportunity to work together with a new College of Registered
Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador to help what we all have, which is a desire
to have a high-quality system, high-quality providers and to protect the public
and regulate the practice.
I'm not
going to use my full time, Mr. Speaker, much as my colleagues will be sad to
hear that I know; they love to hear me read.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HAGGIE:
Don't worry guys; I'll give
you your chance.
Basically, I'm just going to round off with one simple request: I would ask all
Members of this hon. House to support this bill. It's a major landmark for the
nursing profession.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an opportunity and an honour for me to stand and talk to the amendments
to Bill 57. I will note, the minister had be at consultation. Sometimes we
banter back and forth here about changes to legislation and sometimes it's
conversing with the stakeholders – is it beneficial?
In some
cases, it doesn't take place and sometimes we banter back and forth about the
conversations and the inclusion not taking place, but I understand from the
association and from the minister's outlining it that this conversation has
taken place. The changes, the amendments that are being made to the legislation
are reflective of the changing in standards, the changing in operations, the
changes in moving things to another level and putting us on an equal standard,
professionally, and from operational point of view as other jurisdictions. So we
welcome that.
As the
minister said, he's asking for all his colleagues to support this. Well, I'll
start the way I normally would finish by saying we will be supporting this piece
of legislative change, but I do still want to talk to the importance of this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
While it may seem on the
surface, in some cases, that it's minor changes, it's never a minor change when
you're changing the image of an organization, the ability for the organization
to have particular increase in standards and its operational procedures that
obviously improve its dialogue, its image in the community, its representation
of its memberships and its ability to work with other partners to ensure that
they improve the service they provide.
When we
talk about, in this case, the Association of Registered Nurses and what that
means and what well over 6,500 professionals provide to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, no change is insignificant and no change is
considered what people sometimes would say it's just housekeeping. It has a
major impact because the influence and the responsibility and what they add to
our health care service in Newfoundland and Labrador is immeasurable. So
anything that is offered, any piece of legislation, any amendment, any change in
policy or any clarification of the standards, the processes, the organization's
operational policies are an improvement for a number of reasons.
One, the
membership have a clear understanding of how they're going to provide their
services and their responsibilities. It gives the general public a better
understanding of what the roles and responsibilities of that organization are,
and what their expectations of that organization would be. It would open up – I
would think and hope, and I've seen the evidence of it – easier, more
collaborative dialogue between the line departments, or even in cases here, the
regional health authorities, to have an understanding of the role everybody
would play in ensuring that the continuum in our health care system moves on a
forward basis.
So while
the minister has outlined – and I'll just talk about some of them that I think
are important, they're all important, but I think have more significant
importance around how this improves the act itself. No doubt, every so many
years it's imperative on all of us, no matter what the organization is or us as
a part of the general public, to review the legislation that represents a
particular policy, an organization or a structured service that we provide, to
ensure we've modernized it and it truly represents the clientele we represent,
it truly represents the clientele's responsibility or service that it provides.
In this
case, that's what I've seen happen with Bill 57. That through a full review of
it, and there are a multitude of sections in here – and the particular changes
are not only relevant to one section. They cross over a number of the
operational and structural processes and procedures of the organization itself.
One, the
changing of the name. Some might see that as insignificant, depending on where
you stand, but when you're changing your image, you're changing people's
perception of what you do. You're changing your ability to, in some cases, offer
or provide different services, expand those.
In this
case, changing the name to the College of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and
Labrador, I think adds us in another level of professionalism. Not that we
haven't had 100 per cent professionalism from the organization in the past, but
it's modernizing. It puts it in a detailed category that talks to the
importance, it talks to the professionalism and it talks to the responsibility.
So changing that, while it might seem minimal on the surface, from a logistical
point of view I think it has many other more important logistical benefits for
people's perception in how the organization operates, how it negotiates, how it
develops partnerships.
So we
see that as a positive add-on for the organization to change its name. It
doesn't take away from any of the history of the organization. It doesn't take
away from any of the logistical understandings that the general public would
have of what this organization offers. What it does, they put it on an even keel
with other jurisdictions and notes it for what it is; an extremely, highly
professional organization that has as its mandate and has as its membership
those qualified individuals who will offer a provided service, particularly in
the health care area here.
Updating
the terminology used to describe the executive members of council – we've
changed, and sometimes we go in full circles after decades of organizations
operating on the structure of our executive makeup, on the structure of our
staffing component, on the structure of the labelling and the different
responsibilities of executive members in this. But this puts us inline with
other jurisdictions, with other agencies within Newfoundland and Labrador that
represent components of the health care profession.
So that
to me – while it seems like a change on paper, it's a change in operational
procedures and operational structures. The image of the organization stays at
the level that it needs to be, the extreme high level of professionalism.
It
allows the council, with the approval of the minister, to establish different
categories of registered nurses. Because as our health care profession changes,
and our demands and our needs, there is always a need for categories. Sometimes
people don't like categories because they talk about, it is segregated. I don't
believe that, and I know us on this side don't believe that.
We talk
about different responsibilities, different training components, different ways
of delivering services, different models that can be developed. In any
organization, sometimes you carve off who would have the speciality to do that.
What's the most efficient way to make that happen? What's the most engaging way
to make that happen?
So
having the ability for this organization, who are the professionals – it
shouldn't be dictated by anybody outside. This organization who has the
professionals, who understands its membership's needs, would have the ability to
design a mechanism that works and decide what categories are necessary and who
would fit into those, and what their responsibilities would be for providing
health care in our province. It allows more than four public members appointed
to the council of the college.
I'm a
big believer, anything we do in the health care system – I believe in any system
that we offer services to the general public, there has to be a collaborative
approach here. There has to be the professionals who have the skill set to offer
it, but it also has to have the general public, for people who could talk about
their particular needs, who could talk about a particular approach to it.
Having a
balance of the proper number, the right balance of those who are guiding with
their advice or their experiences and for those who have the professional
expertise to be able to deliver on those services that are needed. So having
that ability to offer that, to me, is a positive.
What I
do like – and I'll have a few questions when we get to Committee – is the fact
that we're not pigeonholing ourselves. We're not saying it can only be this
number, that there's an ability for the committee to look at it. Once this piece
of legislation is passed and they're registered as a college, they can then
themselves look at the operations of their organization to be able to put in
play the structure that would be conducive to being able to then provide the
services that they're enacted and that they're entrusted to offer in this
province.
Clarify
that the disciplinary process applies to any member licenced under the act.
We've had some big debate here. I remember one of the debates with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, and changing the legislation
there was, again, around the control over the disciplinary process. Again, I'm a
really big believer in two collaborative approaches here. One, there has to be a
mechanism for self-policing. Everybody has to be accountable.
In a
professional organization, the organization themselves would have the best
opportunity to be able to determine the standards. If those were not adhered to,
those who do not follow the proper policies, they're answerable, and how the
checks and balances are done to ensure that happens here.
Having
that policy clarified would make both the government, the department who
represents the masses of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through a
legislation and us here in the House of Assembly, making it clear as to knowing
that the organization itself has a clear disciplinary process to ensure its
members follow rules and regulations. In cases where that doesn't happen,
there's a process in play to understand exactly how that's going to be dealt
with.
Clarifying the quality assurance provisions; that's always been a question here
of interpretation over the years; particularly, when we talk about health
legislation. What the quality assurance is all about, and how do we make that
reflect exactly the needs to ensure the best quality of health care is being
provided and that the outcomes are conducive with the investment. The investment
sometimes is human investment. Sometimes it's financial investment; sometimes
it's partnership investments.
We like
that those issues are being clarified. It's not in any way, shape or form to
indicate that they didn't exist in the past, because this organization has been
extremely professional and extremely beneficial, if not one of the top
beneficial associations for providing proper health care in our province. What
this does now is clarify and bring it to the next level.
All
these pieces of legislation are always living entities. As we grow, as things
change in our health care, as the needs of members' change, as the
organization's mandate may take on different philosophies as they partner with
other groups, we have to also make sure that we're open to be able to make these
changes. Not 10 and 15 and 20 years where it's a dramatic change and there's
backlash because we don't have the ability to offer particular services. As we
do this, this ensure this.
In my
opinion, most of our legislation should have four or five standard things that
we review on a biannual basis. Quality assurance is definitely one. Disciplinary
processes is another; developing best practices, return on our investments,
these types of things. This is a good way of bringing it to the next level; over
the last five years or so since we've had any major reviews or major changes.
Remove
the requirements to appoint a nurse practitioner standards committee – and I do
realize that our health profession is changing somewhat in this province,
because we're having to find unique ways to provide services in rural and remote
communities, in some of our urban centres, in some of our big health care
facilities, and we need to be able to have flexibility to understand how we
offer things. So, removing certain requirements to appoint a nurse practitioner
standards committee, and replacing it with something that's more conducive and
more in tune with how we move the health care profession forward is a positive.
We look
at here, the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador has
requested a name change. That's what I said at the beginning, the fact that they
have made the acknowledgement and the effort to sit with government and say,
here's where our organization is, here's what we feel would best represent, in
legislation, who we are, what we do and would give us the flexibility to be able
to provide the services that we're set up to do in a more equitable way and a
more efficient way, and that, I see, as a positive.
The
names of the president and president-elect will be changed to chairperson and
vice-chairperson. They're logistical issues that were determined by the
membership to say this works in the best effect for our organization from a
regional, a provincial and national standard, so why we would ever argue with
that; I mean, we have to give some autonomy to organizations to best set out in
legislation what represents who they are, and that's what this change there does
for that.
The
change will allow greater than four members of the general public to be
appointed while maintaining 10 members elected from and by registered nurses; I
see that. You can't in any way, shape or form out-balance the professionals who
are set up, and this is their organization, to have it that there might be a
group who have more influence on the operation of that organization. But as we
said at the beginning, and on the recommendation of the upcoming college, this
organization now has the ability to be open-minded to say, how can we best
provide the services and represent our own membership within an organization,
and having those viewpoints from different perspectives add to that. So, that's
an added change that they have fostered and moved forward.
Amendments would allow the future regulatory – establishing different categories
of registered nurses. None are currently proposed; this is to allow future
flexibility. And as I said earlier, the delivery of our health care system is
evolving on a daily basis. Having a professional organization that represents
the largest proportion of those who provide the services in our health care,
have to have the flexibility to be able to either change their approach, add new
entities, add new categories, develop a new staffing regiment that fits the
particular needs in a professional manner. So, this gives them that ability to
do that.
The
college will have the ability to order respondents to pay costs or part of an
investigation and hearing, whether the respondent pleads guilty or is found
guilty. This is an internal operation to ensure that members are accountable,
and that the rest of the membership shouldn't have to bear the brunt of a
financial cost for the organization, or the taxpayers, based on because somebody
else who didn't follow the professional procedures and processes that have been
outlined by the organization itself.
The
nurse practitioner standards committee is repealed. This move is supported by
the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Pharmacy Board, who has members
on the committee, is viewed as redundant. Standards, scope of practice, et
cetera, are set out in regulatory. So what we're saying is now, rather than
having something that people could interpret that would either slow the process
down or would say that's the angle we'll go, we already have this outlined now
in the regulatory of the legislation.
It
cleans everything up; it makes it neat. I would hope it prevents
misinterpretation or delayed processes of saying no, we have to compare this
piece of the legislation or this part of our policy to this. It now clearly
outlines exactly the best process to use in these circumstances. So if there's a
debate on a particular issue or a differencing of opinion, it's clearly spelled
out in legislation. Again, there are a number of in-house name changes and
grammatical changes which just adds to the professionalism.
So
looking at this, I will have a few questions just for clarification, because we
want to ensure every time we put a piece of legislation in this House that we
get the best return for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we could
from it, but we also get the best collaborative partnership with the agency or
organization who have put forward their recommendations and who are going to be
providing the valuable service that's necessary here.
So as we
move forward on An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act, 2008 and move it to
another level, we look forward on this side to having some more open debate in
Committee, but also look forward to being able to support this and having this
enacted in September.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I
recognize the hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island for his words and
contributing to our conversation on Bill 57, An Act to Amend the Registered
Nurses Act, 2008. As alluded by the minister, as well as the Member opposite,
there are just few changes here, but it's certainly something that was asked of
the department to move forward with. I certainly want to welcome and acknowledge
the visitors to the gallery here this afternoon as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had the great pleasure over the last number of months to work
closely with the Minister of Health and Community Services and the
representatives in the Department of Health and Community Services as the
parliamentary secretary to the minister. I know that this is something that was
looking forward to – and while it may seem, in some senses, a bit minor and some
changes in procedural and some logistical things, it certainly is important. The
minister, I think, hit the nail right on the head with his opening remarks,
specifically referring to the name change and changing the name of the
Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador to the College of
Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is
really a reflection of the mandate and the regulatory authority responsible for
the regulation of registered nurse. As the minister had said, it commonly could
be referred to previously as more of an advocacy group. By removing the word
“association” from its name, we're essentially eliminating some of this
confusion.
The name
change as well, we're going to update some terminology with respect to the
executive members of the council. The Member just spoke briefly about referring
to the word president and president-elect, and we'll now refer to chairperson
and vice-chairperson respectively.
Further,
the bill updates provisions in the act regarding the elections of these two
positions, such that a public representative may be elected. These positions
will no longer need to be filled by registered nurses, only thereby broadening
the pool of individuals who would eligible to hold these executive positions.
So, essentially increasing the number of public representative who may be
appointed to the council of the college. While the minimum number of four will
not change, there will be authority to appoint more public representatives as
desired. I think an increase in the number of individuals on the council,
essentially it will enhance the representation of the public perspective which
aligns with more of public protection mandate of what will now be called the
college.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 57 expands the authority to make regulations, with the approval of
the minister, with respect to the establishment of various categories of
registered nurses. The authority will permit the making of regulations, should a
need arise in the future, to establish categories of RNs, where certain RNs may
have a particular expertise or specialized training. I understand there is no
immediate intention to establish such categories; however, including this
provision here in the bill will give flexibility, should any need arise in the
future.
There's
some clarity around the disciplinary process, Mr. Speaker, with respect to
anybody who is currently licensed or was licensed under the Registered Nurses
Act. The amendment will clarify that nurses who are granted any provisional
licence, pending successful completion of their qualifying examination, may be
subject to discipline in appropriate circumstances. This is, again, really
provisional in the sense that any disciplinary provisions will only apply to
registered nurses and former registered nurses, again. Again, no way to
strengthen anything here, other than really put a broader scope on it.
The bill
also clarifies the cost of an investigation and a hearing, should there be any
type of complaint made by an injunction tribunal, regardless of whether the
registrant pleads guilty or is found guilty of conduct deserving of any
particular sanction.
Also,
some clarity around the quality assurance process. As the minister alluded to in
his remarks, the purpose of the quality assurance process is to address areas of
concern before they become more serious and may warrant any type of action. This
is very consistent with the mandate to regulate the practice of registered
nurses in the public interest. Having authority to address concerns before they
become more serious is very positive, something very proactive, and something
that's been asked of us to ensure that registered nurses continue to provide the
highest level of care and services to the people of our province.
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, Bill 57 will remove the legislative requirement to appoint a nurse
practitioner standards committee. This committee is currently made up of
representatives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, members of the
Pharmacy Board.
The
committee was established, I would say, just about 20 years ago, early 2000s,
and this was when nurse practitioners were new to our province. At the time, the
train of thought was the level of oversight into a nurse practitioner's scope of
practice was seen as necessary, but I think we can all agree that since this
time nurse practitioners have become very well established in our health care
system. They have a very advanced level of education and training in their scope
of practice, and it's no longer necessary to have this type of committee, which
was set out in legislation, to determine what a nurse practitioner can and
cannot do.
Mr.
Speaker, I can speak first-hand to the folks on the West Coast and what the role
of nurse practitioners have done with, specifically, to some of our rural
clinics. The Member for St. George's - Humber could allude to it as well. I
actually just sat down with our local nurse practitioner just a few months ago
to have a good chat about some of the good work they do.
That,
essentially, sums up some of the changes, Mr. Speaker. I understand there may be
more. The Member alluded to some questions in Committee. This is something that
was requested of us, to make some changes; certainly, something that is
necessary, some logistical things, some procedural things, and of course the
name change and a few others.
I guess,
to not belabour the point, as both Members have done quite a good job, I'd like
to take the opportunity to say thank you to all the nurses in our province for
all the work they do each and every single day. A lot of my friends are nurses.
I've actually gotten to meet a lot of nurses since becoming a part of the
department. Just a few weeks ago I was at the Faculty of Medicine at MUN where
we had a scholarship and awards ceremony. It was certainly great to see the top
scholars and those who have made the dean's list, and the various scholarships
and to hear about their success.
Mr.
Speaker, nurses are – perhaps, next to folks who cross-country run – they're the
folks who keep those shoes flying off the shelf. The amount of miles they put on
their feet in the run of a day is something one can only fathom, I believe,
unless you are in the profession.
I know a
number of our Members here in the House, the Member for Fogo Island - Cape
Freels, his wife is a nurse and his daughter is a nurse. Your family as well,
Mr. Speaker. So I know we feel very well informed, and it is these folks who
provide the front line service of care. They see babies being born into the
world and they see folks pass on in palliative care as well, and they certainly
see it all. We are very, very proud of the great work they do. If there's any
way in particular that we can support, and be it minor legislative changes and
something that was asked upon of the department and the minister, by all means,
we are certainly all ears.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister and the staff in
particular who've done work on this piece of legislation. I'd like to thank the
Members opposite for what I anticipate to be their full support in the passing
of Bill 57.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
happy to stand and to speak to Bill 57, a Registered Nurses Act amendment.
I would
like to thank those who have come to watch the debate and witness the debate,
and I would like to thank all those who prepared and gave an excellent briefing
on this bill. Thank you to our nurses who – nursing is a calling. Many nurses
talk about it as a calling, that it's not just a profession.
All of
us have been touched by nurses at some point – literally and figuratively – in
our lives, whether through the medical system, through the public health care
system. There were times when a lot of us in the House – when there used to be
nurses in the schools, and they provided care in the schools. That no longer
happens. Some of us learned about sex education from nurses, or health care and
prevention.
Many of
us know the incredible work that nurses do and how they are the foundation of
our health care system. How often have we heard doctors say: well, you know
what, really the best one to speak to about that is my nurse, because she or he,
they really know, they are doing the day-to-day work. And when we see nurses
working in hospitals on those shifts, whether it's Christmas or Easter, or
Hanukkah, all the different holidays that may be their personal holidays; yet,
they are there taking care of our sick, taking care of our elderly.
We've
also heard stories of nurses working really long shifts, or double shifts for
various reasons, or having a hard time getting time off for family weddings or
birthday celebrations of family members. So the sacrifice and the commitment,
the passion and the compassion that one must have for that profession, for that
calling, I think we all are grateful for that.
In some
of our communities, nurses are the main go-to for health care. Those communities
are small. There may not be doctors in that community. I'm not saying nurses
can't give health care, but then are called upon for a real expanded scope of
practice, and that they are the trusted person to go to in a community for
health care.
So I
would like to say thank you very much for the nurses in Newfoundland and
Labrador on behalf of the people of the province for their dedicated service.
Sometimes what they do is life-saving. It's certainly very, very important.
What
this bill is doing – myself and my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi
are certainly going to support this. Our caucus is going to support this bill.
The bill
is amending the Registered Nurses Act,
2008. It will change the name of the Association of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador to the College of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland
and Labrador, because they are a self-regulating body in the province and it
still has association in its title rather than the title of college or board.
The
association implies more so of an advocacy role rather than the Association of
Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador's chief role as a health care
regulator, and their role as a regulator is so important. It's so important, not
only for the quality assurance and safety of those they serve, the patients they
serve, but also for the quality of work for their own protection as well. So
that they ensure that policies and procedures as well protect them because of
often the heavy burden that they carry.
So it's
a bit of a separation of advocacy role from regulatory functions, and that's a
national trend we are seeing. It's been going on over the last decade, but they
will still have advocacy roles. They will weigh in publicly on health policy,
such as the determinants of health. That's so important, and we see doctors
doing that as well. Primary health care teams, they'll talk about that. They'll
talk about prevention. They'll talk about issues that are arising in what they
see as they fulfill their work, and that's so important.
One of
the things we have learned is how important it is for government to listen to
our front-line workers, and how important it is to know that it is nurses who
are the experts about nursing. They are the experts about nursing. So how
important it is that they do continue a role of advocacy on some of these issues
because of their expertise. That expertise comes not only from their training,
but also from the experience they gain in the work they do. So that's very
important.
The
other thing is the update in the terminology used to describe the executive
members of the council. That's important. We'll see that their president will no
longer be called a president, that there'll be a chairperson and a
vice-chairperson. Again, shifting to that area of regulation.
It
allows the council, with the approval of the minister, to make regulations
establishing different categories of registered nurses. For instance, we're
seeing a growth in the use of nurse practitioners, and how wonderful that is.
It's progressive. It is best standards, best practices.
As a
matter of fact, one of my family members was seen by a nurse practitioner today
and she was diagnosed with pneumonia. That nurse practitioner could do that
diagnosis, and that nurse practitioner wrote her a prescription for an
antibiotic. So how wonderful it is that we see the expanded scope of practice
for our nurses, particularly in the area of nurse practitioners. We are looking
forward to seeing more and more nurse practitioners and more and more primary
health care teams that would include the work of nurse practitioners.
It also
clarifies that the disciplinary process applies to any person licensed under the
act. Again, we're seeing different kinds of nurses, whether it's psychiatric
nurses, cardiac care nurses, nurse practitioners, registered nurses – that this
will expand. We'll probably be looking also, more specifically as time goes on,
when we see more specialized nursing as well.
It
clarifies when costs of an investigation in hearing of a complaint under the act
may be ordered, and it clarifies the quality assurance provisions. Again, I feel
that quality assurance provisions are not just about the care that is given, but
also to make sure that the caregiver has what they need in order to be able to
give the care in as best way possible.
We see
around the area of nurse practitioner, that it removes the requirement to
appoint a nurse practitioner standards committee. Again, because so much work
has been done in that area.
Some
people often are confused a little bit about the Association of Registered
Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, that's the regulating body. The
Registered Nurses' Union has a president there, it's Debbie Forward. They do
great advocacy work. They do fantastic advocacy work. They handle more around
areas of grievances, individual issues of nurses, working conditions for nurses,
and nurses' contracts.
So, Mr.
Speaker, there's really not much more for me to say about this except that we
certainly support it, and I believe everybody in the House is going to support
it. It's a piece of legislation that has been carefully thought out. It's
looking at some very clear specifics. It's about modernizing the way we talk
about nursing and the self-regulation body of nursing.
Again,
though, it does give us the opportunity to thank the nurses, all the nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador, who serve our people so well, often under very, very
difficult conditions with limited resources. That takes real compassion and
passion. That's all I have to say.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's not
too often I get a chance, but this is a great opportunity in the House to
reflect on the nursing profession. I know most people here today spoke about the
change to this legislation, but, Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to take a couple of
minutes because every time nursing is mentioned to me, it's a special place in
my heart.
The
greatest person I ever met in my life and the greatest person I ever knew in my
life was a nurse, my mom. She was 32 years as a public health nurse, and back in
her day – I listened to the Member for St. John's Centre mention about school. I
can remember when I was going to school in my area in Flatrock, I was very good
the days that I knew my mother was coming to that school to give needles,
because I didn't want to be seen out by the door or have one of the teachers mad
with me.
It's a
profession that deserves the respect it gets. The people who do the job of
nursing, nursing practitioners in this province, I thank you, because I
understand. I've seen it first-hand the type of work you do, the compassion
that's needed with that profession. It's a compassionate job. It's a job where
you have to deal with people who are in dire need; who need a person to talk to,
who need a person to ensure that people are looking out for them.
I know
my mom, many nights she left the house and went and sat with people; just the
point to be able to go and give that person reassurance and stuff like that. She
was a very compassionate person. I think to this day, a lot of people tell me
that I got some of her traits; I got her traits. Honestly, that's the best thing
anyone could ever say to me, that I am like my mom.
I'll
tell a little story, it's a funny little story. Because, like I said, the
nursing professional, you're such a respect to your community in the job you do.
I know the Member for Ferryland, his mom also was a public health nurse for 30
years, and my mom was in public health for 32 years.
My dad
was a politician. At the time, I went and I knocked on a lot of doors. I was a
young guy, and I knocked on a lot of doors in Torbay, Flatrock, Pouch Cove and
that area. I came home one night to him, and I said, Father – he was pretty
popular in the area. I said, Dad, I'll tell you one thing, there's one person in
this place that can beat you. And he looked at me, yeah, who can beat me? I said
that's 'mudder.' Because every house I went to they said tell your mom we'll be
out to vote. And it was because she gave so many needles, she did so many house
calls, and she showed people respect. Not only did she get respect, but she
respected other people.
The
nursing profession, I have two sisters-in-law and a niece who are nurses. I
think there's no greater profession that you could do as a caring person. I want
to thank all the nurses and nurse practitioners in this province who do the job
that they do. It's a hard job, but I want to let you know, you're very well
appreciated.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to stand in this House this afternoon and to speak very briefly, I
might add, to Bill 57, An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act, 2008.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to say from the outset, that I had a caucus meeting this morning
and our caucus is unanimous in supporting this bill; absolutely, it's a great
bill.
As other
Members have referenced, and we can all tell our own personal stories, I
suppose, but I live with a nurse. My wife is a registered nurse. As a matter of
fact, a little bit of trivia for you there, she actually graduated with the
Minister of Service NL. They were in the same graduation class at Southcott
Hall; at the time, was the General Hospital nurses.
So I
know first-hand the work that nurses do. I know the toll it takes on you
physically. I know the toll it takes on you mentally. I know there were many
times that my wife would come home and I'd have to rub her feet and stuff like
that because she'd be run off her feet all day long, and I know there's an awful
lot to it.
Certainly, I know from the perspective of – even when she was carrying our first
child, both children actually, we spent quite a bit of time at the hospital. She
had a condition, the minister would know, hyperemesis is what it was called, I
do believe, which basically means morning sickness 24-7. She had that on her
first, and she would spend probably three or four days in hospital to get IV –
what was it called, TPN and lipids, I think? Well, anyway, whatever they called
it, but basically IV to get hydrated. She'd go home and she'd be sick for three
or four days, and then she'd be back to the hospital for another two or three
days, and that was ongoing.
I can
remember all the trips we made to the hospital and all the time we spent there.
Every time they'd have to give her an IV, if a doctor or resident came in to try
to find the vein: no, Sir, couldn't do it. Get the nurse, first shot every time.
I have to say they treated us very, very well.
It was
interesting, because after the first child the doctor said at the time, the
chances of this ever happening again are like winning the lottery twice in a
row. Guess what? The second child, the same condition happened all over again.
We spent a tremendous time as a result of that.
We also
spent an awful lot of time, at one period in our lives, at the Janeway with our
oldest. I have to say, the nurses at the Janeway were absolutely amazing. The
treatment we received was so good, you couldn't ask for anything better in terms
of being professional and being compassionate and so on.
Of
course, on the other side of things, with my parents both, who spent – who
eventually ended up in palliative care. That's where you see the other side of
life, I guess. Again, the professionalism and the compassion and so on that was
shown there was second to none.
You hear
people all the time who have concerns about the health care system, and most
people will tell you the biggest frustration with the health care system is
actually getting into the system; actually getting on that list to get that
procedure done, to get that diagnosis and so on. Most people would also tell you
that once they're in the system, once they're inside of that health care
facility, that, by and large, they are treated second to none. The nurses are
absolutely a huge part of that, because they're the front-line people. They're
the front-line people who are there tending to patient care 24-7.
We
really can't say enough, I don't think, about our nurses and the work they do;
the hard work they do and the things they have to experience and so on. So
anything we can do to support our nurses, to support the nursing profession, if
there's anything we can do in this House of Assembly to improve things for them,
to set better standards, what we're doing here, better standards, governance
models and working with the Registered Nurses' Association – and I'm glad to see
there was consultation.
As
somebody said earlier, one of the things we sometimes gripe about here on the
other side of the House is when you hear that there has not been perhaps proper
consultation. Certainly, from what I can gather, there's been full consultation
with the nurses' association. These are things they have requested, not just a
name change, but to modernize, to some degree, the legislation that covers their
operations, to bring it in line with where it needs to be today to recognize the
evolution of licensed practical nurses and so on.
I'm not
going to get into all the details of every point here. It has been already
described by the minister, and other Members have spoken to the details. But
from what I have read, what I have listened to and so on, and knowing that the
registered nurses themselves are on board with this, then I really have no
concern and I will be supporting the bill 100 per cent.
As I
said, any time we have the opportunity in this House of Assembly to support
groups, whether it be nurses or whether it be our physicians or whatever the
case might be, pharmacists and so on, that have such an important role in our
health care system, such an important role in our society, and if we can work
with them to create the changes and the mechanisms that are required for them to
be able to operate more professionally, to operate more efficiently, to operate
in a way which is sort of changing with the times, changing with technology as
different roles and responsibilities evolve, any time we can do that, I think
that that's what we should be doing.
There
are a lot of times that there is stuff here that we will argue back and forth in
this House of Assembly on things, that many people would argue don't deserve the
time that it gets, but when it comes to things like this, this is what we're
here for. So I'll be supporting it 100 per cent.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to rise this afternoon and support Bill 57, An Act to Amend the
Registered Nurses Act.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis really opened my eyes when he talked about his mom
and her 32 years in the nursing profession. I'm lucky enough to be married to a
nurse for 30 years. Last week, she celebrated 30 years nursing in rural
Newfoundland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
She's probably going to kill
me; you're probably right.
The
Member opposite talked about the care and the compassion. I can vouch for her,
for the 30 years that we've been together and she's been in the nursing
profession –
MR. K. PARSONS:
You have to be a special
person.
MR. BRAGG:
Living in a small community
in rural Newfoundland – you're right, Member. You have to be a special person.
You have to have a heart the size, I guess, of a 45-gallon drum, because the
care that I've seen, that's there. Then it rolled off on to my daughter. She's a
nurse now at the Health Sciences, but for us in rural Newfoundland – I'll just
give you a snapshot of what I saw her do.
The
roads have been barred – in our closet, there would actually be a kit in case
someone in Greenspond gave birth, or about to give birth. She had a kit brought
home, because in those times – and, regardless, the Member for CBS is taking
about roads. I'm talking 20-odd years ago we could be barred in then for two and
three days.
I saw
Beverley have all kinds of things in the house. There was more – and I hope she
doesn't get in any trouble for this. There was more band aids and sterile water
in our house than probably anywhere else, because she probably took out more
stitches – and my neighbours, if they're listening, they had two boys, and every
day of the week one of those boys either broke something or cut something.
For 30
years I've watched her and the care she gives. I was forever known in our area
as Beverley's husband – that's all. Oh, this is Beverley's husband – that's all.
You know what? I was so proud of that, because wherever we went everybody knew
Beverley because of where she worked downstairs in the hospital.
I'm so
proud of the nurses and what they do, of my wife and my daughter, and an aunt on
her side and my side. I'm proud of the work they did because without the nurses
and their care, your stay at the hospital would be a lot more uncomfortable.
So to
all the nursing staff, I thank them so very much. I commend the minister on this
act that he's bringing forward today and I support it fully.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's an
interesting twist the conversation has taken; I think prompted by comments about
the Member opposite's mom. I don't want to be left out, so I'll just list off
granny and my mom and Jeannette at home.
I worked
with the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels wife as well, she's nothing like a
45-gallon drum.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Back to business. I really
welcome the support from all sides of the House, and I think it's nice to see
how a human touch and some levity has come into something which is fundamentally
about protecting the public and maintaining the standards of one our most
important group of health care providers.
I'm
going to take my seat and put the question, and look forward to any questions
that might arise in Committee.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 57 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Murphy):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Registered Nurses Act, 2008. (Bill 57)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has been now read a
second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill “An
Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act, 2008,” read a second time, ordered referred to
a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 57)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
move for the resolution of the House into a Committee of the Whole, I ask leave,
and I believe I have received leave, to move into third reading following the
Committee of the Whole.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MS. COADY:
Okay, thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that
the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 57.
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:
Those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008.” (Bill 57)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a
couple of quick questions here for clarification.
Now that
the minister can appoint an unlimited number of individuals to the college, will
nurses risk losing control over their own college?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much.
The
intent from the association, as it's currently called, is to increase the number
of public interest members. This is in line with a move, really, that runs
across regulatory bodies across the country.
I think,
quite frankly, they acknowledge that there becomes a certain size of council or
board, whatever you like to call it, beyond which numbers themselves will
present a challenge, and I don't anticipate there will be a need for fast
increase but I think this flexibility will help them. They don't feel
jeopardized or threatened by it.
I think
that's the basic explanation behind it. I don't think there's anything more
sinister, and they certainly have no concerns about it.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just
another question for the minister: How will the appointments be made to the new
established college?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much.
There
are roles that are defined in terms of the offices that are on the board, ex
officio. The public interest members will be – as my understanding – appointed
by the government, as it were, IAC. I stand to be corrected, but I'll check on
that for the Member opposite.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, 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:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 3 to 34 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 3 to 34
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 3 through 34 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:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment, carried?
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 Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 57.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 57.
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 (Warr):
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Chair of the Committee
of the Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 57 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 57 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,
by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
By
leave, Mr. Speaker, Order 7, third reading of Bill 57.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 57, An Act To Amend
The Registered Nurses Act, 2008, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Before I
do that I just wanted to confirm leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave?
Thank
you.
It is
moved and seconded that the bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Registered Nurses Act, 2008. (Bill 57)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 57)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I moved,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 58.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 58, An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012.” (Bill 58)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
It's
indeed a privilege to get up here again today – and I never said the last time –
to represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis and the beautiful people
in the District of Cape St. Francis.
Minister, this is a move that was done by government, and I'm just wondering:
What feedback have you got from municipalities on the change in your
legislation?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Actually, we have not gotten any feedback from Municipalities Newfoundland and
Labrador and from any particular municipality, to be honest with you – at least
I haven't. I'm not sure if the department has received anything or if anybody
has received anything, but, certainly, it hasn't been brought to my attention.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Minister, was there any
consultations done with MNL?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, as you know, the
regional service boards are not a part of MNL. We consulted with the regional
service board. We consulted with the cabin owners and we got a lot feedback from
both and we felt that this was the right thing to do.
Certainly, it was something that was brought in the by-election in Windsor Lake
when the Leader of the Opposition put it forward and it became an election
issue. When I became minister in November, as I said in my remarks earlier, the
first group I met with was the Eastern Regional Service Board and we tried to
come to an agreement on how we would deal with the issue.
We were
not successful in doing that, but as you can see by the information I tabled
today, that they had every intention of doing so because of a notice of motion
that was in their November 28 minutes was that they were moving in that
direction. I don't know why they would have backed away from that, but,
certainly, they had every intention of doing so, otherwise the notice of motion
would not be in their minutes.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's very interesting the appointment of the chair and whether it's done through
municipalities or it's done through Cabinet. I don't understand why cabin owners
would have a say in the chairperson for the regional service board, but that's
interesting.
In the
amendment, Cabinet has the authority or the ability to remove the chairperson.
On what circumstances would you see a chairperson removed?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
All I can say, Madam Chair,
is that it would have to be extraordinary circumstances and we have no
intentions of removing any chair. It's there as part of the act, but as is noted
in the act as well, that every board chair that's sitting right now has the
option of working out their term of office, which was four years, and that will
remain so as we go forward.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My
understanding is this bill is related to the appointment of the chair for
regional service board. The minister just did a prior question and referenced
cabin owners and advocacy.
I'm just
wondering: What's the connection between cabin owners and advocacy and how we're
appointing the chair of the regional service board and the method for that?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
It has absolutely nothing to
do with. The reason we're doing this is we're raising the profile of the RSBs.
We're making them a tier one under boards and commissions and to be consistent
with every other tier-one board that we have. It's done through the IAC, the
Independent Appointments Commission, and we feel that the regional service
boards can be done and should be done in the same manner.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again,
to the minister, I just referenced that because he said it in his answer. He
referenced cabin owners and advocacy, so my question was how is this related to
this. I just referenced what he had said.
The
second point I just want to ask, the previous process was related to municipal
leaders electing the chair. Obviously the fundamental aspect of this, now this
has changed and that process now goes to the Independent Appointments
Commission, then a referral of names to Cabinet, and then a decision made by
Cabinet.
In
looking at those two processes, maybe the minister can give some insight into
the change from going to a grassroots, democratic process on the ground for
municipal leaders electing a chair and having control of that, and collectively
them driving the policy direction of the regional service board as opposed to
bringing it inside government and making an appointment through Cabinet.
What was
the knowledge, or what was the reasoning for that change?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The main
reason was that we wanted to make the regional service boards a tier one and, in
order to do that, we wanted to bring some consistency to the process. That's
exactly what we're doing. We're making them a tier-one board and through that
tier-one board the appointments are done through the Independent Appointments
Commission. We feel that the regional service boards can be done in the same
manner.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll ask
the minister: What exactly is contained in a tier-one appointment, designated as
a tier-one appointment which is different from the way its appointed today,
which fundamentally makes you want to change it – what's the difference in a
tier-one appointment that makes it different from what it is today, to make the
process better or more representative of those folks on the ground level,
grassroots? What's the difference, tier one?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
reason it's being done is mostly inconsistency. We're trying to raise the
profile of regional service boards. The Eastern Regional Service Board is not
the only service board we have in the province. We have seven or eight of them,
and I've spoken to several of the chairs.
In fact,
just last Thursday evening, I addressed the waste management forum in Corner
Brook where a lot of the chairs were there. They actually welcomed the process,
because I gave them the heads-up that this was the way we were leaning with this
bill, and they said it's about time.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Minister, this process you're talking about is going to be done, I believe,
under legislation now. It's going to be done similar to what was done before. So
it's after the next municipal election when the process will come in place, and
people will be selected from different wards, what they're called now, to
represent a certain ward.
Also, in
the legislation it gives a person who is selected from that ward the opportunity
to come and put their name forward as a chairperson. This process then will have
to go to the IAC, the Independent Appointments Commission, which then will also
have to go to Cabinet.
How long
is this process going to take? Because people are going to be elected, there are
going to be wards there, and then there's going to be a time that's needed for a
chairperson. So how long will they be without a chairperson?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
I'm not sure if I got the
full gist of his question, but the only person who will be going through the IAC
is the chair of the board.
The
other members of any service board are elected through the normal democratic
process. That's through municipalities, LSDs or the membership that's on the
board. The chair will be done, and it varies how long it takes. It depends on
how many people apply, how fast the IAC meets, and it's done through the Public
Service Commission as well. So they're involved.
It's a
normal process, but as we get to the end of the terms, we'll have ample time to
have somebody in place to replace, if need be. There's nothing saying that the
chairs we have in place cannot reapply. We're certainly not saying that. They're
welcome to reapply if they so wish. They will be given the same consideration as
any other member who would apply through the IAC.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I'll
clarify my question. Minister, what I'm asking is yesterday we were told that a
person, a ward member on that can apply just like any other person. So once the
board – every time when this board is formed is after a municipal election. So
we select a ward for – given my area, which is Cape St. Francis – someone from
Torbay or someone will be selected on that, but the opportunity yesterday was
saying that that person could also become the chairperson if people on the board
wanted that person. They could still select a person they want, but to go
through this process, wouldn't it be better if we left a person on until a new
chair was selected? Wouldn't that be a solution to the issue, I'm asking him?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, and that could
very well be the process. We're not saying that's not – that it will not be like
that.
We want
to have a seamless transition, and if it's required that the chair that's there
now needs to stay there for a little bit of extra time, we certainly don't have
any problem with that.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, I'd like to go back to a couple of questions earlier. You referenced
tier one and you were doing it for consistency purposes and whatnot, which if
fine, but, ironically, during debate yesterday morning I had a chance to check
on social media, and several Cabinet ministers on your side were encouraging the
COATT members to watch the legislative change; tune into the House of Assembly
channel to watch this change.
Respectfully, I ask, if this was done for consistency reasons and it was part of
a normal process of tier one – this was not driven by cabin owners. Again, it's
not about cabin owners, it's about what I was reading on social media posts from
Members, your colleagues.
So tell
me, was this not done for consistency or was it not done for political reasons?
Because I beg to differ. From what I'm reading on social media, I question – I
said it yesterday and I'll say it again today, I don't think it was done for
consistency reasons, Minister. I really, truly believe this was done for the
wrong reasons, and it's what we see in the public domain, people feel that way
outside the select group that you're pandering to.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Well, if the hon. Member is
going to put his remarks around social media, that's his choice. All I'm saying
is we did this because of the right reasons. It's for consistency. It's to make
the regional service boards a tier one. If he doesn't want to believe that,
that's not my problem.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just
want to clarify to the minister, it's in the public domain; it is evidence, it's
there. It's there for anyone to view. So, you can please yourself.
Minister, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reacted to this
legislation yesterday, as evidenced by everyone in this House who received an
email. Have you responded to them, or to their concerns? They're talking about a
democratically-elected board that picked a chair, which we feel, and I've spoken
on it, and my colleagues feel that was the fairest process.
I've
spoken to members of this board, the service board that are elected councillors,
they're not happy. They don't feel their voices were heard. They feel they were
– you basically didn't take into account – you didn't respect their positions as
being duly elected members in deciding on a chair, and you've taken that out of
their hands.
Have you
spoken to this Canadian Federation of Independent Business? Have you had serious
constructive conversations with these elected members who sit on the board?
Because I'm hearing – again, respectfully, I'm hearing the opposite, and I've
spoken to those people. So I'm only repeating their concerns.
Actually, as a matter of fact, I agreed that I would, during debate, during
Committee, I would ask those questions. So these are the reasons why – these
have been driven by people on the outside, but they don't feel like their
concerns were listened to.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of
all, I have received the letter from the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business. There is a reply being drafted as I speak, and we'll be forwarding
that to Mr. Hammond.
To
address these concerns, we feel that the democratic process is still in place.
All the members of the board – and they decide how many members they can have –
will be duly elected. As I said, and I say again, the chair of the board will be
done through the Independent Appointments Commission because it becomes now a
tier-1 board.
Madam
Chair, I sat down with the full board. I sat down with the executive of ERSB on
several occasions, and we all know what the issue was with the cabin owners.
They're the ones who brought it up in the by-elections, both in Windsor Lake and
again in Topsail - Paradise. They're the ones who brought it up – not us.
They're the ones who brought it up.
Are they
saying now that they don't agree with what we're doing? The constituents that
they represent, are they saying now that they want them to pay the $180 again?
Is that what they're saying? Because that's what I'm hearing; that's what I'm
hearing.
As for
the board, Madam Chair, I sat down with the board and gave them every
opportunity and I listened to every one of their concerns – every one of them.
We've made this decision because we feel it's the best way to move forward. It's
a process that we've adopted as a government through the IAC, and we're going to
continue to do that because, Madam Chair, it works.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, I want to point out to you, we're not talking about the cabin owners;
we're not talking about $180. We're talking about a duly elected board that was
elected by all the municipalities in the Northeast Avalon, by people like – all
of us here in this Chamber, we elected those people to represent us. They sit on
a board, they should have the authority to pick the chair. You've taken it out
of their hands. You've given a letter to the CFIB after the fact. So I guess if
anyone is watching from the CFIB, you've just given them their letter. I can
write the letter for them; everyone knows the answer.
They
asked you a direct question. Why don't you let the board, basically, pick a
chair? You're just going to give them a letter to say we've done this. We never
consulted with you; we don't care about your opinion.
These
cabin owners, that's not the issue. I hear their concerns. I hear both sides,
the livyers and cabin owners. We're talking about a board, a duly elected board
taking away the authority for them to pick a chair. That's the question. This is
not complicated stuff.
You've
taken the authority away from this duly elected board, and Municipalities NL
opposed this in 2017. Instead now, you're circumventing all of the concerns.
You're taking a top-down approach. The IAC will pick a chair of the board,
decided by Cabinet. No matter who comes up, Cabinet gets the final say.
Is that
democratic, Minister? A simple question. I asked it yesterday, now you're here
today to answer it. Can you answer that question? That's what people are asking.
It's not democratic.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
answer to his question is, yes.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Minister, a few minutes ago you said that you spoke –
MR. LETTO:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, I don't mean to get you
too feisty over there.
You said
that you spoke, personally, to all the chairs of boards – I want to confirm that
– about these changes.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
We've notified all the board chairs that this was happening. I didn't speak to
them all, personally, no. I spoke to the people that were there at the forum
last Thursday and gave them the heads up that this was an act we were bringing
in, but all the board chairs were aware that we were doing this.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
minister is getting a bit upset there now. He doesn't care what I say, he
doesn't care what I think; but, unfortunately for the minister, we are the
Opposition. I represent a district in this province, as well as he does. I'm a
critic also for several departments.
So, it's
up to him to not care. He's not the only one over there who doesn't care, Madam
Chair. So I just want to point that out. If he's getting on with that over a
piece of legislation that we are trying to debate in this House and ask serious
questions, because of his frustration, I beg to differ on that.
Just one
other point. Minister, all these consultations – you tell everyone you love
consultations. I've spoken to board members who sit on the board. The second
letter you issued on this issue, they were not aware of that. They were aware of
your first one, when they gave you a list of roads. That wasn't good enough; you
got backlash. Then you gave a second letter, and they were told here's the
letter. There was no consultation with this board. This board was blindsided by
all of these decisions. Whoever you spoke to, you never consulted. You love to
consult but you never consulted.
I'm
talking to these people. I'm not on that board. These people are talking and
they're frustrated. They're very frustrated. It is fine to say one thing, but
you got actions. Again, actions have to match the words. You can't say you
consulted with the board when you actually – according to the people I speak to,
you never consulted.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's so
funny; one minute he's up, they're complaining because I'm doing consultations.
The next day they're up because I'm not doing consultations. Which way do you
want it?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I ask the minister: Has a chair been appointed to the Eastern Regional Service
Board?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
No.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Harold Mullowney, who was just elected about a half hour ago, is he the
person that's going to be the new chairperson? Do you know?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, I'm not aware
that there was a board member elected as chair a half hour ago. That's news to
me.
We will
follow the legislation as it is put forward. If it's true that Mr. Mullowney is
elected chair of the board, I congratulate him and I look forward to working
with him.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just
want to clarify here, because the Member opposite talked about Topsail –
Paradise and what was heard during the election, and no one better than myself
in this House can talk to what was heard during the election.
The
comments at the doors, related to the garbage trash tax – call it whatever you
will – was related to the fact that the tax, they thought, should be a user fee.
It shouldn't be applied to everyone. It's applied differently across the
province. This was the issue. I committed to those residents up in my district
that I would help them in any way to come up with a better system of addressing
this.
What
we're talking about today is about the appointment of a board chair and the
process that's being implemented. So I want to make sure there's a separation
between the two. Because the tax grab – call it what you want – with the cabin
owners, that's one issue that I committed to talk to; this is an issue that
deals with the appointment of the board chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, the Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam
Chair, I ask the minister – I'm just wondering; I want to question the whole
idea of a tier-one board because I'm just a little confused about it. Normally,
when we talk about a tier-one board, a board of government, we'd be talking
about like the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation and so on, which are boards of government if you
will, but now we're talking about a board which is all going to be elected
representatives.
We know
in the case of Eastern, the City of St. John's, I think they have 10 members – I
could be wrong, I think it's 10. Mount Pearl has one; Paradise, I believe, has
one and CBS. There's one in the Torbay area. There's probably one in St. Mary's
Bay, Southern Shore, Trinity Bay and so on. Then I think the Chair is number 21,
if I'm not mistaken. I think it is 20, and the Chair would be number 21 on the
board. Again, I stand to be corrected, but 20 of those people are elected
representatives and one person is going to be selected through the IAC.
So I'm
trying to understand how you can say the NLC, for example, the Liquor
Corporation, how that could be a tier-one board with all appointed people
through the IAC but all the municipalities, now you're also saying that's a
tier-one board but there's only one person that's being appointed by the IAC and
that's the chair of the board. I'm just trying to piece together in my mind how
you can say that that's the same and consistent with every other board. If it
was going to be consistent with the NLC then everyone on it, it would be 21
people appointed through the IAC, but we're only talking one person.
I'm just
wondering if you can comment on how that is consistent and how that makes this a
tier-one board.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The only
thing I will say to the hon. Member is that this board is certainly unique when
you look at other boards. I don't think you can compare the Eastern Regional
Service Board to the NLC, which he just did. They do represent different regions
of the actual service board and the area they represent. We have no problem with
that, having them elect their members from the different regions, but, Madam
Chair, we're making it a tier-one board and the chair will be elected through
the IAC, as simple as that.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wonder
if the minister could just clarify; in the bill it talks about a person who is
chairperson of the board on the coming into force of the act, continues to be
chairperson of the board until reappointed, replaced or dismissed.
Can he
explain to us the process for a replacement? Would that go to the Independent
Appointments Commission, reappointment, and what process is in place to deal
with dismissal?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To
answer his question, yes, it would go through the IAC. The process for dismissal
is something that would be extraordinary. I don't anticipate having to do that,
or any minister having to do that, but it would be extraordinary circumstances,
but the replacement – in any case, in any circumstance, the replacement would be
done through the IAC.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you very much.
Just to
clarify, there's a new piece of authority under Bill 58 for dismissal for the
term. So, surely, there must be some thought given to or some regulatory
framework of what the protocol would be if a dismissal – if it was put in the
legislation, one would think it would have been thought out that at some point,
based on some actions or some inappropriate behaviour, whatever it would be,
that that would justify a case for dismissal, because the authority is in the
bill.
To the
minister: There's no understanding today of what would constitute reasons for a
dismissal and what that process would be. That hasn't been contemplated. Is that
what the answer is?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Certainly, it has been
contemplated, Madam Chair. Again, it would be under extraordinary circumstances
and it would have to be a serious breach of responsibility or whatever in order
to qualify or to quantify, or to certainly make it be in a dismissal situation.
It's not something that would be taken very lightly. And, yes, we've had some
very serious discussions on, what would constituent dismissal.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want
to just tag on to this whole dismissal piece. Again, the part I'm trying to get
my head around here is if you have a chair of the board – and I'm taking eastern
regional because that's the one that all the controversy is about, the cabin tax
and all that stuff.
There
are 20 people there. These are all 20 duly elected people, including, in this
case, like the Mayor of St. John's. So we got Mayor Danny – you got this whole
council, actually. The whole St. John's council that are managing a $200 million
budget. They got all kinds of staff and all kinds of operations and running the
capital city, and I'm trying to get my head around the fact that if the chair of
the board was acting inappropriately or if there was anything that had to do
with money being mishandled or whatever the case might be, I'm trying to
understand why the board – they wouldn't be the ones to say this chair got to
go, because they're representing our municipalities. If they've done something
wrong, we're going to let him go.
Why do
they need the Minister of Municipal Affairs to get rid of somebody? Why wouldn't
they be the people to get rid of him?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There's
nothing in this bill that says they can't, really. I mean, there isn't. There
isn't anything in this act that says that – if we have a board, Madam Chair,
that has an issue with their chair, they're going to come to the department and
express that, and then we'll take action. But there's no reason why the board
cannot start that process. None whatsoever.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Okay, you're saying there's no reason they can't. So that means if they can get
rid of the person themselves, then why do we need a provision for the Minister
of Municipal Affairs to get rid of someone? Because that would mean – it could
only mean, if you sort of line this up, that the board, in theory, would have no
problem with the person, they've done nothing wrong or whatever in their mind;
yet, the minister can still say, no, I want to get rid of this person. That's
kind of what this implies.
If
you're saying they can do it themselves, then why is there a need for the
minister to do it?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, under this new
process, the chair will be appointed through the Independent Appointments
Commission which would be the final decision being with the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council.
If the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council puts a Member in place, they have to have the
authority to remove them if the condition is warranted.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I really
think the minister now is confusing the whole issue. He's double speaking here
out of both sides of his face.
Who's in
charge? If it's the Lieutenant-Governor in Council who appoints the
chair, who now is really in charge? It can't be both. So let's get some clarity
here.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Madam Chair, it's quite clear under section 5(1.1) “…
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may dismiss a chairperson from a board.” I
never said the board could do it. I said the board could start the process.
If the board came to us, to Cabinet, and
they have a problem with the chair, then that would have to be investigated and
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council would have to take action, whether it's to
remove or whatever.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Now we have the answer. They're the daddy, and the
children can go to daddy and say: Do something because we're not happy. We got
the answer.
I'm going to ask another question. The minister says
they're so interested in consultation, yet he didn't consult with all the
boards; yet consultation has happened.
I'm wondering, what was the consultation with MNL?
Because Municipalities NL had taken a position on this before and didn't like
this happening. So what was the consultation with MNL? They certainly can't be
happy.
If they didn't respect the members of councils who are
on the boards, did they respect the organization of those councils?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Madam Chair, I will answer that simply by saying, I recognize and I consider
every organization in this province to be very important. I spent 20 years on
the board of directors of MNL. So I know exactly what they do and the good work
they do in this province. To insinuate that we have no respect for them is
totally wrong.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
That's a no; that he did not consult with Municipalities NL about this.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, in terms of the regional service board, I
just wanted – again, just for clarification. My understanding, of course, right
now, certainly in Eastern, primarily they're dealing with collecting garbage,
right? They're colleting garbage and recycling and so on. So waste collection.
Again, I stand to be corrected, but I believe on behalf
of the Town of Holyrood, maybe, they're doing fire service for Deer Park, I
think. I think they are. I know they've been talking to other municipalities on
the Southern Shore, for example. I know there was some discussion about doing –
I don't know, but some other things. I know they were talking about maybe
looking at waste water, as an example – or drinking water – to say that every town
can't afford to have someone checking the water all the time. So they were in
discussions about having one person who would check everybody's water regularly
and so on. So shared regional services.
When
we're talking about garbage collection, when we're talking about water, we're
talking about waste water, we're talking about fire services, would the minister
agree that all of those services are the responsibility of municipalities as
opposed to provincial government?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
I'm not sure where the Member
is coming from on this, but the regional service – actually, we just extended
the water testers that we had in place. There are three in the province, we just
extended them for another two years. So they operate under the regional service
boards, and the regional service boards do have the authority to provide waste
management. They have the authority to provide fire services. They have the
authority to provide water testing and many others. We're not changing that,
that's still there. There's nothing in this bill that changes that.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess
the point I was trying to arrive at and the point I was trying to make is that
all the services that I listed, and the minister confirmed, are all the
responsibility of municipalities. That's where I'm going with this. This is all
the responsibility of municipalities. So everything that this board does is the
responsibility of municipalities. They're the ones that do it. So I'm trying to
get my head around why the government would want to interfere in any way with
municipalities. Because if you could do it with the regional service board, are
we going to at some point in time start interfering in councils?
I know
that's a stretch, but the point I'm making is it is a municipal level of
government. The federal government looks after certain things in our society,
the provincial government looks after certain things in our society, municipal
governments look after certain things in our society. All the things I listed,
and the minister confirmed, are the responsibility of the municipalities, not
the provincial government. So that being said, should the municipal governments
not be allowed to do their job?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Minister, the newly elected chair for the Eastern Regional Service Board, I'm
wondering, will his term continue until after the next municipal election? I'm
just wondering because he's new: Will he still remain chair of the Eastern
Regional Service Board until after the next municipal election?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, I
have not been officially notified that there's a new chair of the Eastern
Regional Service Board. As soon as I do, we'll deal with it.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So if there is a new chair – you're not aware of it yet – will he still be the
chair for the Eastern Regional Service Board until after the next municipal
election?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I got a
quick question for the minister, I don't know if he's going to answer it or not,
but I will ask it.
All this
change in legislation, we're changing the process for picking a chair for this
board, was this precipitated by the trash tax issue that's been dominated for
the last year by cabin owners who've been very vocal and done a good job of
presenting their case?
Was this
the reason this was done, or is this a plan in place to do for all boards?
Because this board, as my colleague for Mount Pearl - Southlands pointed out,
there's more than trash involved here; there's waste, there's water, there are
fire services. There are a whole range of things this board is responsible for.
Is this
the reason why the tier-one process was brought in? Was it to do with the fact
of pressure being applied by this group over the trash tax fee cabin owners had
to pay? Is that the real crux of the reason why this legislation was brought in
here today? Because I'm not sure, I can't see – I've heard lots of questions,
but no one's told me any different.
So I'm
asking you directly: Is that the reason why?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
No.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Shall
clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 6
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 6
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 6 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.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Regional
Service Boards Act, 2012.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division has been called.
Call in
all Members, please.
Division
CHAIR:
All those in favour of the
motion, please rise.
CLERK (Murphy):
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms. Coady, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. King.
CHAIR:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Ms. Perry, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Petten,
Mr. Lester, Ms. Michael, Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lane.
CLERK (Barnes):
Madam Chair, the ayes 14, the nays 10.
CHAIR:
I declare the motion carried.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Deputy House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 58.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 58.
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.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave
and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters
to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 58 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that
the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed her
to report Bill 58 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:
Presently.
MR. SPEAKER:
Presently
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,
by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order
2, third reading of Bill 54.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Natural Resources, that Bill 54, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The
Statute Law, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read
a third time.
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 54)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and
its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Remove Anomalies And
Errors In The Statute Law,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be
as on the Order Paper. (Bill 54)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, Order 3, third reading of Bill 56.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 56, An
Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The Province
And Others, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read
a third time.
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The
Province And Others. (Bill 56)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and
its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting A Pension Plan
For Employees Of The Government Of The Province And Others,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 56)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order
4, third reading of Bill 58.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 58, An
Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read
a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
AN HON. MEMBER:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012. (Bill 58)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012,” read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 58)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would move,
seconded by the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, that the House do now
adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, the first day of April at 1:30
o'clock.
Thank
you.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, April 1, at
1:30 p.m.