November 15, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 42
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Today we
welcome to the public gallery Joshua Power, who will be the subject of a
Member's statement this afternoon.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Member for the District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave; the
District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune; Conception Bay South; St. George's
Humber; St. John's Centre; and Baie Verte Green Bay.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
with great pride that I rise in this hon. House to pay tribute to World War II
veteran, William John Pauls, originally of Fortune Bay.
At age
15, in 1939, John left his hometown to join the Merchant Navy. He first set sail
on a cargo ship called the Elizabeth
Rivers. He started as an assistant to the cook before becoming a marine
engineer.
During
the war his friends knew him as Johnny. And like so many others, Johnny saw the
world: Greece, Holland, Belgium, the West Indies and Germany. His fondest war
memory is of a time when he and his crew arrived at a port in Belgium. The crew
helped distribute food and supplies to orphaned children left with nothing. John
remembers the children were very hungry and frightened.
In 1948,
John married Violet Chipman of Spaniard's Bay. They built a home there and
raised two children.
John
Pauls is 92 now and still a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 9, in
Spaniard's Bay.
I ask
all Members to join me in thanking Mr. Pauls for his service in the cause of
freedom and his lifetime of dedication to our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to deliver the highest of accolades and thanks to the
many individuals who worked tirelessly to keep us safe and meet the challenges
caused by the devastating impact of Hurricane Matthew.
During
this storm, historical rainfall amounts produced multiple states of emergency
across the province. Rainfall amounts of over 200 millimetres in our region
battered roads, isolated our communities and destroyed many residents' homes.
Today, I
thank all those volunteers and officials who worked tirelessly to make sure
residents remained safe and secure throughout the response and recovery effort
to reconnect communities and have access to basic essentials. We also thank you
for your continued hard work as we move towards full recovery.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in thanking and congratulating those
who epitomize our true spirit of South Coast strong, which was clearly evident
throughout the district as we commenced the rebuilding effort together.
Hats off
to our volunteer fire departments, our mayors and town staff, emergency
responders, local volunteers, the aquaculture companies who provided boats for
freight delivery so we could have food, the mayor who rode a dory to transfer
doctors and nurses from one side of the bay to the other, our road crews and
everyone involved in the relief effort. We are so very proud of you all.
Thank
you so much, 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, from August 13 to 21, more than 1,500 young athletes from across the
province attended the 2016 Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games in the
beautiful Town of Conception Bay South. I'm proud to say that for the first time
in Newfoundland games history, Aboriginal teams participated, along with eight
regions in the province.
Both the
SportNL trophy for the team showing the most improvement from one summer game to
the next and the Lieutenant Governor's award celebrating sportsmanship and
spirit were presented to the host region: CBS. These games are a great
opportunity for our young athletes to compete, develop skills, meet new friends
and also learn the values of sportsmanship, skill and development.
I
honestly enjoyed every aspect of the games, and it was obvious that teamwork and
community spirit was evident throughout the entire week.
Congratulations to the organizing committee led by games chair, Eric Schibler,
and the hundreds of volunteers who have made these games possible. I also
commend the Town of Conception Bay South for their support and, once again,
demonstrating its outstanding ability to host first-class sporting events.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize the accomplishments of Flat Bay native Gordon Patrick White.
Gordon was recently named as a cast member for the largest theatre company in
Canada: the renowned Stratford Festival.
Gordon
takes great pride in his Mi'kmaq heritage, which is not surprising given that
his parents are Elder Calvin White Sr. and Francis White. Gordon's involvement
with theatre started while he was at high school in St. George's. It was there
that he got the acting bug and he never looked back.
After
high school, he pursued his craft by graduating from the fine arts program at
Grenfell campus of Memorial University. His work from there took him everywhere.
He's been involved with the Stephenville festival, Theatre Newfoundland
Labrador, Neptune Theatre group, the National Arts Centre, amongst many more.
This
last September, this rising talent was invited to audition for the Stratford
Festival in Stratford, Ontario. While this was his first visit to Stratford, it
won't be his last. Gordon was asked to join the cast for the festival for 2017.
I ask
hon. Members to join me in congratulating Gordon Patrick White, a rising star in
Canadian theatre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am so
pleased to honour the amazing Joshua Power, winner of 4-H Club of Canada's
Leadership, Excellence Awards of Distinction. The coveted LEAD award is given to
only four outstanding young people across Canada, and Joshua is one.
Josh is
an active leader in his community and school. He's the secretary of Calvert's
local service community, his hometown, and was on student council at Baltimore
School. Among his many, many activities, Josh is particularly proud of having
helped start a gender-sexuality alliance at his school.
It's no
surprise that 4-H Canada would select Josh from across Canada as this year's
winner in the Community Engagement & Communications category. CN sponsors the
award, which includes a four-year university cash scholarship and the
opportunity for Josh to select a mentor for the four years.
Josh is
studying geography at Memorial University to be an urban planner and has done me
the honour of asking me to be his mentor. Of course I'm thrilled by this honour
and I look forward to working with and learning alongside Josh over the next
four years.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Joshua Power, LEAD award winner,
geography student and future world changer.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
I rise in this hon. House to
pay tribute to Ms. Brooke Blanchard, an outstanding young lady from King's
Point. Last week at the Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Scholarship
Awards Program, Brooke came in first runner-up and captured a $750 scholarship.
Brooke
is an outstanding athlete and a tremendous student. She has been named Athlete
of the Year, Student of the Year and you can guess her grade point average.
Brooke spent a portion of this past summer at the University of New Brunswick's
SHAD program, where high school students get the chance to be immersed in
science, technology, engineering and math.
In her
younger days, way back in 2014, she attended Encounters with Canada and
travelled to Ottawa where she interacted with teenagers from all across this
country. Brooke was recently awarded the Johnson HORIZONS leadership
scholarship, which was presented by Memorial University to students who show
leadership qualities in school and in their community.
Brooke
is a dedicated volunteer. She tutors at school, teaches piano, volunteers at her
church and for all kinds of town functions.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating this outstanding young woman on
her amazing showing at this year's Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador
Scholarship Awards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It gives me great pleasure
today to distribute to each Member of the Legislature a special edition of
Hansard in commemoration of the First World War and the Battle of
Beaumont-Hamel.
As
Members recall, and for the benefit of those listening at home, each Member of
the Legislature read out some 40 names in alphabetical order to remember the
1,600-and-odd brave men and women who gave up their lives during the First World
War from the Dominion of Newfoundland, now Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are
signing a copy of this. It's in my office. I ask all Members to sign it to be
kept at the Legislative Library. There's going to be a copy provided to The
Rooms which houses the permanent Royal
Newfoundland Regiment exhibit, and a copy to the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
We're
also sending out a copy to each of the Royal Canadian Legions throughout the
province. There will be other copies as well, in the event that people wish to
have a copy. It's a great piece for all names of those are listed in
alphabetical order for anybody doing research, and to remember those men and
women who gave their lives.
I'm
very, very pleased to present a copy of this to each of the Members today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
report that the response to the recent Calls for Bids in the province's offshore
was one of the most successful in the world in 2016 and shows significant
exploration opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Calls for Bids by the Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum
Board consisted of 16 parcels of land totalling 3.3 million hectares and
resulted in a total work commitment of approximately $758 million.
We are
pleased to see that three of these bidders are new to our offshore: Hess Canada
Oil and Gas, Noble Energy Canada, and Delek Group. Of the eight parcels awarded,
four are in the newly identified West Orphan Basin, while two are in the Flemish
Pass Basin are two are in the Jeanne D'Arc Basin.
A group
led by BP Canada Energy Group, Hess Canada Oil and Gas and Noble Energy Canada
was awarded licences in the area of the newly discovered play trend in the West
Orphan Basin. In August, the hon. Premier and I announced that an independent
resource assessment covering the area of the West Orphan Basin identified 25.5
billion barrels of oil potential.
The
results of the Calls for Bids are impressive in the current global environment
and we look forward to continued exploration and development in our offshore for
decades to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of her statement. Through Nalcor, our
administration strategically invested over $30 million in geoscience programs
through the Energy Plan to drive economic activity by ensuring that seismic data
would be available for oil and gas investors around the world. This investment
recognizes significant reserves we have in the offshore in our province and
resulted in providing information to the oil and gas industry which allowed
investors to put forward these significant bids.
Mr.
Speaker, we are encouraged to see that our investments which some who were in
the Opposition at the time questioned along with our long-term economic
strategic plan are now benefiting our economy, both today and into the future.
Our party has always been a strong believer in the commodity markets, including
oil and gas. We are proud of our past investments and certainly see this as a
positive return on the people's investment.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. The bids are in, but
what do they really mean. I hope this interest in exploration will lead to
production.
I remind
the minister that while the offshore oil industry provides revenue, it provides
relatively few jobs and any new development is years away. I remain concerned
that government has no real plan for creating employment in meaningful numbers
for the people of the province here and now.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commend the Newfoundland and
Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs, commonly referred to as NLOWE, for
their Women's Economic Forum. The forum, entitled Drivers of Growth Unleashing
the Economic Power of Women, which includes a number of sessions being held
across the province, provides an opportunity for women in business to explore
the challenges and the successes of advancing in business.
Mr.
Speaker, I had the pleasure of addressing the forum that took place in St.
John's this morning. It was a great opportunity for business leaders to come
together and share their knowledge and expertise. It is important that we can
collectively identify the barriers for women in business and the opportunities
so that everyone can learn from each other.
I
commend NLOWE for the important role they are playing in supporting women
entrepreneurs. As NLOWE points out, we all need to work together to tap into the
economic potential of the fastest growing economic force in the world the
untapped potential of the female population.
Our
government takes gender equity and diversity very seriously, and we encourage
women, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to actively participate and
seek out leadership roles and to work together to support each other as we
support continued economic growth for our province.
Our
government is supportive of NLOWE in hosting these sessions. We look forward to
working with them on the outcomes of the
Drivers of Growth forums through the resulting Action Plan being released in
January.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The Official Opposition joins
with government in recognizing the efforts of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Organization of Women Entrepreneurs, which we all finally know as NLOWE.
I, too,
attended the forum held in St. John's this morning and was very inspired and
very encouraged by what I witnessed. Exercises such as this that bring together
various stakeholders and community leaders are so extremely valuable. However,
we understand that much work remains. One only needs to look at the evidence.
A recent
study showed that Canada has slipped from 10th to 36th in terms of economic
opportunities for women. Another reality check tells us that at the current
rate, it will take 151 years before the proportion of men and women in
management are equal that's far too long. So it's painfully obvious that we
must remain diligent to address this inequity. It is through organizations
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
such as NLOWE who have been
supporting and encouraging women entrepreneurs that we can do just that.
Thank
you so much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Congratulations to
NLOWE for their courageous leadership in advancing women in business and bravo
for their great forum.
The
minister said her government takes gender equity and diversity very seriously,
yet refused to use a gender analysis on her budget that disproportionately
negatively affects the women of our province. And she refused to press
government to include a mandatory gender balance provision in legislation for
the Independent Appointments Committee, leaving it to chance and
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
goodwill.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker. Her words are hollow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to highlight November 14-20 as Global Entrepreneurship Week.
Global
Entrepreneurship Week is a celebration of the innovators and job creators who
launch start-ups that bring ideas to life, drive economic growth and contributes
to the advancement in human welfare. The week inspires people everywhere through
local, national and global activities designed to explore their potential as
self-starters and innovators.
We are
pleased that Futurpreneur Canada an organization that has fuelled the
entrepreneurial passions of young enterprise for two decades is hosting Global
Entrepreneurship Week for the eighth consecutive year. Over the past two years
in Newfoundland and Labrador alone, they have funded 35 young business owners.
There
are some great events planned to take place in the province this week, including
a pitch event, a branding session, an entrepreneurial networking breakfast and a
women's economic forum. These activities connect participants to potential
collaborators, mentors and even investors, introducing them to new possibilities
and exciting opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, the provincial government is very engaged in innovation and
entrepreneurship and the important role both play in the economic future of our
province. Last week, the hon. Premier launched
The Way Forward, a vision which emphasizes the importance of support
for entrepreneurship and innovation from the introduction of a new procurement
act and the development of a Business Innovation Agenda.
I am
pleased to say that in the very near future, the provincial government will be
launching the engagement process for the development of a new Business
Innovation Agenda one that is focused on building the pool and capacity of the
province's innovation and growth-driven businesses. We look forward to this
process and seeing continued growth in innovation and small business in
Newfoundland and Labrador and applaud our entrepreneurs for their tenacity,
their commitment and the success they have and continue to achieve.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. We, too, would like to
recognize November 14-20 as Global Entrepreneurship Week and would like to
recognize all those involved.
Small
business is the foundation of our province's economy. But there's a great deal
of irony, Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister state that his government celebrates
entrepreneurs and that the Liberal government will be developing an engagement
process more consultation I guess for entrepreneurs in the province. These
hard-working small-business owners are the same individuals who have
overwhelmingly expressed their displeasure regarding the actions this government
has taken with regard to our economy.
Entrepreneurs are some of the hardest working people in our province. They
deserve a government that fosters growth and innovation, instead of the present
government which is stifling growth and smothering the economy.
In spite
of this, Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Futurpreneur for hosting Global
Entrepreneurship Week and all those involved. I especially wish all
entrepreneurs the very best in their endeavours. We fully commend their efforts.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am pleased to hear
about the activities during Global Entrepreneurship Week. Small businesses are
very important to our economy and are creating much-needed jobs.
While it
is good to hear about plans for new initiatives, small businesses still need
resources on the ground to get established. I ask: What are government's plans
for getting more working capital into the hands of small business owners in all
sectors? Let's get a venture capital fund going for these businesses.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When
launching the Liberal vision, the Premier took some time to be critical of our
approach of developing targeted strategies.
I ask
the Premier: Have you scrapped the Poverty Reduction Strategy? What specific
actions are you taking to address poverty?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the
Leader of the Opposition had listened to the comments around the strategy of
strategies, we actually said and actually gave the former administration some
credit on some of the things that have been done around the Poverty Reduction
Strategy as an example.
These
are things that we see, ongoing programs that are actually providing benefit to
our province and said no, we would not be scrapping those programs. But there
are many incidents where the previous administration, based on a level of
response to a particular program, what they said was we would set up a new
office. What we saw was government working in silo.
When you
look at what we did with The Way Forward
program it is to reduce some layers within government right now that would
create a more effective and a more efficient government.
Mr.
Speaker, our way forward vision comes with many targets. We talked about
agriculture. We talked about targeting in health care. We talked about targeting
in immigration. There are a number of different targets and we will meet those
targets.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We just
heard from a minister opposite who talked about engaging to consult to develop a
plan. That's what we hear from Members opposite quite often.
In the
vision, it also identified reducing the province's obesity rate by 5 per cent by
2025, and that's a good thing, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: What specific actions or initiatives have you identified to support
that goal?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all
know the obesity rates in our province are very high compared to other provinces
within Canada, many other jurisdictions. Number one, it will come down to
education. The education will start with our very young. It includes making
investments in areas where we will increase participation amongst our young
people.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of initiatives that will be able to take place,
working with our education system, working with our communities, working with
the Department of Health, as an example, lots of good examples and initiatives
that we put in place to help reduce the obesity rates within our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Education and participation but no specifics. The Liberal vision also identified
increasing the province's rate of physical activity by 7 per cent by 2025.
I'll ask
the Premier: How did you arrive at 7 per cent?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we
know is there is a lot of information when it comes to benchmarking. We also
said that based on the guiding principles that when we make the decisions for
this government it would be the fact that number one, we will challenge
ourselves. That is the reason why we've put in those specific targets.
As a
matter of fact, if you listen to the forum, through the Leader of the
Opposition, his response on that day to some media was, well, this was just a
plan and not really much into it, only to find out later that there were some
very specific targets in place and they were mentioned. That is the reason why
as a government we will challenge ourselves by putting those targets in place,
working with leaders in our communities, working with various departments
because many of those policies are just not stuck in silos.
That was
the approach that the previous administration took in their level of government.
We are breaking down those walls so it becomes a culture throughout this
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the response from the Premier. However, Premier, what we are looking
for is how are you going to arrive at those goals? What's the plan to get to
those goals? That's what my question was just about a few minutes ago when I
asked you what specific goals and initiatives, what actions and initiatives, to
address your obesity targets.
As well,
we know that you've already taken some action on physical activity. You've cut
support for Sport NL programs. You've cut the Jumpstart very popular, very
beneficial, a very good program, the Jumpstart program.
I ask
you, Premier: What specific programs you say you have specific programs if you
read the document will be introduced in support of the goal to improve
physical activity?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I thank the Member for the
question.
We've
put in place numerous programs. In actual fact, the Veggie and Fruit program
that was just recently put in place for parents of young children, the Healthy
School Planner. There are a number of programs that are identified to meet these
goals and objectives.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
Veggie and Fruit program is going to increase physical activity.
I'll ask
the minister again you cut the Jumpstart program, a nationally recognized,
good program for engaging young people in regular physical activity what
programs are directly related to increasing physical activity?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, just last week I
introduced a new program in schools to help school sports with travel. Again, I
said the Healthy School Planner, which is an online tool for all schools to
assist them with physical activity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is
not much detail there. Assisting students with travel is going to improve
physical activity.
I'll try
this, Mr. Speaker, with the Premier. I'll try this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
In the vision document you
identified increasing fruit and vegetable consumption by 5 per cent by 2025.
Again, that's a good thing.
I ask
the Premier again: What specific actions will your government undertake to
accomplish that goal?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's too
bad the Leader of the Opposition is really not paying attention to some of the
things that we've been saying about this. We recognize that in order to get to
where we need to be when it comes to healthy eating and so on, there's a lot of
work that we can do within our agriculture initiative. I can assure every person
in this province that have heard me talk at great length of our ability now not
to be able to feed ourselves in this province. So we're saying that we're going
to more than double that?
Mr.
Speaker, we know now by the research we've done that we can actually grow more
of our own vegetables, fruits and so on within our own province. What the
agriculture industry is telling us, Mr. Speaker, is they need access to Crown
lands, as an example. They need access to federal programs. So one thing that we
did do, which was in the budget, was actually put a person in place right in the
federation of agriculture. And, by the way, they support those initiatives.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
listen very well to what the Member's opposite say. It's hard sometimes to cut
through the rhetoric but we do listen to what they have to say, and we're glad.
I say it's a good thing they want to reduce obesity, increase physical activity
and increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables. But, I tell you, there are
ways they do all of this that could be specifically done in programs. We don't
hear many specifics from Members opposite.
I'll ask
the Premier: Are you reconsidering or will you reconsider introducing a sugar or
junk food tax?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, when you look at
taxation in our province what I'm hearing here is the Leader of the Opposition
wants to tax more, which really goes against what Members of the Opposition have
been saying for quite some time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
As the Leader of the
Opposition would know taxation sources of revenue are really something that
becomes part of a budget process. Right now, this is not something that we are
considering at this point but it will go through a budget consultation process.
What we
do is when we talk and engage with people, we actually listen to what they are
saying. The previous administration actually held, on many occasions, budget
consultations but it meant nothing. Lots of people that showed up to their
consultations actually said that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
the Premier completely missed the point. The point was about reducing obesity,
increasing physical activity and about improving the consumption of fruit and
vegetables. It's not about a revenue generation. It's about benefiting
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the health of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Yesterday we asked the Premier, and we didn't receive an answer. The Premier was
asked teachers want to know, the people of the province want to know do you
think that the Minister of Education has shown integrity in his work as a
minister? Yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When I
was asked a question, similar to that yesterday, I did answer the question. And
it went something like this: When mandate letters were given to all ministers,
in this particular case the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development, part of what I asked him to do was to put in place full-day
kindergarten. It also explored many of the Premier's task force on improving
educational outcomes and also about school board elections, Mr. Speaker. These
were all requests that I put in that I asked the minister to do.
Now, the
minister is working. He is working quite well with many members of our
communities and many members of the education system I would say, Mr. Speaker.
So when I speak and say that I have confidence in my minister, I do have
confidence in my minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
The Premier may have
confidence, but for the second day in a row he won't simply state whether he
believes that his Education Minister has acted with integrity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development: Do you agree
with the decision to headquarter the new Atlantic provinces ocean technology
institute in Nova Scotia rather than in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I had
the pleasure of being at Memorial University when a joint announcement was being
held between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to bring over $90 million
into oceans research to lead the way for ocean technology in a very
collaborative way looking at our Atlantic growth strategy here in the province,
that we're committed to working with our Atlantic counterparts and the federal
government to make sure that oceans is a key piece of our technology.
Our
province, Newfoundland and Labrador, Memorial University is a key partner in
that and is going to get a big chunk of all of the investment that is happening.
There will be office space, and there is a significant amount happening at the
Marine Institute and at Memorial University that is going to bring in high
value, research, technology and we're going to see the benefits in Newfoundland
and Labrador from this investment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the minister's
comments fly in the face of our Northern Gateway strategy, our ocean technology
strategy. We've made huge progress in this province over the last decade.
I want
the minister to confirm for this hon. House: Does he agree with the decision to
headquarter the Atlantic provinces ocean technology institute in Nova Scotia
instead of here? It sounds like he does.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This was
a collaborative effort by a number of universities. Actually, the University of
Prince Edward Island is also involved in this process. The provincial government
and Memorial University will see a tremendous benefit, somewhere in the range of
about $40 million of this $90 million investment based on the Ocean Frontier
initiative.
We have
the best assets, when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador, that's drawing
significant investment. We hosted the international Arctic Technology
Conference, which is an international conference showcasing our simulation,
showcasing our research and the companies. We have over 600 companies that are
based in dealing with oceans.
So we're
doing and we're continuing to collaborate, to grow the ocean tech sector and the
pathway to the Arctic right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, working with our
Atlantic counterparts. That's how it should be done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind all hon. Members
again today that when a Member is recognized to speak, that's the only Member
that I wish to hear. It's oftentimes difficult for the Speaker to hear. This
will not be tolerated.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't
sell out our industries in this province for $40 million. The minister just
outlined all the reasons why that centre should be located right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Our ocean technology strategy
was working. Why did the Liberal government allow the Atlantic provinces ocean
technology institute to go to Nova Scotia instead of being here where it belongs
in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to
remind the Member opposite, who is a former minister in the past administration,
that under their track record if they looked at the footprint of federal
government services that happened under their leadership, we saw the closure of
the marine sub-centre which is now being reopened by the federal government
through hard work by the minister and the Premier. We also see that Coast Guard
has expanded their footprint. There's a lot being done. The Veterans Affairs
office in Corner Brook has been reopened.
We've
had tremendous success working with the federal government on a number of
initiatives to expand the footprint of federal government presence in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I know how much
they love the federal government, but I would point out that we have been
leaders because of our investments in the Marine Institute and RDC and Memorial
University. All that could be undone by this government. Ocean technology is
important to economic development.
I'm
going to ask the minister: How many jobs are going to be lost as a result of the
decision to headquarter the ocean technology institute in Nova Scotia instead of
here in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the answer is
simple: There will be zero jobs lost. There will actually be jobs created due to
the post-secondary
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
a significant investment.
So we're very pleased to see the number of high-value jobs that will be created
at the Marine Institute.
I would
suggest to the Member opposite to maybe go to the Marine Institute, talk to the
people there, and find out exactly all the positive things that's happening
based on this investment on the Ocean Frontier Institute that's happening right
here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
So, Mr. Speaker, exactly how
many jobs will be created here at Marine Institute and how many jobs will be
created at the new ocean technology institute in Nova Scotia?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, there will be a
tremendous amount of jobs and benefits that will be created based on this
investment. If we look at the research that's going to be taking place, the
Ph.D. students that will come along with this, these are high-value,
high-resource jobs to be connected with the Research & Development Corporation,
with Memorial University and with the Marine Institute.
Certainly we can endeavour to go reach out to the Marine Institute and also
Memorial University, which is an autonomous organization if he wants to
achieve that information, he can. Myself, as minister, I don't particularly have
those numbers directly on hand. But I will certainly go do the work for him if
he's unable to do so, and get that information and table it in the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to do
my research, but he should know, he's the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture
and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
So he was prepared to support
this outrageous decision without even knowing the facts, and he doesn't know
them today. He may not want to talk about job numbers, but I do. Newfoundland
and Labrador has lost 6,100 jobs over the past 12 months quite the economic
legacy for the Liberal's first year in office. The minister provided no details
yesterday.
I ask
the minister: When can people expect the economic growth plan not the fancy
vision document that your Premier promised?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'm glad and not surprised at all that the Member is talking about the last
year. What he is not talking about is that we have seen in the last 38 months,
35 months of decline. Now, I say to Members that are in this, and people that
are watching home, do we need to remind them once again that for nearly 35 of
those 38 months they were the party that was in power where we saw consistent
job losses within this province.
Also, to
provide some context in this, is when you look at the three provinces, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, primarily related to oil and gas,
Alberta's down 25 per cent, Saskatchewan's down 10 per cent, Newfoundland and
Labrador even though it's down is down just over 6 per cent.
So, Mr.
Speaker, in context, remember, 35 of the last 38 months during their
administration it was a decline and loss of jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, they wouldn't
answer the question yesterday and they won't answer it again today.
The
Premier's government has been in office for a year, a quarter of his mandate has
passed thankfully. I ask him again, and maybe his minister will respond if he
doesn't want to give specifics: What specific actions has your administration
taken to address projected job loss in the province? It seems like after a year
in office, there's still no plan.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, he
asked for a specific answer to the question before, I thought I gave him a lot
of detail. I'm going to continue on that detail now, Mr. Speaker.
Based on
our last budget, $570 million in infrastructure spending, that will create 3,860
person years of employment. That is creating jobs. Not only did we put $570
million into the infrastructure plan, we've leveraged that with communities,
with private sector and, in some cases, the federal government.
Mr.
Speaker, to answer his question specifically: 3,860 person years of employment
based on our infrastructure investment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Education: What did the review of the library system cost the
taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, as Members of
the House of Assembly will remember, last January all agencies, boards,
commissions and departments of government were requested to try and find a
certain amount of savings over a number of years. The provincial libraries
board, in collaboration with the Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development, came up with a plan. In fact, they exceeded the goal, some might
argue, in terms of finding savings.
There
were five proposals that were worked on. There was one that was accepted. That
was incorporated into the budget. Following that, there was significant amount
of public feedback about the need to have further consultation with the public
about those decisions and also there was an interest in having a consultant
review the system.
So
that's what we did. If I have additional time, I'll continue, 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.
The
minister didn't answer, so I'll answer it for him. It was $187,000 for the
contract, but that didn't include travel, it didn't include taxes, associated
fees, stakeholder agreements and third-party surveys.
So can
the minister tell me I'm assuming a quarter of a million dollars to this point
exactly what it cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador to have
consultations around libraries after you determined that you were going to cut
54 of those in this province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity to continue. I don't know why the Member is asking me
questions if he thinks he already knows the answer to them.
After we
listened to what people had to say, the feedback that they had provided, we used
the consultant that was basically the agency of record to go out and do some
work. It was a major undertaking that was done. There were 10 consultations that
were held around the province; two in St. John's. Those concluded on November 8.
There
was a significant amount of opportunity for people to provide feedback. There
was also an online form that people could provide feedback through. There was
also a survey that people could provide feedback to. All that feedback is now
going to be included into a final report, 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.
The
minister is correct, there were 10 consultations. I was glad to see that his
colleagues on that side of the House, along with some on this side, had attended
them.
I ask
the minister: How many consultations did he attend to get feedback from the
general public about the libraries that he slated to close?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, again, I'm happy
to provide answers to questions that the Member already knows the answer to.
As I
said multiple times in interviews with the media, I didn't attend any of those
sessions, Mr. Speaker. I felt that it would basically influence what people
might have to say. Maybe people would feel more guarded in what they might feel
about the issue. I didn't want it to become a we-versus-they conversation. We
are genuinely interested in what people have to the information people have to
provide about the sorts of library services that we need to have in our
communities going forward.
So with
that in mind, we allowed those consultations to take place without me being
present. In some instances our MHAs attended, in others they didn't.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
That's another example of how
the minister doesn't consult or listen to stakeholders.
Did any
of the 54 communities with proposed library closures host consultations? Can you
tell me the process that was used to determine where the consultations would
take place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to be able to continue to explain the process that was undertaken. After
the consultant was contracted to do this, a steering committee was struck. There
were representatives from the Department of Education, Early Childhood
Development and the provincial public libraries board. There was an individual
from that board who was specifically there to represent rural Newfoundland and
to represent their interests.
The
public libraries board had a majority, basically, on the committee. They
selected a number of communities on the premise that people would be able to
come from surrounding areas in order to be able to attend. For example, there
was one held in Clarenville with the interest of people from the surrounding
areas being able to attend and that sort of thing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island, for a quick question.
MR. BRAZIL:
Did the minister direct Ernst & Young to not have consultations in communities
where the libraries were about to be closed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development, for a quick response.
MR. KIRBY:
No, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As of
October 1, low-income earners in our province have the dubious distinction of
having the lowest minimum wage in Canada. Meanwhile, a minimum wage review as
required by the Labour Standards Act
is well overdue.
I ask
the Premier: When will his government live up to its statutory obligations and
conduct a review of our minimum wage, including public hearings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I was
delighted to engage in consultations with union leaders, with labour leaders,
with employers, with faith community, with a number of different organizations
concerning minimum wage requirements as a statutory requirement in minimum wage
for our province. We are committed to this review. We'll be announcing our
decisions on this matter in the very near future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask
for clarification from the minister. Is he saying the review has taken place and
we're going to be getting a report of these private meetings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if
the hon. Member opposite considers meetings with the union leaders to be
private. She's always free to embrace and to have discussions with members from
the labour council, with members from the employers' council, from others.
We have
engaged in consultations. We are always open to new ideas, to new points of
view. This process is ongoing; but, yes, we have actually engaged in key
stakeholders, and anyone who wants to come forward, including the Member
opposite, to provide a view point which I have not yet heard. If she would
like to come forward and provide a brief to this government, we would be happy
to receive it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
asking the minister to be clear. There has been no public announcement that I'm
aware of, unless I was in the ground somewhere, of a review having taken place.
When is
the minister going to make a public announcement so that people know they can
come forward and talk about the horrible situation we have with regard to the
minimum wage in this province. If he doesn't know what I think, he's been in the
ground somewhere.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, there is a point
of view that's being expressed here about being in the ground. I know that I've
been on the ground talking to stakeholders, talking to people who have a
particular point of view about this. There are a range of different points of
view.
Consultation is always welcome. This government prides itself on consultation.
That will not end. There is a new era that is overtaking this government
compared to the last government, which is about engagement and actually
receiving points of view. And it's not just with the federal government but with
stakeholders generally.
So, yes,
Mr. Speaker, there will be consultations. We will put forward our plan and we
will have a very effective policy that provides a minimum wage for Newfoundland
and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thirty-eight per cent of provincial minimum wage earners mostly work for large
chains that employ more than 500 people. Many of these workers need government
help through social programs because their employers don't pay them enough money
to live on. This, in fact, becomes a corporate subsidy.
I ask
the Premier: Has he done an analysis of how much government is spending to
subsidize corporations' low-wage practices on the workers of Newfoundland and
Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We, in
Newfoundland and Labrador, have a very progressive labour standards policy and
act. We also have very, very specific programs to be able to assist
underemployed people gain full-time employment. The question here is really
about how do we get a very high-functioning, highly effective, highly skilled
workforce to be able to participate in a modern-day workforce.
I've
been Minister of Labour for a relatively short period of time, but I have been a
Member of this House since approximately 10 months. I'm delighted that the NDP
is finally engaging on this particular issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
It's interesting, Mr.
Speaker. There hasn't been any answer about minimum wage.
Mr.
Speaker, 66 per cent of minimum wage workers in this province are women. Working
full time and year-round, their earnings are around the poverty line.
I ask
the Minister of Finance and Responsible for the Status of Women: What is she
going to do to address this issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, we always take a
very deliberate and definitive view, making sure there's equality in the
workplace, and our Labour Standards Act
is a part of that instrument. Part of the process of ensuring that we have
equity in the workplace is we engage employers, we engage labour, we engage
every stakeholder to come forward with ideas to allow this to happen. We're
blessed in this province with a very effective counsel in terms of other
agencies and institutions that provide us with that advice. That is the process
we'll always be engaging in, and that will produce results.
So as we
go forward, as we initiate a consultation on this, if this Member or any member
of the public would like to come forward, we'd be happy to receive that
information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 44.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Yesterday I gave notice that I would be presenting this notice of motion today.
In accordance with subsection 85(6) of the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 I apologize to
Members; I need (inaudible) for the Government House Leader to give me
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Answers to Questions for
which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the expansion of the aquaculture industry is important to economic
diversification of Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS
any developments must implement measures to ensure safe cohabitation between
wild species and farmed stocks;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to perform due diligence to ensure the
appropriate environmental assessment full environmental impact statement and
existing policies are adhered to as it relates to proposed developments on the
Burin Peninsula and Placentia Bay.
As in
duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, today's petition is three pages long and it's signed by people from all
across the province, and particularly on the East Coast of the Island. As I
stated yesterday when I spoke to Address in Reply, I'm certainly a strong
proponent of aquaculture, but I'm also a very strong proponent that aquaculture
development must be done right.
We've
lived through the growing pains in the Coast of Bays region and we still
encounter them from time to time. But what is absolutely critical in all of
this, in order for aquaculture to work, aquaculturists have to take extreme care
of the environment. And I'm confident that they are absolutely wonderful
stewards of the environment, but in order to grow fish you really have to
understand the environment in which they are grown.
Mr.
Speaker, certainly a full environmental impact statement is something that I
think would lend confidence to others in the province about this venture. And
we've seen recently the Environment Minister is certainly paying attention with
respect to other issues to the call of the people, and the people really do want
to see a full environmental impact statement.
Mr.
Speaker, it's of critical importance that this industry is developed properly
because any negative impacts to a new area will certainly be a negative impact
to an existing industry that provides over $200 million in revenue. So we must
move forward and do it right, I guess, is the issue here.
I
certainly support the call for a full environmental impact statement and support
the full development of aquaculture across the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, but no cutting corners, no bypassing regular processes. Let's ensure
that we do this, do it right so that everyone has confidence in the initiative
when it goes forward, that it is in the best interest of everyone and there are
minimal worries.
Certainly, I know there are other companies looking to invest in Placentia Bay.
Thermagraph data showed it was below 1.6 which is lethal temperatures for
finfish. So these things need to be studied.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has the greatest percentage of the workforce earning
the provincial minimum wage in Canada, with women, youth and those from rural
areas making up a disproportionate number of those workers; and
WHEREAS
the minimum wage does not provide enough money for the necessities of life
because a person earning minimum wage working 40 hours a week will make between
$21,300 and $21,800 in 2015 that's what they made which is barely above the
low-income cut-off of $20,065 for St. John's, and a working couple on minimum
wage with two children will also make close to low income; and
WHEREAS
in 2012 the minimum wage review committee recommended an increase in the minimum
wage in 2013 to reflect the loss of purchasing power since 2010m and an annual
adjustment beginning in 2014 to reflect the Consumer Price Index; and
WHEREAS
government instead legislated two 25 cent increases, one in October 2014 and one
in October 2015 with no annual adjustment; and
WHEREAS
eight provinces and territories will have a higher minimum wage than
Newfoundland and Labrador by October 2015;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to legislate an immediate increase in the minimum
wage to restore the loss of purchasing power since 2010, and an annual
adjustment to the minimum wage beginning in 2016 to reflect the Consumer Price
Index.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this minimum wage petition has been signed by thousands over the past
couple of years in this province. We have continually brought this voice into
the House of Assembly, as is our responsibility as a party.
The
minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. A series of increases
brought it up to $10 an hour in 2010, but it has fallen behind inflation ever
since. So by now, as the petition recognizes, we are the lowest minimum wage
rate in all of Canada. In the six years since 2010, we went from having one of
the higher minimum wages in Canada to having the lowest on October 1 when
Saskatchewan raised it minimum wage to $10.72.
We're
not anti-small business in supporting minimum wage, as some opponents like to
say. Along with economists in Canada, 85 of whom put out a report just last
year, along with economists in the United States, where in 2006 there were 650
economists who came together, we agree that as the economists in the United
States said,
minimum wage increases 'can significantly improve the lives of
low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics
have claimed'
.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents
humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there have been a number of buses removed from service over the past few weeks
for safety reasons, calling into question the current inspection and enforcement
protocols for school buses in this province; and
WHEREAS
there have been concerns raised by members of the busing industry regarding
government's tendering practices as it relates to the provision of school bus
services in the province; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents throughout our province who have raised both scheduling
as well as safety concerns regarding the English School District's 1.6-kilometre
policy, courtesy-seating policy, new double bus run schedule, as well as
overcrowding on school buses;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to strike an
all-party committee on school busing to consult with stakeholders and make
recommendations to government for the improvement to the school busing system in
our province.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I raise this petition again today. I will continue to do so each and
every day until we get some action here. There are a number of issues around
school busing, as has been indicated here. They cross the Department of
Education and they also cross the Department of Service NL.
The
safety of our children has to be of the utmost importance, and that's what
parents are calling for. That's what people in the community are calling for.
Whether it be the actual safety of the bus itself or whether it be the safety
issues associated to children having to walk in a lot of cases, they have to
walk in areas where there are no sidewalks, walking in the dark, especially with
this new double bus run and the staggered times.
There
are so many issues around this. I think that the best option for us is to form
an all-party committee to look at all of these issues and make some
recommendations for improvement.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
there are families who face scheduling challenges to get their children to and
from school each day; and
WHEREAS
because of these challenges these children are required to go to child providers
before and/or after school each day; and
WHEREAS
the current policy and practices does not allow children to be dropped off via
school bus to their child care provider;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to allow children to avail of courtesy busing and to enable parents
to indicate an additional drop-off location in addition to their own.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a very important issue in a lot of areas in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Today it seems like times have changed when it comes to our children.
I know when I was growing up and when school got out, I could go to an aunt or I
could go to my grandparents, or I could go to somebody in the neighbourhood. My
parents felt it was great that they saw that person taking care of me or
watching over me until they got home, and the same thing when my children went
to school. I was fortunate to be living next to my parents' house and the
next-door neighbours were my babysitters and they had a chance to go there.
Today,
in the Northeast Avalon there are a lot of things changing. There are a lot of
parents out there now that both parents are working. It's a real issue for them
for their young children, where they go to after school. In most cases, they
don't have a family member or they don't have a relative or they don't have a
person in their neighbourhood, so they need to go to different daycares.
In
Torbay right now, there are three different child providers in the area. That's
where most of the children go and there are some people that do it from their
homes. But the problem is busing in our area only allows you to use your civic
address. That means come 3:30 in the evening, unless you can get a seat on the
buses and the buses in the Holy Trinity area this year, at least four of them
were cut and there are no courtesy seats anymore.
What I'd
like to see is for government, even if they don't allow to do additional
drop-offs, even if they let the parents say this is where my primary area is
and it could be the daycare. That evening they would be assured, while they're
working, that the child can be dropped off to a certain area, in the area that
they want the person. They could arrange somehow in the morning, whether they do
it themselves to drop off the child at the school. So it wouldn't be the home
address; it could be the address of the child provider.
So I
just think government has to look at this and understand the circumstances that
people are in. It's a huge problem for them because right now there's a buddy
system in Torbay that's costing people to get a bus to go to these child
providers.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Budget 2016 closed the Advanced
Education and Skills office in Bonavista; and
WHEREAS
the residents of Bonavista and the surrounding communities require and deserve
an appropriate level of service;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reconsider its decision to close the Bonavista
Advanced Education and Skills office.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, as the critic for Advanced Education and Skills, the last couple of
weeks I've started to get emails again from some of the people who had some real
concerns when the announcements were made, and still echo the same concerns that
not only people in Bonavista and surrounding areas, but in the other offices
that were closed around the loss of a very valued service.
The
minister has talked about the ability to integrate and dialogue with individuals
and stakeholders these offices played that key role. It was the stop-in centre
for not only the clients themselves, but it was the stop-in centre for the
potential partners. The business community, the not-for-profit sector, the
municipalities in those areas, to have a dialogue around how they could partner
in providing various services, in being a pillar of strength and support for
clients who were trying to get on their feet and trying to find ways to be
gainfully employed, and to look at what kind of services or what kind of skill
set they would need be it around assessments for adult basic education, be it
around particular other skill sets, be it around post-secondary education needs
that they would have. They served that particular need.
But they
also served the need for those people who have to rely on income support and all
the services that are attached to that. So this was a stepping stone for people
to identify services they need, and for the very good qualified staff to be able
to counsel and provide those services and direct where there may be other
supportive services so that people could get as the minister noted to a
point where they're gainfully employed. But taking away a very valuable service
and a very valuable first step, particularly in rural and remote communities, is
a detriment to people being able to do that. That's why this is still a very
pertinent issue for people who particularly have lost that service.
You can
see in a lot of areas now as the economy turns people need other supports; they
need other directions. And taking away valued services that are always part and
parcel of what people understood and to develop partnerships in these
communities is a detriment. That's what we're finding here.
So, Mr.
Speaker, there's no doubt, over the next number of weeks, I'll be presenting
other petitions relevant to this, because it started again with these
communities now realizing the impact. We were lucky to get through the summer
when things are a little bit more positive and things move at a different rate
and it wasn't as noticeable. Now we're back into the fall sitting and people now
realize how detrimental these cuts have been.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this and the other cuts that have
been made in the near future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS: I
call Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, Order 2, second
reading of Bill 39.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development, that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, be now read the
second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 39 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader and Minister of Justice.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
happy today to stand here in this House of Assembly again and speak to the first
piece of legislation for this fall sitting of the House of Assembly. The act
that we are debating today, Bill 39, is An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.
Before I
get going, I'd just like to thank some people before we get started because I
had an appreciation when I was in Opposition, obviously, getting briefings and
reading legislation and having some obscure idea of how this happens, but now
being on this side and having this opportunity to see what actually goes into
it, I'd like to thank all the staff that are necessary and are responsible for
helping get all this legislation done. I'm sure Members on the other side know;
they've been through this.
There's
a tremendous of work that happens behind the scenes. The finished product shows
up here, it gets debated, we go back and forth. In many cases if it's especially
simple, it gets dealt with very quickly, but even for the smallest piece of
legislation there is a tremendous amount of work that gets done. Legislative
drafting, there's policy work, there are solicitors looking at it, departments
looking at it. So in this case, given that this is a piece of legislation
emanating from the Department of Justice and Public Safety I'd like to thank the
staff within the department who have been working on this for some time.
This is
a bill that came from the last session that we've gotten ready to move this
session, so thank you to all those who have done it. Then, secondly, to taking
the time having been on both sides, I realize the value in having briefings,
and I know that staff have had a briefing with Members of the Opposition to
discuss this act. They've been willing to answer questions. It's good to see
there are briefings happening, and there are times when there are follow-up
questions that happen after.
I guess
regardless of stripe or politics, at the end of the day one of the biggest
functions that we do here, the one that doesn't often get covered is the
drafting and the moving of legislation, the laws and the statutory pieces that
govern our province. I'm really happy to see that process is going I think
we're trying to take steps to improve that process and provide more time.
Hopefully, that worked.
Now
speaking to this particular piece of legislation specifically, what we want to
do here obviously, the Judicature Act
governs basically our Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are
three specific sections to this when you look at the Explanatory Notes. There
are three things that we're trying to achieve with this piece of legislation:
one, we are increasing the judicial complement of the Trial Division of our
province; two, we are creating a position of associate chief justice; and,
three, we are clarifying a provision respecting judicial areas and expanded
service areas and the manner in which those areas may be designated and
modified.
Just to
go back and provide some background and context, obviously, we have the three
levels of court. You have your Provincial Court, you have your Supreme Court and
you have Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. Again, you have the Supreme Court of
Canada as your ultimate level.
In this
province alone we have the Provincial Court which has a number of centres across
the province, and we have the Supreme Court Trial Division which has centres
across the province in bigger centres. Then we have the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeal, which is in St. John's. So this particular piece of legislation and
what we're doing here today deals with the Supreme Court Trial Division.
Now it's
funny, the judges themselves, their salaries and everything, they are federally
appointed and federally paid. The salaries for these individuals are not paid by
the Provincial Treasury; however, it is our Legislature and our
Judicature Act that governs the
staffing and the model that is used.
Previously, we've had a complement of 21 judges which would encompass the chief
justice of the Trial Division. Over the last year I've had a number of
conversations with the chief justice, both of our Trial Division, as well as the
chief justice of the Court of Appeal. We've talked about any number of issues
affecting our justice system and looking to work together to find ways to
improve the system.
One of
the issues that we discussed and it's not just a conversation that I have with
the chiefs, I've had it with a number of judges, practitioners and people, just
regular citizens is regarding family law. Now, just so people understand in
our province, family law has actually a couple of different jurisdictions. On
the West Coast and in the Avalon area, unified family court or the Supreme Court
governs family law totally.
So if
you're in Port aux Basques, for instance, and you have a family matter, you make
application to the Supreme Court. Now that changed sometime I'm going to say
in the last decade. When I first started out sometimes, depending on what the
matter was, if it was child support or depending on if it was custody, you might
apply to a different court. But since that time there's a uniformity there, and
now everything goes to the Supreme Court Trial Division which is based in Corner
Brook. The same thing in St. John's, we have the unified family court over on
I forget the name of the street because I'm not from here.
MS. ROGERS:
King's Bridge Road.
MR. A. PARSONS:
King's Bridge Road; unified
family court. Thank you to the Member for St. John's Centre.
So we
have the unified family court, which I've had an opportunity to be in on a
number of occasions. In fact, I just visited there two weeks ago and met with a
number of justices to discuss family law, access to family law and some of the
issues they face, both when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to
procedure, just any number of things. I felt it was important to hear from them
directly.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What a minister.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I say thank you to the
Opposition House Leader. He's complimenting me, so thank you for that. I don't
hear it very often, so I'm blushing here now.
Anyways,
we have 21 justices right now. The difference: judges in Provincial Court;
justices in Supreme Court. One of the things that we want to do is to increase
that complement to 24. Now, that has been done in consultation with the chief
justice of the Trial Division.
One of
the reasons we want to do that, going back to what I had discussed, is that we
have in this province and you know what, this is an issue facing every other
province. Family law is one area that there is actually an increasing number of
cases. There is a backlog of those cases. So one of the things that increasing
this complement will do, it's going to increase in many ways access to justice.
It's going to reduce the caseload. It's going to normalize the caseload for
these justices. The thing that I think is most important, and I really hope to
see, is it's going to improve the wait times when it comes to accessing our
court. That's what we want to see.
Now,
anybody who has ever dealt with family law, whether it's from using it
themselves, whether it's practicing, whether it's justices, whether it's staff,
family law is a trying section of law. It can be devastating to many people,
just the range of emotions in many cases. It can be very difficult to be in.
It's difficult for everybody.
It's
made that much more difficult when things are slowed down, when you have
difficulty getting in, when you have difficulty in getting your matter heard. So
that's one the reasons that after consultations with our chief justice and after
meeting with our other justices in fact, today I actually sat down with the
members of the Canadian Bar Association, Newfoundland and Labrador branch, and
they didn't know about this law being brought in. They asked what were we doing
and we told them. They are actually very happy about this step being taken
because it's one of the things their members, the members of the bar for this
province are advocating for as well. We think this is going to improve that
access. So we want to increase it to 24.
I don't
decide where the justices go. That is determined by the chief justice, but I'm
confident that we will see improvements to the complement of family justices
that are taking care of them. In many cases they're moving justices from the
Trial Division over. They're moving around. That's one of the areas we need to
see some work in and I'm happy to work with our chief justice on that. So we'll
see that complement increase.
One of
the questions at first might have been: Well, what's the cost of this? The fact
is this is a cost that is borne by the federal government.
One of
the questions following up that might be: Well, is this going to happen? The
fact is this is not a guarantee, but I can say that in my 11 months in this
position, I've had a number of conversations with our federal Minister of
Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould. I've talked to her in person. I've met with her
in a number of places, in Halifax recently. In fact, it's been really good
knowing I don't know what previous experience is like knowing that you can
reach out to the federal minister and have that conversations.
You're
not always going to agree on everything. That's not the nature of how this
works, but we can actually have a conversation. This is one of the things that
we've expressed to them is that we have this issue and we're looking to them to
work with us on this. The good news is that one of the areas that Minister
Wilson-Raybould has as one of her priorities is access to family law. They have
reached out to us, independently, and said we want to talk about a unified
family court across the country. We want to see a situation we're going back
to what I discussed previously, where we have, even in this province, a
difference. If you go to court, for instance, in Grand Falls-Windsor or if you
go to court in Gander, you can go to Provincial or you can go to Supreme, and
that can cause a bit of a difference there. There are many reasons I don't think
that that's the system that we need to move forward in.
This was
something that has been identified as a priority for the federal government. It
is the same thing in Labrador as well. So we'd like to see it. Now, obviously
there are challenges with that. But I think that is something that we're working
on and I'm doing that by talking to justices. I've been talking to judges,
talking to practitioners. Just recently actually I was out in Grand
Falls-Windsor and met with people working, even just staff working in the office
to talk about what are the challenges that they face and what are some of the
things that we can do.
Some of
these, when you're talking to a staffer that's been working 30 years and they've
been through a number of changes and differences, it's really good to be able to
have them tell you what the issues they face are but have that context and have
that history of 30 years to tell you about how things were done, some changes
that were made, did those changes succeed or did they have to go back.
That is
one of things, when you make change, you hope for the best, do all the planning
that's necessary, do the research; but, in many cases, it doesn't have the
desired effect. But, in this case, I have no doubt that the desired effect,
which is to normalize the workload for our justices, which is to increase access
to justice, which is to decrease wait-lists, will succeed. That's one of the
things that we are doing with this piece of legislation.
Secondly, we want to have the position of an associate chief justice. Now, for
some reason, that's never been done. It's unusual. In fact, other provinces
have, in many cases, more than one; they have two. I think Nova Scotia might
have two, but I might be mistaken there. This is a normal position in many other
provinces. In fact, here in this province in our Provincial Court, we have a
chief judge and we also have an associate chief judge.
That can
help many things, even when the fact is that our judges and justices are like
any of us, they might be gone away for work reasons, business reasons, personal
reasons, vacation, whatever they are like all of us; you have to have someone
there that can help run that organization while they're gone. That's just one of
the reasons, to have somebody to delegate to. To me, this just makes sense to
have this position, to have an associate there, and will help improve the
quality of our court system.
Again,
court is one of those things where it is not often praised in many ways because
if you're involved in court, it is usually for a negative reason. But I tend to
think that we have a very, very strong bench here in this province whether it's
our Supreme Court or whether it's our Provincial Court. I would just go off on
an aside and say that was obviously recognized recently with the appointment of
one of our own justices, Justice Malcolm Rowe, to the Supreme Court of Canada.
So the
quality of our justices has been recognized at the highest level for the first
time in the history of our province. That was done based on merit and based on
looking at the fact that, you know what, that was one justice there, but I also
think we have a number of great justices and great judges on our bench that are
serving the people of this province, and we thank them for that. So again, in
putting the associate chief judge in there, we think this is only going to
improve the administration of justice and improve the administration of the
court.
Now, the
last step here we want to discuss the provision respecting judicial areas,
expanded service areas and the manner in which those areas may be designated and
modified. So, in many cases, what we're doing here and the good news is that
we did have a briefing; there were concerns expressed at that briefing and
questions asked. And that's the whole point of this briefing. Again, another
aside here, hopefully down the road, we're also going to be moving to things
like legislative committees; the whole point being that legislation that comes
into this House of Assembly allowing for better debate and better legislation is
allowing for these debates to happen and questions to happen. So I appreciate
the fact that we're having these briefings.
So one
thing I wanted to clarify for everybody is that there's nothing with respect to
actual family law, jurisdictional boundaries, that is being altered in this
legislation. The boundaries are presently remaining the same. Now, the federal
government has told us that they do have plans to implement more unified family
courts, as I discussed earlier. We're not at that stage.
The
Judicature Act has always allowed for
us to amend judicial areas by using the legislation. That's always been there.
But the legislation aims to treat all areas in a consistent manner such that
expanded service area can also be altered by way of regulation. Again,
thankfully I have very intelligent people that help go over this. What we have
right now is a legislative status quo. So one of the things that we're trying to
fix is some of these legislative anomalies that exist, and this one was
identified and we're trying to fix this.
So under
the status quo when referring to section 43.5, when we talk about expanded
service areas, one has led to the Unified
Family Court Act. But that legislation was actually repealed. So the
legislation before the House today, this amendment to the
Judicature Act will put everything in one place under the
regulations for the act. So we're actually just simplifying what is currently a
piecemeal approach to referring to other legislation. So in many ways, even
though this is substantive, this piece, when we talk about increasing the
complement, we're also cleaning up old legislation. There is a housekeeping
component to it in many ways.
So right
now the presently enforced legislation, we shouldn't be referring to old
repealed legislation that is no longer of any force or effect. That's one of the
things that's going on here, but we need to have that authority. The same way
that while there is no agreement in place now to increase the complement of
judges from 21 to 24, it is better to have that in place knowing that that is
the appropriate number for this province. We do need more. If you look at the
judicial complement across the country right now with the caseload that we have,
24 is the appropriate number, it is better for us to have the legislative change
to allow for that happen and for the appointment of more justices rather than to
wait for legislation to be changed and then if there was the justice to be
appointed depending on how this were all to work out if it was in between
sessions, you could be waiting months for us to have a justice appointed. It is
better for us to change the complement and this has been done in the past.
So the
same thing here, we need to have the flexibility and the ability to change
judicial areas, expand the service areas in the hopes and in the promise that it
may change down the road. If it were to change, it's for the purposes of
uniformity and allowing a similar standard across our province, the same as what
they are trying to achieve in other provinces.
Right
now, in our province, we have different standards in different regions. What is
going on in Central is not the same is what's going on in Western. What's going
on in Labrador is not the same as what's going on in the Avalon, and we want to
have uniformity and I think that will allow for better service.
Again, I
would put out here now to anybody who is watching and I know that Members from
the Opposition will rise now and speak to this and they may have questions, and
I endeavour during this part or during the Committee phase to answer any
questions that are put forward. That is the purpose of this. And I'll certainly
try my best to answer those.
Just
looking through some of the notes that I have here, just to make sure that I
haven't glossed over or moved over anything, I think this is a positive piece of
legislation. I think that this is legislation that will improve the
administration of justice in this province. Again, I would note that this was
done in consultation with our chief justice. It's the chief justice of the Trial
Division that has actually spoken to me on a number of occasions saying this is
one of the things that we need to do.
We need
to have this done and, in fact, right now in this province we have empty
positions. Obviously with the ascension of Justice Rowe, there's an empty
position there and there's another one coming up as well and there will be more
in the future, but we need extra positions to deal with the family law caseload
that we have.
One of
the things that justices talk about is workload; just like us all, everybody
talks about workload. Well, when you go over and meet, especially with members
of the judiciary who are dealing with family cases, these are trying cases. That
number of cases is not going down. That number of cases is going up.
We're
trying to do what we can and I think that allows for better decisions when we
have justices that have time to do the work. They're like anybody: if you heap
the work on somebody, it makes it harder and increases that burden on them. And
we need the best decisions coming out. Knowing how we have a system based on
precedent, the better decision now will allow for better decisions down the
road.
Additional judges will mean additional judicial resources for the Supreme Court
General Division. Now this is some of the information that's been passed on to
me by our Supreme Court. For the last three years, two judges from the General
Division in St. John's have been assigned to the Family Division, so the
remaining 10 justices have been handling the work of what should have been 12
justices. What this means then so you put them over in the family system, what
you have then is you have delays in the civil system. That's one thing that we
want to obviously, we want to alleviate that situation.
The
other thing and this has come up on a number of levels but primarily in
Provincial Court, but it's also coming up in the Supreme Court level as well
is we have the Jordan case. This case, as we know, has put in place a hard and
fixed ceiling on dealing with criminal matters. The Supreme Court also handles
these. So by adding these we hope to again, this is just one of the many ways
that we're taking to alleviate that burden that's being felt not just here in
this province, this is a burden that is national in scope. It's being felt
absolutely everywhere. This is just one of the ways.
I think
everybody in the system has a role to play here whether it's Crowns, whether
it's defence, whether it's our judiciary in dealing with these situations in
the hopes that, as we move forward, we do not have cases that are waiting too
long to be heard, whether it's the 18 months or the 30 months. We want to avoid
unreasonable delay; we want to avoid Charter applications and having matters
thrown out for the reason that the person didn't have a right to have their
trial within a reasonable period of time. This change in this legislation, if we
support it, will allow for that.
I've
already mentioned the associate chief justice position. There's a lot of
administration, obviously, that comes to handling this. There's dealing with
justices and courthouses all across the province, there's dealing with staff,
dealing with caseloads. This will help in that provision. This will help the
chief justice do this. Again, we already have it in our Provincial Court. It's
already happening in the superior court levels across this country. It's
something that should happen here as well.
Finally,
we're talking about the judicial area or expanded service area. I'll answer
questions as they arise here, but depending on where you are there's a
difference in where your family matter can be heard. This allows us to have the
possibility of an expanded service area, depending on the type of application.
Section
43.5 of this act currently provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make
regulations after consultation with the chief justice to designate or expand or
contract the judicial area of the Supreme Court Family Division. There is no
corresponding authority for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make
regulations. This will change this. It's set out in three separate enactments of
the unified family court.
The
exclusive judicial area from the Supreme Court, just so we know, East Coast
right now is the Avalon Peninsula as far as Holyrood, including St. John's metro
area and Bell Island. That's Schedule A. On the West Coast, the area from Grey
River west along the South Coast to Channel-Port aux Basques, then north to
include the whole of the Great Northern Peninsula, west to the turnoff of the
TCH to Jackson's Arm and the Beaches. So those are the two areas now that are
exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The expanded service area would
include communities from Holyrood to Port Blandford, including the Bonavista
Peninsula.
These
amendments don't change the boundaries. The status quo will continue with
respect to matters before the family court. What it allows is the possibility
for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations to designate these
expanded areas for the Family Division, in addition to the existing authority to
designate judicial areas. So it allows for us to change that, if there is the
talk of the Family Division operating in one area, and for allowing this
uniformity that we've discussed.
In
conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I've had a number of consultations with our federal
minister on this. We've made our position known on a number of occasions. We've
had, I think, very beneficial, very positive conversations on this need. This is
something that's a priority area for them as well.
I think
this piece of legislation is going to be beneficial to absolutely everyone,
whether it's an individual who wants to avail of our Supreme Court, avail of our
unified family court, to avail of the court system for the Supreme Court across
this entire province. I think it's going to be of benefit to our judiciary to
help with the burden of the workload that is on them. In turn, that's going to
allow for better decisions which are good for absolutely everybody using the
system. We need to do what we can to ensure the administration of justice
proceeds properly, properly resourced and to allow us to have the justices
necessary to make sure that cases are heard on a timely manner.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. I look forward to the commentary by my
colleagues across the way and to answer any questions during the Committee
phase.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the comments from the minister in presenting the bill. I think he was
very clear and understanding, and took a fair bit of his time today, that he had
an opportunity to do so, to explain the bill and the rationale and the reason
for the bill and how it came to be. We certainly appreciate that.
My
understanding is that the chief justice of the Trial Division had asked and
requested a change in the current legislation, a change in the number of Supreme
Court justices that exist in our province and also that a new associate chief
judge be appointed. Also, as there was some housekeeping component, as
referenced and explained by the minister as well.
Now, the
minister took some time to reference R. v. Jordan. R. v. Jordan was a case in
the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe it was July I think the minister might
confirm in early July I think this year when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
on whether or not an accused person had been tried within a reasonable time as
allowed under the Charter. Our Charter says that a person who's accused has a
right to a trial in a reasonable period of time. It's about access to justice,
and timely justice is one of the hallmarks of a free democratic society as
referenced by the Jordan decision and discussed in the Jordan decision.
It was a
very important one because this is not new to justice, not only in Newfoundland
and Labrador but throughout Canada. For decades there have been discussions and
cases presented and arguments presented before courts to say there had been an
unreasonable delay to an accused person to be provided their access to a trial.
Because every person accused of a crime in Canada has a right, first of all, to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but also have a right to have their
day in court and have a reasonable time to have their day in court.
R. v.
Jordan took the opportunity to deal with this in a more critical way than had
been done in the past. In cases in the past, there are numerous cases over the
years that have been dealt on a one-off basis or on that particular case.
This
case, R. v. Jordan, the Supreme Court, what they've done here is they've set
benchmarks for a time period when cases should be heard in court. For the case
of Provincial Court, they've set it at 18 months. So that's 18 months from the
time a charge is laid against an accused individual to the time that the trial
has been completed. They set 18 months as the time period.
It's not
a hard and fast rule because Jordan when I say Jordan, meaning the Supreme
Court on Jordan also said there may be circumstances where the conclusion of
the trial goes beyond 18 months. Maybe there was an extensive amount of
evidence, a much larger amount of evidence than you would normally see in cases,
way beyond what's normal. There may be some other reasonable explanation of why
the delay went beyond 18 months but unless there was a critical reason for going
beyond 18 months, 18 months would be the new rule.
If a
person is charged, they are given their day in court. They are given access to a
trial and, if the trial is not completed within 18 months, there has to be a
very, very good reason why, and R. v. Jordan talked about that.
Similarly, when a person goes through a preliminary inquiry, which is when the
Provincial Court hears, it's almost like a mini trial, on status of facts to
determine is it worthy to take this matter and send it to the Supreme Court.
What Jordan has done is said, well, from the time the lower court determines,
yes, we should use the time of the Supreme Court to have a trial. Then there's a
30-month window in which the Supreme Court should finish the matter as well.
Similarly, Jordan talks about the Supreme Court talked about in Jordan, but
Jordan also talked about when there may be exceptions to that rule. Very rare
we'd be very clear very, very rare.
The
standard has been set for justice systems throughout Canada, not only
Newfoundland and Labrador, that trials essentially for Provincial Court, have to
be completed in 18 months and Supreme Court for 30 months. I believe it is an
important factor in what the Supreme Court justice has requested from the
government to add justices currently 21, and this will increase justices to 24
in the province.
Trial
Division will consist of 24 justices, which would include the chief justice and
also the new associate chief justice. I think it's an important thing to do. I
think it's a very important thing to do. People are entitled to their day in
court. They're entitled to have their matters heard, and cases are more complex
than they've ever been before. Complexities have increased.
In an
article I read in The Telegram just
recently, the president of the Crown Attorney's Association here in Newfoundland
and Labrador expressed concern about heavy caseloads. He referenced that cases
now he said, even shoplifting, every shoplifting case now has a video, which
has to be entered into evidence, and that makes the case more complex. It
requires the technical expertise to review the video to ensure that it's
authentic and so on. There may be challenges about the authenticity of what the
video is, the clarity of the video and so on.
All that
has to be considered now in a matter of a shoplifting and I say shoplifting,
which is a theft. Of course, theft is a criminal offence, but it's very
common to see those types of offences in our courts, in our Provincial Courts,
lower courts, but they do add the president of the Crown Attorney's
Association for the province, Mr. Sheldon Steeves, did reference it and talk
about videos in shoplifting cases because it adds time necessary in the courts.
Also, there's broader evidence of other areas that are available today, quite
often technical or electronically-based and so on.
There's also a great growth in forensic evidence and
scientific evidence. I know
and I'm sure the minister can reference it when he speaks again I'm sure he's
heard concerns about the length of time it takes for evidence to be processed
scientifically. And that causes delays. So there may be a charge laid today by a
person, there may be scientific evidence available that gets sent out of
province for forensic examination, and in many cases it can take many, many
months for that evidence to be properly assessed, to be examined and a report
back or a decision on that particular piece of evidence.
So those
types of changes in the justice system add to those types of complexities, add
to the burden and the workload of our justices in the Supreme Court, our judges
in the Provincial Court, but all aspects of our judicial system. From law
enforcement right through to the judiciary and the support staff that work with
them, and then other aspects such as, as I mentioned, forensic laboratories as
an example, who now have a greater burden to process and produce the results of
forensic examinations in a much timelier manner because of R. v. Jordan.
All of
that is good for our justice system and it's good for any person who's accused
in an offence. I think, overall, it's good for society, for our province and, of
course, for Canada because this impacts all of Canada.
That
particular aspect just considering those particular thresholds, those
particular aspects of greater pressure will require more justices. Madam
Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the irony in some of this. I
respect the fact that the salaries and the costs for those additional judges are
a responsibility of the federal government, not the provincial government;
however, the provincial government does have many aspects and costs associated
with operating our courts, Provincial Court, Supreme Courts and so on. There is
going to be an extra burden on the province as well here, I'm sure, with extra
court staff, with extra court security as an example, Sheriff's officers and so
on. But it will speed the process of justice which needs to be improved upon.
The
irony here is I have to go back for a minute just to reference what happened
earlier this year. It was only a few months ago when the minister stood here in
the House and advocated for the closures of Supreme Courts and Provincial Courts
in our province, which really kind of is ironic, as I said, compared to what the
Supreme Court justice is asking for now.
It was
back in April on budget day when the Supreme Courts in Grand Bank and Grand
Falls-Windsor were planned to be closed, reducing Supreme Courts from six to
four. Provincial Courts in Harbour Grace and Wabush were closed, reducing
Provincial Courts from 10 to eight. There was a reduction in staff in the
Department of Justice and Public Safety, 27 positions announced at that point in
time, about a $6 million savings.
Our own
minister said at the time that they were very difficult decisions, and I have no
doubt. I fully understand; very, very difficult decisions but it was necessary
to find efficiencies. I agree with that. There is a necessity to find
efficiencies. I fully respect that. The government has a responsibility
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
I ask
Members to keep their conversations down or take them outside.
Thank
you for your co-operation.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The
government does have a responsibility to find those efficiencies and create a
climate where we can afford the services that we need. I would say, and with all
respect to the minister, he's standing here today saying we need to do this for
our justice system, and I agree.
They
also made cuts; earlier this year they cancelled the hiring of 10 additional RNC
police officers. They removed four vacant constable positions as well.
So there
are a number of things the minister had done back in the budget which was
reducing resources; but, thankfully, many of those decisions were reversed in
June. The minister reversed the decision of Grand Falls-Windsor and Grand Bank.
He explained at the time that the chief justice of the Supreme Court had
presented a proposal identifying savings. I'm glad that happened. I'm glad they
were able to resolve that and keep the courts open. I'm glad they're increasing
the number of justices in the Supreme Court because they're really needed for a
number of reasons. Of course, R. v. Jordan has really drawn the line in the sand
on that as well.
Then
later in July, the minister also reversed the decisions on Harbour Grace and
Wabush courts. I'd spent some time in Harbour Grace consulting with
municipalities and a number of stakeholders who were very interested in the
implications of closing the Harbour Grace court, but I'm glad the minister
changed that.
He also
referenced R. v. Jordan back at that point in time as well, and talked about the
need to ensure a speedy trial and that people have timely access to justice. So
R. v. Jordan is making impacts. That's not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador,
Madam Speaker. It's impacting across the country. The government is required to
follow the rules established by the Supreme Court of Canada. He found that using
R. v. Jordan and reversing that decision was the right thing to do.
There
may be other reasons why they changed those decisions, but I certainly respect
the decision and appreciate the decision, and the reconsideration of those
decisions to keep those courts open. He did so, and it's consistent with what's
being presented today.
What's
presented today, which is now known as Bill 39 which is going to amend the
Judicature Act, will increase that
judicial complement in the Trial Division. It will increase the number of
justices here in Newfoundland and Labrador from one to 24.
It will
also create a position of an associate chief judge. An interesting position and
I fully respect the judiciary. Certainly, the chief justice has many years of
experience, very learned in the operations of the court and the operations of
justice, requirements and so on. I understand the chief justice, as well, has
advocated for the appointment of an associate chief judge.
An
associate chief judge in many ways will assist and accept some of the
responsibilities of the chief justice and will also act on behalf of the chief
justice at times when the chief justice is not available. I'm just looking for
it in the act what it refers to he's not available or can't conduct the duty
as required and so on, and then the associate chief judge can assist with those
responsibilities and share those with the chief justice.
As well,
the third part of this Judicature Act
is to clarify a provision respecting the judicial areas and expanded service
areas. The manner of those areas may be designated and modified. Again, the
minister has outlined some of those.
I
referenced a little bit earlier in my comments, Madam Speaker, an article in
The Telegram in which the president of
the crown attorneys' association and he referenced how prosecutors will have
too heavy a workload trying to meet the demands of R. v. Jordan. He also talked
about how they work a lot of uncompensated overtime. I'm sure that the minister
is aware of that and that's not new, either, in Justice. I'm aware that those
circumstances have existed for some time. For a long period of time there's been
adjustments and improvements made, but they continue to be the case.
Also
though, it's interesting to note that the chief Crown prosecutor for the
province also commented in the article. She indicated Ms. Knickle that
government was looking for options to reduce delays. I'm glad to see that as
well. So I expect to see more from the government other than just the increase
in justices in the Supreme Court. I would expect that the minister will bring it
forward for announcing other changes in how justice is delivered to reduce
delays.
One of
the things that the Crown prosecutor talked about was she questioned whether
preliminary inquiries were still necessary as they have been in the past. We
have new disclosure laws in Canada where files and disclosure are accessible to
accused persons and their legal counsel; great improvements over the last decade
or so. She questioned that and I think it's a worthy question and worthy
discussion to have.
She also
referenced that government is aware of the obligations under Jordan and is
exploring the possibilities of additional resources according to this article
was the comment from the chief Crown prosecutor for the province. I'm glad to
hear that as well, because the delivery of justice has to be sound, it has to be
timely. It has to be done in a way that protects the interest of all parties. It
respects the presumption of innocence and provides an accused person with fair
access to justice and a trial in a timely manner.
Madam
Speaker, I'm not going to go through all of the sections in the act, the
minister has done that quite well. But we will be supporting the movement of the
Judicature Act. There are some more
specific questions we may have for the minister after we've heard all the debate
and we get to the Committee stage. We may have some more questions for him.
Those
are my comments for today. I thank the minister, again, for this bill, for
bringing it forward. Of course, we support the addition of more justices in the
Trial Division and also the associate chief judge.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and to speak to Bill 39, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.
I would like to thank all the folks within the Department of Justice
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It is
the second time the Speaker has asked for co-operation. If you have business you
want to conduct, I ask you to step outside. The next time I will name Members.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Again, I
would like to thank the members from the Department of Justice, the staff in the
Department of Justice who provided a very thorough and clear briefing for us.
Also, I would like to thank all those in the public service who work in the
justice system. It's not the easiest department or system to work in.
Oftentimes, when people go to court it's because there's a big problem. They go
to court to plead their case, to have resolution and to have justice and
fairness.
We know
that our Crown prosecutors, we know that our legal aid lawyers, we know that our
judges and all their support staff are very qualified, are very committed, are
working hard, often under very difficult circumstances. So I would also like to
take a moment to thank those people who have dedicated their lives to the
pursuit of justice, again, working sometimes really long hours and who have
expertise. Most people who work in the justice system whether they be the
police officer on the street, whether they be a stenographer who's taking notes
in court are all well qualified. Some people have had to spend years and years
and years in formalized education to be able to do the work that they do. I
would like to thank them on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again, I
believe that we have excellent workers. We have people who are well trained, who
are well qualified, who are both passionate and compassionate about the work
that they do. One thing we sure need in our justice system is that commitment,
that passion, but also the compassion. When people enter the justice system,
whether they have been wronged or they may have been the person who have
wronged, that compassion is really needed and understanding. So I would like to
take the time, once again, to thank them on behalf of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
At
first, when we were briefed on this act I thought, whoa, this is great; we're
going to get three new justices. But in fact, Madam Speaker, that's not the
case. We are amending legislation to prepare ourselves for the event that in
fact we may get three new justices. I believe that there is a need for that, so
I think it's really important to clarify for folks at home that in fact we're
not getting these. There's no actual arrival time. The stork isn't on its way to
deliver us three justices, but
MR. A. PARSONS:
How do you know?
MS. ROGERS:
The Minister of Justice has
just said: How do you know? Well, I don't know, but I sure am looking forward to
that announcement. We will all be ready with a shower to welcome them all. So we
don't know if or when this is going to happen, but we live in hope that it will
happen because we know that there is a need.
I would
also strongly, strongly encourage everyone, if they've not yet had the
opportunity, to read the special feature this past Saturday in
The Telegram. It was a fantastic
special feature on the state of the art of our justice systems right now in
Newfoundland and Labrador. It was written by Rosie Mullaley. I strongly
encourage people to take a look at that because that's a thumbnail sketch,
really, of what kinds of things we are dealing with in our justice system.
We know
that our justice system in the past few years, under the previous
administration, has been chronically underfunded. We know with our current
administration, there were some cutbacks in Justice. A number of courthouses
were to be closed, but some of those decisions have been reversed. I applaud the
current government for reversing those decisions because it was proven that
those decisions, even though we may be in a really tough economic time, there
are some things that simply cannot be tied to the price of a barrel of oil.
That, for sure, is our justice system.
I'm not
going to go into great detail about the parameters of this bill. I believe the
Minister of Justice has done a great job and the Leader of the Official
Opposition has done a great job in really laying out what this bill is intended
to do, what the effects will be. It just goes to show that our justice system is
a living, breathing system that has to be flexible and has to respond to the
needs of our current realities.
Thirty-seven years ago I date myself I was hired to assist in a process in
an impact evaluation of the Unified Family Court, which was when it first
started on King's Bridge Road here in St. John's. It was a wonderful time
because it was the first Unified Family Court in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador, and one of the few across the country. We knew how important
family law was and that it needed to be updated and that we needed to update our
judicial procedures around the area of family law. So it was an exciting time to
be on the ground floor when we had a new Unified Family Court to look at how
justice could better respond to the needs of the changing lives of the families
of Newfoundland and Labrador and also we saw that happening across the province.
I have
some concerns, not so specifically about the potential of three additional
judges, but specifically what that might mean for our province in terms of if we
have more judges, the hope is that we will be able to see a more nimble and a
quicker response to the cases that come before the courts. However, we know
there are some problems in our court system right now. For instance, there are
14 murder cases that are before the courts.
One of
our problems we have is quite simple in some ways, and that's space, but in
other ways it's extremely complicated. We know that the courts presently aren't
doing concurrent murder trials, although we need that to happen. The reason
being, although we have three or four courtrooms that have jury boxes because
murder trials always are required to have a jury trial in the province. So we
have courtrooms that, in fact, have jury boxes so that jury trials can happen,
but we only have one jury room, which means there is no place for the juries to
retreat, to deliberate, to eat their lunch, to do the business that juries have
to do when they're not in the courtroom. So that presents a bottleneck.
We also
know that we have Crown prosecutors who have sometimes over 200 cases. We know
that one of the most important things in the pursuit of justice is to ensure
that people have a fair trial, which means whether it's the Crown prosecutor or
whether it's the legal aid lawyer or a private lawyer that the amount of time
that is needed to give a thorough, accurate, fair trial is so very important. It
is one of the bases of how our justice system is executed.
From the
Lamer Inquiry, the Lamer Inquiry pointed out that there was a problem in the
adequate resources in order to give Crown prosecutors and legal aid lawyers the
time needed in order to be able to prosecute but also to defend folks who are
before the courts. So we do have some problems that will require money. Again,
our justice system cannot be solely tied to the price of a barrel of oil.
How
government and how the Minister of Justice is going to step up and deal with
these problems, I believe that they are in his capable hands, and how he's going
to respond to that, hopefully, we'll see in the next while. But again just
adding judges is not enough to deal with the bottlenecks that we are
experiencing in our justice system in the province.
Again,
these bottlenecks are very important; they are critical. Because of the Jordan
decision that says that provincial matters must be resolved within 18 months of
charges laid, and Supreme Court, federal matters, trial matters, criminal
matters must be resolved within 30 months of charges initially being laid. If
not, we can see that the cases collapse, that they do not go to trial.
We've
seen that just recently now in the past month in the province of two particular
cases that were thrown out of court due to delays, and one of them, the
Myles-Leger case, in fact, affects every single person in Newfoundland and
Labrador who buys a house because of what happened in that particular instance.
So I do
believe that we have some really difficult challenges ahead of us, challenges
that are going to require additional resources. One of the things that have been
flagged as well is the fact that we have a high turnover in the Crown
prosecutor's office. What does that mean for us?
Well,
maybe those positions can be filled, but what happens then is you lose more and
more senior people who have more experience. So that affects the depth of
knowledge and the depth of experience in the Crown prosecutor's office. Again,
our Crown prosecutors are well-trained, they are committed, but a high turnover
is not necessarily a good thing. As a matter of fact, I believe it's not a good
thing in our Crown prosecutor's office.
Also, I
was notified today that an email was sent out to lawyers across the province
encouraging them to once again put their names forth to do legal aid work. We
know that the research has shown that it's far more economical to have staff
lawyers doing work on behalf of legal aid, rather than going to private lawyers;
however, because there is such a demand on our legal aid and our lawyers in the
legal aid department that, in fact, they're having to reach out once again to
the private bar.
I
believe that indicates again a bottleneck there, that there is a problem. And
again, it's a problem that will require resources. The appropriate resources
have to be given to our justice system in order for it to do the work that it
needs to do.
The Law
society has notified its members of government's return to contracting out legal
aid work to private lawyers. So we'll see what happens there. I think it will be
interesting to hear from the Minister of Justice why that is. Is it because
there is a shortage of legal aid lawyers? Is it because there are an unusual
high number of cases? I'll look forward to hearing from the Minister of Justice
on that.
Madam
Speaker, I've basically raised some of the issues that I think are really
important around this particular issue. I thank the members of the Department of
Justice and the staff at the Department of Justice for the excellent briefing
that they've given us.
I look
forward to the possibility of the arrival of some new Supreme Court judges. I
believe that the whole legal community would look forward to that. Also, I would
like to highlight again the concerns of the stresses on our justice system, on
our court system that desperately need to be addressed in order to ensure that
all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have access to fair and equitable
justice.
Thank
you.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to stand in this House and say a few words about the
Judicature Act. It's a bit of a tongue
twister. Madam Speaker, I'm going to keep my comments fairly brief and relevant
would be and in the spirit of co-operation. Because I believe we should be
in this House of Assembly, we should be co-operating, just like the Minister of
Service NL would be looking for my co-operation when he looks for leave on a
bill that will be coming up. I'm going to co-operate with him and I hope he's
going to co-operate with me.
Anyway,
Madam Speaker, in terms of this particular bill, obviously if we're going to add
more judges to our court system, that's a positive thing. There's nobody who's
going to be against that. I'm certainly not against it. I'm glad that the
Minister of Justice did clarify, though, that this is just to enable more judges
because I actually had the impression that we were actually going to hire more
judges, that it was kind of a done deal. I didn't realize that.
I'm also
very glad to hear that it's going to be paid for by the federal government,
given our financial circumstances. That would be positive. I certainly hope and
anticipate that we're going to hear some more news and MP Foote is going to come
down again, as she's done so many times in the last little while, and announce
some of these judges that are going to be appointed. I kind of have a feeling
that we're doing this in anticipation of good news to come and I hope that's the
case. I'm sure we all do.
The only
concern I have with it I'm going to call it a concern or concern that some
people might have with it. I suppose depending on what part of the province
you're from and so on it might be more relevant to some people than others. I
don't see any concern for people in my district as it relates to this bill. I
think it's a positive thing to add more judges, as I said.
The only
area where I can see where it could possibly be a concern and maybe the
minister will address that when he speaks again and, if not, we can certainly
get to Committee and I can ask the question, but the expanded service area is
the only thing that I see as a potential issue. Right now, as I understand it at
least, and I'm just going to use this area as an example, this area goes to
Holyrood. So basically anybody that would have any issue with family court, that
would require family court, they would go to unified family court here in St.
John's, from Holyrood in.
If you
were in Bonavista, I'll just use as an example because I think it goes to the
Bonavista Peninsula, is the expanded area. If you're in Bonavista, right now if
you had a family court matter, the individual has the choice to say I don't want
a travel all the way to St. John's. So that individual has the ability, for
example, to go to Clarenville, I believe.
I stand
to be corrected, if that's the area, but I'm going to say Clarenville is
Provincial Court. So they could say I want to go to Clarenville and that's their
choice to do so. In bringing all these things consistent around the province
because I know, for example, if you're on the West Coast I believe the minister
said, let's say if you're up in St. Anthony you are forced to drive from St.
Anthony to Corner Brook to go to family court, whereas in Bonavista you have the
option to go to Clarenville.
If we
make this change in the name of consistency and it would be consistent, then
certainly for that area I'm not sure about the Central zone, but certainly for
that area the Cabinet basically would have the option under regulation to be
able to say to someone in Bonavista, we're going to take away that choice and
now you're going to be forced to drive to St. John's in the same way that
someone is forced to drive from St. Anthony to Corner Brook. They could do it.
By
passing this it doesn't actually make it automatic, but it gives the Cabinet the
ability at some point in time, whether it's the plan now or it could be the
plan, I don't know but if they wanted to at some point in time to say, do you
know what, you now have to come to St. John's. If that happened, there would be
no ability for that to be debated, because it would be a regulation which means
they could just do it on their own without approval of the House of Assembly and
so on.
Now,
whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, whether it makes sense or it doesn't
make sense, I guess that depends on the individual. I'm sure the chief justice
has been consulted, I understand. So obviously the courts, the justice thinks it
makes sense. Certainly it is consistent with what's happening on the West Coast,
nobody can argue that.
Like I
said, in terms of my particular district, it's going to have no impact on me
because people in Mount Pearl are going to unified family court anyway. The only
point I think we need to understand is that in passing this as is there will be
certain areas, as I understand it, whereby somebody who today has choice to go
to a court closer to their area, they stand the risk of losing that if Cabinet
decides to take that away, and that ability is there to do that. That's the only
thing I would see there as a potential issue for certain people. That's the only
thing I can say, for certain people that could have an impact.
Other
than that, the fact that we're going to make things consistent, the fact that
we're going to have potentially more judges, all that is very positive. So from
an overall perspective, and based on the people I represent, I would certainly
support this particular bill.
As I
say, I throw that out there. Like I said, maybe the minister can comment or
confirm. If I'm wrong, that's perfect. That's happened lots of times. He can set
me straight, set us all straight on it, but I see that as a potential that could
happen, and it would have a potential negative effect maybe not on the court
system, but on the individual citizen who would now have to travel further to
get court services.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety speaks now he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand here and conclude debate on this piece of legislation. I thank my
colleagues opposite for speaking to this and for being what I would consider
generally supportive, but raising some concerns, whether they're specific or
general. Certainly, the floor of the House is always a place to do that and I'll
endeavour right now to answer those points in the order they were raised and in
the appropriate fashion.
I want
to speak to the comments by the Leader of the Opposition. I thank him. I think
he hit the nail on the head when he said that the Jordan case was transformative
because it certainly was. He wanted to make a point of talking about the very
difficult decision that we had to do before, which was close courts, and then
the fact that we changed it. The Jordan case was one of the significant reasons,
especially on the Provincial Court level, for doing that. I've got these
written. I'll try to stay in the order of the comments because I was writing
them down.
He
talked about unreasonable delay completely. Given the fact the Jordan case
came after the decision we had made, that was one of the reasons that certainly
me, as a minister I didn't mind changing my decision because it was the right
thing to do. That's one thing we're willing to do as a government. We're willing
to listen to the facts that are presented, to things that change and make the
appropriate decision. But I'm also going to get into some other facts that help
make that.
One of
the things the Member noted was the complexities have increased in cases. You
better believe they are. And they're complexities for everybody, whether it's
the police work that goes into it, whether it's the Crowns, whether it's the
defence, whether it's the judges considering it. Court work, police work;
everything has gotten more advanced. Certainly, it's a more difficult job and it
does require the resources. That's sort of foreshadowing to a comment that I'll
make in response to the Member for St. John's Centre when she talked about
funding the system, because you know what, that is a challenge. It always has
been.
When he
talked about the Crown attorneys, the Member opposite noted and I think this
is where he started talking about the ironies. Do you know what? I've met with
the Crown attorneys. I've met with Mr. Steeves. Actually, it's funny, I ran into
him at the grocery store on Sunday night. I met with him on another occasion up
in my office. In fact, I took the opportunity to go speak to the Crown
attorneys' annual general meeting. The last minister to do so was back in the
mid-1990s. So I actually went and spoke to them. That was one of the decisions
the previous administration made, and that's one that we're trying to deal with
because it comes down to funding.
It was
only in 2013 that I sat on the other side when the previous government over here
cut Crown attorneys and made that decision. Being on this side now, I realize
the challenges they faced. They've reversed that decision in many ways. Not
completely, but there were changes made. They went ahead and did that. In our
case, we didn't touch the Crown attorneys because we know how important they
are, the work that they do.
We still
have to find different ways to do the work, though. That's one of the things the
Member opposite noted. Are we just getting new justices and new judges to take
care of this? No, there is a challenge on everybody. In fact, there's been two
cases here in this province where there were matters dismissed because of what
was called the Jordan case. There was actually one the other day. There was a
Jordan application made that was turned down because there was a defence
obligation to make application within a reasonable period of time.
So this
rests on everybody. Ms. Knickle, who I'm going to talk about now in a second,
has talked about this. I think she spoke on a number of occasions, especially in
the publication. Preliminary inquiries are something that was done from a
different period of time. Maybe we need to start going to more direct
indictments.
I can
remember back when I was practising. A Crown would come in, I could ask for a
postponement and I would get it like that. The Crown was always agreeable to
that because that's the relationship that you had if we felt that was needed.
Obviously, that's changed. So we have to change practice, we have to change
procedure and the Crowns have done that. They're doing what they have to, but
everybody plays a role in this. Justices, judges, defence, Crown, whether
they're private or legal aid defence counsels: we need to all play a role in
this to make sure that people are having these matters heard.
The
Member said the irony about getting these and there might be an extra burden; I
have correspondence now I've received from judges. There is no additional burden
on us to get this. If it becomes fruitful, this will be a federal expenditure as
all Supreme Court justices are. There will not be an increased request for
funding because of this, so that's good to hear. I'm glad the Member brought
that up so I can address that.
One of
the things I have to disagree with the use of the word. The Member opposite
said I stood over here and I advocated for closures. I take offence to that
because I didn't advocate for that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What Member?
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Leader of the Opposition
said advocated. What I did was respond to the God awful mess that was left to us
from his reign over there, his colleague's reign over there and the people
before him. We were forced to make tough decisions based on the fact that the
Leader of the Opposition, when he was there, made announcements and didn't have
the money to pay for it.
So I
disagree with the use and I'm sorry to get animated, but when you say you
advocated for closures, that offends me as somebody that's worked in this role
now, and I've been in this system. I didn't like that. I hated it but we did it.
It's the same way we had to make a number of decisions because we came in and
inherited the worst financial mess in the history of this province.
Now, I'm
going to move to a positive note. The positive note is that because of the
decision we made, the fact is that we also went back I wish we had the
information before, but the four courts, two Supreme and two Provincial, they've
all been reinstated. Just using Harbour Grace, for instance, we saved a million
dollars just on the lease costs after. We did that by working with the mayor of
Harbour Grace, the community. We worked with the landlord. One would hope that
you could avoid this.
There
was the financial component to it, obviously. Everything you do is financial.
The Jordan case sort of overrode some of that because there's a huge cost to not
having matters heard within a reasonable period of time, but we worked with
them.
We
worked with the Supreme Court and we got a significant savings there. In fact, I
think the total savings not only did we have the opportunity to reinstate the
courts so that the services are still there, there's going to be a savings, over
a period I think of five years, of $2.1 million.
So did I
want to do that? No. Did we have to do it? Yes. Can I stand here today and say
that because of the fact that we were willing to change our position, based on
facts and evidence that were presented to us, we've ended up in the situation
where we still have the service and we still have savings to go back into the
Treasury to pay for all the services, and going towards that deficit that was
left to us by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues and his
predecessors.
I want
to go further here. I have to thank we worked with a number of people when it
came to that decision; one that I was happy to make once we could work together.
Worked with Terry Barnes out in Harbour Grace, I was working with people out in
Grand Falls-Windsor, working down in Grand Bank. We got stuff done. Working with
the MHAs here who constantly, during this process, worked with the stakeholders,
worked with the people on the ground to make this happen.
I'm very
happy that my colleagues could advocate and be a part of this knowing the
situation we were in. And at the end of the day, I think we've been left with
what I would call a positive response or positive result. That's what you get
when you work together.
The
other thing he mentioned was Crown attorneys. That is a good opportunity for me
because he mentioned Ms. Knickle. I want to go back first and recognize the fact
that we did our former director of Public Prosecutions was a gentleman named
Donavan Molloy. As many know now, there's a resolution here for him to
officially be proclaimed as the Privacy Commissioner. He did a fantastic job as
our director of Public Prosecutions. He was great to work with; he was great for
the people of this province. The fact is he did his job. He worked hard, he
worked diligently and he worked in the best interests of the administration of
justice.
Being
the director of Public Prosecutions, they're sort of off there. It's quasi, not
a part of the department, even though it is a part of the department. I don't
provide them; they make their decisions based on a whole different standard. It
falls under the Attorney General, and I'm finding it a little bit hard to
explain, but he did a great job. It was excellent and he's moved on.
So
justice was in good hands and now we have Ms. Frances Knickle who's come in and
has done an admirable job, a tremendous job. She stepped in and, in fact, the
article that is referenced by the Member for St. John's Centre she did a
fantastic job in that because she talked about the fact that, you know what, we
do have challenges. We do have challenges in the justice system but those
challenges have always been there.
To go
forward to something that the Member said where she talked about the
underfunding of the system; one thing I'd say, actually, the budget for Justice
went up last year, which was the amazing thing, due to a whole number of areas
that came out. So the budget wasn't cut last year for Justice due to other
things that we inherited, in many cases due to other issues we had to deal with.
There was no cut last year per se, overall, but if you go back 10 years ago, the
same thing. There's always been the feeling that Justice and I would agree
with it. Justice has always deemed itself as underfunded, whether it's the '90s,
whether it's the '80s, whether you go back a hundred years.
That's
one of the issues that we deal with in Justice. In many ways it's a system that
nobody wants to be a part of. Nobody wants to have to go into court because if
you're going in for a family matter, if you're going in for a crime, that's just
it's a necessary part of the system that we live in.
Going
back to what I was talking about, Ms. Knickle has come in as our new director of
Public Prosecutions. She is doing a bang-up job. We're very happy to have her
and not just her, but all Crowns, including Mr. Steeves, who is the leader of
their association.
The work
they do and to have an opportunity to go down and sit and listen to them, that's
a trying job. It's easy to suffer burnout when you're dealing with the facts of
some of the matters that they deal with, just seeing the case files that they
deal with, the facts it's easily a job that's amongst the toughest, certainly,
within the Justice Department and in many departments. It's very difficult. So,
again, I want to thank both of them, both Mr. Molloy and Ms. Knickle for the
great job they're doing for our department and for the people of this province.
I want
to talk to the Member for St. John's Centre. No, there are no three justices
already arriving, but this is an example of being prepared. We could have been
in a situation where justices are appointed and we don't have the legislation
ready to take them because our complement is not done. If that was the case, we
might get criticized for not being ready.
In this
case, we're getting ready and I'll continue to advocate and hopefully make the
case. I know that the need is there. I think that we can show that it's there
and, again, I'll continue to have the conversations with my colleague, the
federal minister of Justice.
We can
only hope. There is nothing guaranteed that it's for sure, but I think the need
has been demonstrated and we'll continue to work. I know that Minister
Wilson-Raybould actually, even as recently as today, is talking about the fact
that there's change needed for our criminal justice system. We need to change
certain things, and she's also talked about the fact that we need to work on our
family system as well. There's always improvement that we can do. It's an
ever-evolving system and we need to work together to make that better.
Now,
some of the issues that the Member raised are not specifically a part of this,
but I acknowledge them. When we talk about our infrastructure, we do have
issues. We do have issues there when it comes to space. And those are issues
that we've inherited and that we're working on.
I don't
mind saying it's tough. It's tough when you come in and inherit the fiscal
situation that we have, inherit announcements that were made when there was no
real planning that went into how you're actually going to pay for it. And it's
not just here in St. John's. There was a need Stephenville, for instance.
There was an announcement made out there. That's an area that desperately needs
a new courtroom facility desperately needing. I could talk more about that,
the fact that it actually was talked about 10 years ago but a previous Member of
the former administration scuttled that. But that's a conversation for another
day.
Again, I
appreciate the fact that I think she knows that I am working here, and she plays
a role in this too because she's always advocated for justice, and we need that.
One of the things that I can guarantee that I'm doing is I'm actually going out
and talking to these people, whether it's the clerks in Fines Admin, whether
it's the chief justice of the province, whether it's the legal aid lawyer out in
Corner Brook, whether it's the victim services worker up on the North coast. I
have literally been out and visited them all, and that's what I need to do.
Because the only way we can work on this is have these conversations, but have
everybody come together and figure it out. Because everybody plays a role in
this, everybody is a spoke to this wheel, and we can't just have people
operating in isolation or in silos. So I do appreciate the comments and the
support from the Member for St. John's Centre.
The
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, I appreciate his comments, and I think he's
alluding to the fact that our federal minister and MP, Judy Foote, we're going
to ask for Ms. Foote to deliver. But you know what? We're very lucky in this
province that over on this side we know we have not just Minister Foote, but we
have seven MPs up in Ottawa that we have a great relationship with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm not going to say their
riding names, but I can say Gudie, Scott, Ken, Yvonne, Seamus, Nick and Judy.
Every one of them is doing a great job, and the fact is we have a relationship
with the federal government that hasn't been seen in years
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
That relationship, the
co-operation, between the provincial and the federal government, only in a year,
we've already seen tangible benefits delivered here to this province in
virtually every department. The minister today talked about the investment being
made. Well, I tell you what, there have been investments made in the justice
system by out federal minister. So not only do we have great MPs here that we're
lucky to have and we get to work with, we continue to work with them and that
allows us to work with the other federal ministers as well.
I can't
say it enough, I don't know what the previous relationship was like, but my
ability to speak to Minister Wilson-Raybould now there's a difference between
getting everything you want. That's never going to happen, but the fact is that
when we talk about an issue like this, I can have that conversation with her and
her staff and she can have that conversation with us and we can hopefully
achieve, what I would call, a positive resolution for all people involved.
Because what benefits Newfoundland and Labrador benefits Canada as well and
benefits that federal minister.
When it
comes to the specifics here, what I would say is that I understand the concern
that the Member is raising. I think it may be raising fears that don't
necessarily exist. I understand what he's trying to say; theoretically this
could happen. Theoretically this already could have happened. It's already been
there. This was already in the legislation; this is just changing regulations.
Judicial
area could always be changed. Expanded service area is now being added to the
regulations, but this was something already there that could have been changed.
What we're doing now is we're eliminating the need to go to repealed legislation
to deal with this. This is a bit of housekeeping.
There
are procedures in place to change those areas, but what I would say and,
again, I have no say in how the courts operate or where they hold circuits, but
I know
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the speaker to direct his
MR. A. PARSONS:
Oh, sorry, Madam Speaker.
What I
would say is that the courts have always been willing to discuss access to
justice and the need that if there are changes to provide for uniformity and
consistency that we'll make sure that we take the steps necessary. And I've seen
that done with the provision of circuit courts to ensure these things happens,
to ensure the use of technology to avoid travel. I've been there myself and I've
done it.
I
recognize the concern the Member is raising. There's actually nothing changing
right now, except allowing for this to be cleaned up and to allow for this
change to happen. It allows for the possibility of having what the feds want and
what I would like to see, which is having some kind of uniformity there. But I
think it is point taken; I understand.
On that
note, Madam Speaker, I look forward to having this bill in Committee and to
answering any further questions that may arise.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, be now read a second
time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against?
Carried.
CLERK (Ms. Murphy):
An Act To Amend The
Judicature Act. (Bill 39)
MADAM SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time. When shall this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole
House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
39)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Education, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider Bill 39.
MADAM 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.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Madam
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 39, An Act to Amend The Judicature Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 39)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not
going to take long. I just wanted to respond to the Minister of Justice. Just
for the record, I wanted to make the point that raising the concern I did about
the areas was not an intent, by any means, to throw anything out there or fear
monger; it absolutely was not.
The
minister says that nothing has changed in regard to that. I just wanted to say,
for the record, I did attend the briefing. I asked specific questions. I gave an
example, the same one I gave here, about Bonavista just as an example. I was
told today that if somebody was in Bonavista, they could opt to go to
Clarenville; but once this is changed, the Cabinet could change the expanded
area and they could be forced to go to St. John's.
If
that's not the case, then I was given the wrong information in the briefing. So
I just wanted to go on record as saying that is what I was told, that is why I
put it out there, raised it and that's fine.
As far
as the commentary about the federal government coming through, they've come
through with a lot of stuff. Again, it's not being critical; it's not being
sarcastic. They've done a great job as far as I'm concerned. Judy Foote and my
MP, Seamus O'Regan, have delivered on a number of things. I'm pleased with the
representation I've received. I hope they continue. I hope we get the judges.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive.
Shall
they carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 3 through 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Judicature Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 39.
CHAIR:
It's been moved and seconded
by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety that Bill 39 be carried.
The
House will just recess for two to five.
Recess
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again,
Madam Speaker returned to the Chair.
MADAM SPEAKER:
(Inaudible) matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 39 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, before proceeding, Madam
Speaker, we have two pieces of legislation under first reading. So before the
Minister of Transportation and Works rises, I'm asking if the Opposition will
provide leave to do first reading and then second reading of Bill 40. If there
is leave provided.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods,
for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And
Transportation Act, Bill 40, and I further move that the said bill be read now
the first time.
MADAM SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works shall have leave to introduce
a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act,
Bill 40, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against?
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works to introduce a bill, An Act
To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act, carried. (Bill 40)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Works, Services And Transportation Act. (Bill 40)
MADAM SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
On
motion, Bill 40 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by
leave.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 40, An Act
To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act, be read the second time.
MADAM SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act, be now read
a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And
Transportation Act. (Bill 40)
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure for me today to stand to make a change to this Bill 40. Not
a significant change, I might add, but certainly it's an amendment that is
necessary for us to put before the House today.
The
proposed bill that we have today, Madam Speaker, actually enables the act will
enable us to facilitate a cost recovery for issuing residential and commercial
highway access permits. As you know, for quite a number of years now we have
been actually doing the service and it's required a fair amount of work on
behalf of our staff. We've never been able to recover any of the cost. So the
changes that we're requesting today will enable us to have a cost recovery when
we have people that want to have access to our highways.
Madam
Speaker, the permit will be required for any access to any of our provincially
maintained roads. The permit will allow residents or commercial people,
landowners, to construct roads or driveways from any provincially owned road or
highway.
Madam
Speaker, I think it's important for us to understand that there are two classes
within this act today, both residential and commercial. The residential will be
applicable to any group of less than four residents. Anything over four would be
categorized as commercial. So today there will be a different fee structure for
residential versus the commercial.
On the
average, Madam Speaker, we have roughly about 800 highway access permits that
are given out every year. Roughly about 750 of those are for residential permits
and 50 would be categorized as commercial. As I mentioned, there's a fair amount
of work that's required in order for these permits to be issued.
What we
have found is that a lot of our staff is engaged in site preparation, getting
out and looking at the access, the sightlines on the highways, looking at safety
issues, determining whether access to the highway would create safety concerns
or safety issues. They have to compile all of that information, have to compile
all of that data and come back and look at the policies that we have and see
whether it's applicable and see if they're able to accommodate in giving the
permit for access to the highways.
As you
know, Mr. Speaker, none of this can be done free of charge anymore because we
know that we are in a very difficult fiscal situation. We know that a lot of our
staff, a lot of our resources are maxed out and it's necessary for us to really
look at how we're providing the services and at what cost.
I might
add, Mr. Speaker, this is in no way a revenue generator for the province. It's
merely looking at a way that we can recover a part of the cost that's incurred
in providing the access and providing those permits. I might add, Mr. Speaker,
even with the fees that we will be charging there is no way, at this point in
time, that we can have full recovery with the cost.
I just
wanted to point that out because I think it's important for us to understand
that when we do about 800 permits a year right now, it's costing us somewhere in
the vicinity of $70,000 to $80,000, in that range, for us to make sure all those
permits are properly processed. Making sure that we have taken all of the
information that we have, making sure that we have a clear understanding that,
number one, safety measures are being adhered to and making sure that we have a
clear understanding that by giving the permit that it's safe and it will be
reliable. It does take a fair amount of administrative cost when we actually get
into actually issuing those permits.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, it's somewhere between $70,000 and $80,000 for us to be able
to process these permits on a yearly basis. So we've looked at that and said
that's a significant cost that if we're able to find ways in which we can reduce
that by charging the fees to recover some of the cost that we are incurring in
issuing these permits, then, certainly, it will give us a little bit more
maneuverability in providing services to some other areas.
Mr.
Speaker, when we looked at making those changes in the act to permit that, it
was necessary for us to put in what we felt to be a fair and equitable fee
structure that would not in any way, shape or form have a negative impact on
either residential or on commercial development, because obviously that's not
the intent of what we're doing.
So when
we looked at the fee structure we were able to come up with what we felt would
be a fair fee, considering the amount of time, amount of effort and amount of
work that had to go into making these decisions. We calculated that and
determined how best to put in a fee structure that we felt would be fair.
I think
that, Mr. Speaker, we have done that. Again, one of the things I want to say and
want to emphasize is that it's important for us. If we are going to be providing
services, if we are going to be providing advice and if we are going to be
providing information, then obviously it will incur a cost for us as a
government and for our staff. So I think it's important for us to have some sort
of a recovery mechanism in place so that we can recover some of those costs,
which is what we're doing.
Mr.
Speaker, effective January 1, 2017, with the small changes to this act, we will
be putting in place a fee structure that I think will be fair. It will enable us
to recover some of our costs. The new fee structure will be $50 for a residence.
So if there's an individual that needs access, a connection to our maintained
highways, effective on January 1 they will pay a $50 fee. Again, that $50 fee,
as I said before, is certainly in no way, shape or form going to cover all of
the costs that's incurred in providing those permits, but at least it's a little
bit of an offset that will go towards that.
So we're
looking at a $50 residential permit fee. F or a commercial fee, Mr. Speaker,
we're looking at $500 that would be for a commercial development, which could
include a residential development area, or it can be commercial in some sort of
retail sector or whatever in that sense. So we're looking at a $500 fee.
Again,
these fees, while they may seem to be high when you look at a $500 fee, when you
look at the amount of work that goes in, it's really a token amount that we are
recovering some of the costs that will be incurred as we provide those permits.
Again,
as I said, what we have also done is in determining these costs and determining
putting these fees in place, we would not have done this without a
jurisdictional scan. We found that we were probably one of the only provinces
that were providing these services without any cost incurred. So it's not
something new that you would find. You would find this in other provinces.
It is
something that we felt was important for us to do before we made the change to
the act, before we decided to make these changes, to do a jurisdictional scan to
make sure that we were somewhat in line with other provinces and that we were
not doing something that other provinces weren't doing. In doing that scan, Mr.
Speaker, we found that we were probably one of the few that did not, in fact,
have a cost recovery in providing giving those permits.
Mr.
Speaker, a couple of other comments that I wanted to make is that when this is
enacted, there will be a procedure and part of that is working with Service NL.
We will go through and do the site inspection. We will go through looking at the
site line. We will look at whether there are any safety issues. When all of that
information is done and when we have completed the analysis of that, then we
will make a recommendation that the permit will be granted.
Before
that process happens, the resident or commercial company will have to pay their
fee upfront to Service NL. Once that's been completed and all the work has been
done and Service NL has been able to sign off on that, then we will actually
provide the permit.
Mr.
Speaker, it's certainly a proper procedure to follow in making sure that we do,
in fact, follow the right procedure in making sure that we do engage Service NL
into the actual permitting of access to our highways.
Mr.
Speaker, I guess, too, one of the things that we're looking at, obviously
whenever we grant permits, whether it's the Trans-Canada Highway, whether it's
some of our trunk roads or some of the smaller highways, there's always an issue
and concern with making sure that safety is number one, and that certainly is
important for us.
As we
work through this particular piece of legislation, we know that there are some
other policy issues that we're also dealing with when we talk about access to
the highway. I know the previous administration has had some criteria in with
regard to access to highway, which we are continuing to work with, and making
sure we're trying to modify it so that we do give a fair amount of flexibility.
That is a process we're still working on, trying to determine whether it's 30
metres, 60 metres and that sort of thing.
So that
is something outside of this particular legislation, but I just wanted to let my
hon. Members know that it is a piece of work that we're continuing to work on
and when we're finished, we're hoping to have the right piece of policy so that
we will not inhibit people from having access, but taking safety as number one,
we're trying to find ways in which we can work through the process.
I know
that there have been some challenges when we're looking at access to any of our
highways, and I know since I've been minister I've dealt with a number of files
already where we've tried to work with somewhat outdated, in my estimation,
outdated policy, and I know that I have worked on several files now that, for
many years, developers were looking at access to these highways.
So I've
done a fair amount of work in researching and going back and looking at the
rationale of why decisions were made in the past, how we can improve that, how
we can make the changes. With new models and new traffic studies and new
criteria that's being put in place pretty much on a daily basis a lot of the
times, these change, we will work with that to make sure we have the best access
policy and legislation that will enable our province and the people that are
using and accessing our highways within safety to be able to do so.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I think this piece of legislation that we have today, there's not
significant changes in the legislation other than the fact that we are making
accommodation now for the changes to the legislation which will enable us to be
able to charge the fees.
I think,
more specifically, the changes happen in subsection 9(1) whereby it gives us the
ability to determine the payment of a prescribed fee for the permits, and I
think the other section, also in subsection 9(3), also gives us the authority to
enact the fees that we're looking at today. And the section that is the
immediate section would be 59(1), which specifically talks about us as a
government prescribing within the legislation a new fee structure that will
enable us to have some sort of a cost recovery when we're dealing with putting
those permits in place.
So, Mr.
Speaker, again, as I said, I don't think there's a whole lot of issues with
that. I know back in 2012 there was a subsection in the act at that time that
proposed an enactment for the government at that time to be able to impose fees
in 2012. It is my understanding that piece of legislation was never enacted. So
today, the legislation that we're putting forward will give us the ability to
make those changes.
I think
that the fees that we included into this particular piece of legislation that
will become effective on January 1 will be the best interest of those that are
using our highways and certainly will be safety measures that will be in place
and will give us an opportunity to recover some of the costs.
Mr.
Speaker, I think I'm probably going to finish up my time on this and if there
are any other questions, I'll certainly try to answer them.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to be able to get up and speak on this piece of legislation today. As
we said, as the minister pointed out, it's kind of housekeeping. It's to do with
a fee for highway access policy that, I guess, on a personal note is kind of
been a pet project that I've argued and debated for a number of years now, and I
guess I can still continue on.
One
thing I'd point out, though, the fees are I just did the quick math as the
minister was speaking there, you're looking at probably $62,000 in revenue. So
there's no doubt, it's not a big revenue generator but it is a fee. It fits into
the category. It's another fee that was announced in the recent budget. It's one
of them, no one sees it coming. Until you go and look for an access permit that
you discover there's a fee attached, at one time there wasn't. I understand the
reason for having a fee. Like I said, it's not going to balance the books on
that amount of money, but no doubt it's still another cost to the taxpayers.
Mr.
Speaker, on this piece of legislation with the fee, a couple of things I'd like
to point out. As recently as last week, I contacted the minister's department.
This policy is being revised, it's being reviewed. There are revisions being
made which I'm glad to hear that, but it seems kind of we're a month, probably
six weeks away from January 1, so I guess my hope is that the revisions are done
in time, which no doubt they probably will be.
The
thing with this policy in general, there has always been opposing forces on this
one. Personally, I've had many debates with officials within the department. A
lot of MHAs, not only me but throughout the Northeast Avalon, especially where
development is progressing at a much higher pace probably than other areas, this
policy has become somewhat of a cumbersome thing for the residents in our areas.
I know in CBS, especially.
I know
my colleagues for Cape St. Francis and Conception Bay East Bell Island have
issues. My colleague for Ferryland is talking about issues. We can go to Topsail
and Paradise. All of these areas are faced with this. There are a lot of rural
MHAs that are faced with some of it but I don't think to the same degree.
We're
charging this fee. Okay, that's part of it, but the bottom line is the fee
structure to pay for an access permit as a result of a policy that doesn't
really fit the mold of provincial roads that are running through municipalities.
This has been something that I've argued, and I think it's important for me to
bring it up here again today. Is that this policy and this fee you're bringing
in a policy that's really great for trunk roads, Trans-Canada Highway. You're
not bringing in a policy that's suited to municipalities, roads that run through
municipalities.
These
amounts, that $62,000 could be a lot more because I know most everyone up on
Route 60 in CBS; the majority are getting denied because the road is being
filled. It's a busy area. It's a development area. With the 30 and 30 and 60 and
60 metres on each side, there's more not being approved than being approved. No
doubt, there's a scattered one. I've had daycares, I've had subdivisions, I've
had general businesses, I've had homeowners, all been denied. Again, you're
facing a policy.
I know
my colleague, when he was Minister of Transportation and Works, I happened to
work with him. We were pushing to have the policy, not rescinded but we were
looking to make major changes. That was last year just prior to the election and
we never got it completed.
My
biggest message or my hope is that the minister and I've spoken to him several
times on this. It's fine to put in a fee structure for a policy but I don't know
if this policy is really still being developed. What are you paying for? No
doubt, staff will go and do their measurements and they'll check on the site
lines and whatnot. I understand the staff costs. The fee part is separate to the
policy, and that's what I have a problem with. It's a policy that's not fair to
all residents is my issue.
I've
argued that we need to have two I know you can't have two separate policies,
but I think the guidelines need to be changed when you're dealing with
municipalities, either consult with the towns, and that's another problem I
found with this policy. The towns were not engaged a lot. It was more like a I
think it was taken from a TAC manual, Transportation Association of Canada
guideline, that this had to be the new rule.
This
issue will be a lot bigger as development increases in certain areas. CBS is a
growing town. We have a lot of the Northeast Avalon that are faced with the same
issue. On provincial roads that are running through municipalities, the issue is
huge.
When I
saw this bill coming I knew it was a fee structure and part of the
implementation of policy two things jumped out at me. This policy is not fully
developed, it's not reviewed. It's developed and it's gone back to the drawing
board and they're making revisions.
As
recently as last week I asked a question for people in my district, and they
can't give me an answer of when these changes are going to be implemented. So
then we're following up with a fee structure for a policy that's still in the
draft stage. It's going to come into effect in six weeks.
I have
every faith in the minister and people in that department. I know them
personally. They're good but I have fears of that. Again, I want to
reemphasize this policy in general, that I believe there are a lot of flaws
within it. It's not a one-shoe-fits-all. This is not a cookie-cutter approach.
This policy shouldn't be which is being applied that way.
I think
along the way when they're doing their final review, before they start charging
fees in the New Year, I do encourage the minister with his officials to give
some serious consideration to that, because I really believe it's unfair. It's
an unfair policy that doesn't meet it's not conducive to larger growing,
faster growing municipalities we deal with on a daily basis, a lot of us do I
know I have several up there on these access policy issues.
It's a
hard sell when you got I'll just give a couple of quick examples. You've got
people who have property, that's their nest egg. That was their retirement plan.
When they go to sell it and a person comes to buy it, they're sent off to get an
access permit and they're denied; therefore, their retirement nest egg is
basically of no value to them. That's a bigger issue than what I can even
those words said, you've got to talk to those people. That's devastating to a
lot of those people.
You have
other people that are setting up their future, their businesses. I dealt with
recently a daycare, and these people were all hyped about getting their daycare,
but when they went up they were five metres short of getting access to that, and
there was no wiggle room. There was no nothing; that was it. Now, a sightline
was not a problem. They were five metres short. So it's a policy that is not
fair. It's not fair across the board.
I have
no problem; this policy is great, like I say, on your main roads, your trunk
roads, no problem, but not through municipalities. I can stress that and I could
go on for a long time on it, but I won't. I want to emphasize to the minister
with this opportunity, the fees are only part of the problem. The bigger issue
we're faced with here is having a policy that's fair to the larger, faster
growing areas within the Northeast Avalon.
So I do
encourage the minister to take that into consideration when they finalize this
policy. As for the cost, well, it's another fee and that's never good, but I do
also on the flip side, I do acknowledge staff does put a lot of work into doing
site visits and getting the measurements and what have you. I guess that's
understandable as well.
Mr.
Speaker, on that note, I'll take my seat, but I just hope the minister takes
that into consideration.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to Bill 40. I won't have a whole lot to stay.
Obviously, in terms of my own constituents it's not a bill that affects the life
of people in St. John's East Quidi Vidi; however, as one of the
Opposition parties, I think that we should stand and say where we are positioned
with regard to the bill.
The minister has certainly taken the time to clearly
explain what the bill is about, which imposes a fee on people and businesses
requiring access to provincial
highways. So it is definitely is a bill that affects more people in rural or
semi-rural areas than it does people in the City of St. John's, for example, or
parts of the City of St. John's. I guess there are some parts in the city now
where it would affect people.
In some
ways it's a housekeeping bill, but basically it is a bill which is put in place
to levy a fee. That's basically what the bill is about. We could have a big
discussion here today about the way in which this government has tried to deal
with what they call the fiscal situation by levying fees, because there were a
lot of fees levied in the budget that was brought down in the spring, and
there's no doubt about that.
I don't
mean this in a heavily negative way, and I hope the minister won't take it that
way. He said that it isn't a revenue generator. Well, yes, it is. It may not be
a profit generator, but it is a revenue generator. It may not cover all the
administrative costs that he has spoken to, the $70,000 to $80,000 to process
permits now for which people pay no fees, but it is a revenue generator to try
to help recover some costs related to that administrative act.
So let's
name it for what it is. If the government wants to use fees as part of their
revenue generation, then own up to the fact that is what they're doing. They're
putting fees on people in places where there were no fees before. They've
increased fees in places where there were fees, but fees have been increased.
All of that, in budgetary terms, as far as I know, is called revenue generation.
So just name it as it is.
Do we
need to put fees in this situation? Well, I guess that just becomes a political
decision, what it is that we charge people fees for. For example, in our health
care right now there are some things that one did not have to pay a fee for at
some point. I'm thinking about, for example, if you have to get a letter from a
doctor now that's related to having a medical done for a job opportunity, then
you have to pay for that now. There was a time when you didn't have to.
We are
continually having in our public service sector fees being levied where fees
weren't levied before. Is this a legitimate one? Well, I guess the question is:
Is any fee a legitimate fee? It's not a matter of legitimate or illegitimate, I
don't think. It is a fee that's going to affect a certain group of people and
not others. It's a fairly small group of people who are going to be paying for
access to a provincial highway. Whether we're talking about residential or
business, it's still a small group of people.
It's a
one-time fee, I understand. Is that one-time fee going to bankrupt the people
who need to pay it? No, it won't. Whether you're talking about the $50
residential or the $500 business, that certainly isn't the case.
For
those reasons, we will support the bill. We're not going to vote against it.
There's no reason to vote against it, per se, but let's name it for what it is.
It is a revenue-generating bill. It is a bill that now puts a fee where no fee
existed before.
One
could say: Is it really that expensive to get a permit done? Well, you have to
determine the work time it takes to put a permit in place. Then you determine
that by the cost of the labour; basically, that would be the only cost. The
minister has told us I think I've already said this that it's between
$70,000 and $80,000 now that gets spent on the administration of these permits.
So
$70,000 to $80,000 is a pittance. Was it necessary to levy this particular one?
Well, I don't have constituents I have to answer to with regard to this. So I'll
leave it to other MHAs who have constituents to answer to with regard to whether
or not they think it's fair.
A lot of
us pay fees and you pay for the service. Not everybody always has to get the
service but when you get the service, you pay for it. That's the way it is. So I
guess government has added something else to the list of what people now have to
pay for.
There
are many levies that government brought down one of them was the levy in the
budget that I was absolutely opposed to because I really believed the new taxes
or the new fees or the new levy was really going to be difficult for the average
person and, in some cases, for seniors and, in some cases, for low-income
people. I do believe in this particular situation we are dealing with a fee that
is not going to be particularly harmful for the group of people whom it covers.
And from
that perspective then, we're willing to support the bill. But I do encourage the
minister not to downplay what it is. It is a revenue generator; it is a fee
where a fee didn't exist before. But is it overbearing and is it going to cause
real suffering for people? I don't think it's going to do that and, for that
reason, we'll support it.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
take a few minutes to stand and speak to Bill 40. On an issue in my district,
from the Bay Bulls region to St. Shott's, along the main highway, Route 10, from
time to time there are people who obviously have property, private, Crown land
that they applied for, that they looked to build a residence on the property
and, first and foremost, need access to that property through TW, basically
through what we're talking about here, road access. The issue here is in regard
to another fee that's been implemented in this year, related to government
services.
As I
said, I've experienced a lot in the past number of years in terms of dealing
with this. As my colleague for CBS mentioned there's been challenges in terms of
clear guidelines and policy in regard to this. So if we're going to charge a fee
I think it's important and the minister maybe can comment on this when he gets
up later, when he gets up in Committee of how that is going to work, and it's
going to be clean and clear that if someone is getting charged a fee that, that
service is ready and available, and there's clarity to it on what the
requirements are for that in the outline of the policy.
As well,
I know this from cost perspective, if someone in a municipality goes and looks
for a building permit that may cost them $400 or $500 in a rural community and
as well now you have another $50 fee that is going to go on top of that, so it
certainly goes to the whole issue of fee structure and paying for that service.
I also
note the minister in his discussion in introducing the bill referenced the
fact of cost recovery. I'd like if you could give some information later on in
regard to what percentage of cost recovery we're talking about here because he
indicated somewhere in the range of, I think, $60,000 to $80,000 that would be
raised through this. So I ask the question, when you look at the administration
of that, when you look at the billing of that, when you look at follow-up,
people not paying it, what cost is included in that? There may be a very small
cost recovery on one side, but on the other side, in regard to the
administration of this, is it really, at the end of the day, a net return or a
net benefit to the province in regard to that?
He
indicated as well about how the introduction of this as of January 1, of the
coming year, it would define commercial and residential in regard to the fee
structures that would be incorporated into this proposal. So as we go through
this, as we get into Committee, I think it's good to have a full discussion on
the application of this.
While
it's referenced as minor, I think it's significant. It's significant for those
in rural communities that deal with this and, as I said, from a fee structure,
it's added on to other fees that are there and it's incumbent as well that the
service is provided. So right now my understanding is someone in a TW depot in a
region that would be part of their work anyway to go out and do this assessment
and provide the input.
The
other question the minister maybe can speak to when he gets up is I know, at
times, there are forestry permits that are issued and oftentimes they need
access in regard to that, where a temporary road is put in. Would those fees be
charged in that situation as well? And what would be the occurrence at that
particular time?
So I
certainly look forward to further debate as we go through and get into Committee
and being able to ask the minister some questions as we move along in debate to
this bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a couple of minutes to speak to the bill, for the record, nothing
more. Mr. Speaker, when I did the briefing on this and they talked about the
permit process and we're now going to charge a fee, my first reaction was I was
surprised. I would have been under the impression that you would have had to pay
a fee anyway. Certainly coming from the municipal side of things in the City of
Mount Pearl, I'm sure in all municipalities when it comes to any kind of
developments and so on fees are very common to recover the costs associated to
it.
I don't
really see this as any different. Obviously, if you didn't have to pay a fee
today and tomorrow if you should build a new house or start a new business and
develop a lot, you're off a road that's maintained by the government, you'll now
have to pay $50 residentially, $500 commercially. But in the big scheme of
things, if someone's going to build a brand new house, for example, I don't
think $50 is going to stop them from doing so. I don't think it's going to be
exorbitant. If someone's going to put up a building or something, some new
business, I don't see that commercial rate as being exorbitant either. And if
all we're going to be doing is recovering the costs associated to offering that
service there are a lot of areas that I can think of that I would have concerns
about, and this is certainly not one of them.
In terms
of some of the comments being made by the Official Opposition, not being in a
rural area, myself, I wouldn't know of all the issues they speak. But I would
agree with them that it does make sense if we're going to be reviewing a
particular bill and there are changes in that bill that could be made to improve
it, then as opposed to simply going fees only, why wouldn't we at the same time
we were doing the fees fix up the other things that needed to be cleaned up as
well. I would certainly concur with that point.
Other
than that, Mr. Speaker, there's nothing here that I see of any particular
problem. I'll be supporting the bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I just
want to be on record to speak on this bill. As the Minister of Transportation
knows, I've spoken to him several times on issues in my district that concerns
access. We all spoke so far and I know that it's a huge issue and I know this is
what they call bookkeeping today, but this issue is a major one in most of my
towns.
I'd like
to support it, but I really can't. The policy should be put in place before we
address any fees that should be put here. In the area that I'm from, the
provincial road runs in and out through some parts of the community and, other
parts, it's a municipal road. A person that is going to build a house for
example, I'll give you my own hometown of Flatrock they'd have to pay a $50
fee, while a person that builds on a municipal road don't have to pay anything.
It's
part of the work that Transportation and Works does; they come down and they
inspect. So are we going to charge people for coming down and inspecting
ditches, inspecting culverts, inspecting work that is obviously done by the
Department of Transportation? This is part of the work that the Department of
Transportation does, and I don't think the fee should be charged to people that
are living on provincial roads and not charged to the people living on municipal
roads. They all live and the cost is going to be I know it's only $50 and
people may say it's only $50 and it's not a lot of money but to people building
houses, it is a lot of money. And $50 is a fee that is out there to pay.
I'd like
to see the policy put in place so that it can be and I'm not only talking to
the administration across the way; I spoke to our own ministers when I was in
government and had major concerns with this because in some of my municipalities
site distance is very hard because there are a lot of winding roads and it's a
job to get 125 metres.
In a lot
of parts of rural Newfoundland not only rural Newfoundland and areas where I'm
from most of the land that people had in their families for years is behind
their homes. What you'd see is the parents would leave land to their siblings
behind. What happens is they have a driveway and the access to the piece of
property behind, you don't have the distance, the 30 metres or 60 metres; you
don't have the distance to put in adequate roads in places like that. I think
that has to be put into consideration.
I spoke
to the minister and I spoke to people over in the department about this. It is a
major concern. They agreed that they were going to look at the policy. I'd like
to see this policy be ironed out first before we charge people fees, I really
would.
I'm sure
that people who own property on provincial roads would probably have no problem
paying it. Maybe most of them wouldn't have any problem, but I think the policy
dealing with access should be straightened out long before we charge people
fees.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. Minister of
Transportation and Works speaks now, he shall close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure for me to close debate on this this afternoon. I'd just
like to thank the hon. Member for pointing out to me about revenue generation. I
fully appreciate her comments on that. I certainly understand fully what revenue
is all about. I guess I should just rephrase and use it more as a cost recovery.
I think that was the intent when we talked about the $60,000 to $70,000, it was
a cost recovery.
Some of
the other things on policy, and we're talking about having the policy in place,
I'm a little bit concerned about that because, obviously, the previous
administration had polices in place as well for quite some time. When I took
over as Minister of Transportation and Works last December, there were a couple
of files where I'll just give you an example there were two companies that
had been trying to get access to a highway for several years and were
continually turned down because they didn't fit into the policy they had, which
was a left-hand turning.
When I
looked at that file, I went to my staff and I said: I need to know the
rationale. These are two developers who wanted to increase their development.
One, I think, in my hon. Member's district here and I think another one in the
hon. Premier's district.
I looked
at that and asked staff, I said, what is the rationale? Why have they not been
able to have that development? Well, because of the fact they need a left-hand
turning lane. So I said what is the policy and what are the criteria around
left-hand turning lanes? And when we got into it, Mr. Speaker, and found out
exactly how antiquated the numbers were in that previous policy, we looked at
newer models. We went and developed, and did a jurisdictional scan and we took a
model from Ontario.
I said,
well, why don't we adapt that and put it into place and do a traffic study and
see exactly how we can accommodate? Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We did that. We put
that model in place and did a traffic study. It came back that they did not need
a left-hand turning lane. We were able, as a government, to be proactive in
taking that situation, being proactive and allowing that development to take
place.
So when
they say on the opposite side we have flaws in this legislation, I just want to
point out that we are discovering some flaws in the previous policy. This policy
today, Mr. Speaker, is very clearly looking at putting in a fee structure so we
can have a cost recovery. We are looking at policy. We're looking at some of the
policies that were in place before that really need to be addressed. These are
policies we're looking at.
There
are also, Mr. Speaker, policies that are coming in from TAC, the Transportation
Association of Canada. They are bringing in regulations and policies that are
really what I would consider to be up to date; policies for today, not policies
for 20 years ago, but policies for today. So rather than us bringing in policies
and looking at situations now, we are going to be listening to what the
Transportation Association of Canada are recommending. They are putting in a
road safety road map for years out, and they're looking at how to encompass all
of the regulations we have and all the policies we have today that we'll be able
to look at making our roads safer.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, that's the bottom line. We want to make our roads safer. That's
important for us. Part of the policy and part of what we're looking at, we want
to do it right. We want to do it right.
I
understand fully what the hon. Member opposite said a few minutes ago about if
you got a policy for 30 metres you end up having 25 metres. That is very, very
difficult to be able to say to that Member or that person or that constituent
that it does not fit into the policy, but we have to look at ways in which
well, maybe it doesn't fit into the policy as it exists now; however, there may
be ways in which we'd accommodate.
There
are some situations and policies where there are 10 per cent you can use
percentages outside of policy or 15 per cent outside of policy. So we have
situations that fit or fall into these categories, that every time get knocked
off because of the fact they don't fit in the policy. There may be some criteria
or percentages in place that will be able to accommodate that.
That,
Mr. Speaker, is what our government is looking at. That's what we're looking at
to make sure we're putting together and putting in a safety policy and a policy
that we can work within that will provide for people who are utilizing it the
best opportunity. So that's a situation we have.
Mr.
Speaker, again, as I said before, government and the hon. Member mentioned,
are we going to be now paying for people to go out if we're going to go out
and check people's culverts and all that kind of stuff. Mr. Speaker, that's
irrelevant today as far I'm concerned. That's not what we're talking about.
We're
talking about, we are providing, we're going out and we're engaging our staff in
doing work to provide a permit for individuals or companies to have access to
our highways. It's not checking culverts. It's not checking to see if there are
leaves in the culvert. People have an interest, a resident has an interest; they
want access to the highway. A commercial development has an interest; they want
access to the highway.
What we
are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to engage our staff to go out and make
sure they meet all the criteria that we have, within the policy that we have, to
make sure we have done our due diligence to ensure that safety is number one,
and that all these individuals when we actually do give a permit, that we are
giving a permit in the best interest of everybody who's using the highway.
Again, keeping in mind safety is number one.
So, Mr.
Speaker, when we look at these fees, it's a matter of a partial cost recovery. I
think the hon. Member asked a percentage. I'm thinking it was somewhere around
80 per cent cost recovery. That was the initial numbers we had. If I'm mistaken
in that, I'll get you the exact numbers, but I think it's around 80 per cent
that we are trying to cost recover on the service we are providing. So we're not
even recovering 100 per cent.
I
understand there may be some concerns. Again, from where we're sitting, it's a
matter of us trying to recover some of the cost. With regard to, I think a
question on the forestry access roads, that's not applicable to what this
legislation is saying. We're looking at our highways. It is legislation. Today
the legislation is enabling us to charge the fees.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work to refine our policy, not to prohibit
development but certainly to enhance it and to work with people to make sure
that the measurements we have in place, the site lines we have in place will
enable us to have development, will enable us to have people who want better
access.
Mr.
Speaker, it's not an issue today of trying to prohibit people from having access
but merely trying to recover some of our costs.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this bill.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 40 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:
An Act To Amend The Works,
Services and Transportation Act. (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Works, Services and Transportation Act,
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 40.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider
Bill 40.
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 (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation
Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act. (Bill 40)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There a
couple of questions I wanted to ask. With the policy, I guess we're assuming
that issuance of the permit will not be without the collection of the fee. So
will the fee have to be paid before the permit is issued? Then we're into the
collection, as my colleague for Ferryland pointed out; it is fine to charge a
fee. So is that the way it will be?
Also,
we're charging a fee for a new highway access policy, when would we be able to
see the actual policy that will be in place? I guess it will be January 1
because, to date, it's still a work in progress. Those are basically the two
issues that I'd like to get some more clarification on.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank
you to the hon. Member opposite. Yes, the fee must be paid upfront before the
permit is issued from Service NL. Today, our discussion is on the fee structure
and as I mentioned before there are new regulations. Transportation Association
of Canada are certainly doing a road map for safety on our roads and looking at
some new regulations with regard to access.
We're
looking at all of that, as well as the information that we have, before we
actually determine exactly the distance between either driveways or for a major
development. So all of that will certainly be coming hopefully, in the new
year, we'll have these policies refined to the point where they will be, what I
consider we want to make them to the point where people will not be prohibited
from access but realizing that safety is going to be number one and it's going
to be important.
There
may be some other parameters in which we want to work around. I'm not too sure
how that legislation works because I do have a concern, as you said, when we
looked at somebody who doesn't fit into the 30 metres, yet they're 25 metres. I
know in a lot of legislations there are variances that you can use. I'm not too
sure that we have that capability to have those variances, so that is something
I want to look at because there may be some variances you can use and work
within that development. That will be coming, hopefully, in the new year fairly
quickly.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, I'd just like to ask a question: Are you going to consult with the
municipalities in different towns? It is a huge factor with municipalities in
some cases where sometimes what you saw I know in one municipality, the change
of a speed limit made a difference on site distance. There was a request from a
municipality to change that speed so the site distance was reduced. Is there
anything like that you're going to look at when you come out with the new
regulations?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This
legislation piece that we have is not applicable within municipalities. The
Municipalities Act, 1999 covers all of
jurisdictions within municipalities. This is access on our highways that's
maintained by Transportation and Works. Municipalities have the authority within
their Municipalities Act to regulate
the access that they want to have to their streets. So that would not be
applicable in this legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I
understand what you're saying there, Minister, but a lot of provincial roads
actually run through municipalities. So the provincial roads are not outside the
municipalities. I know in the district that I'm from all the roads running
through the municipalities in my district are provincial roads. So the question
is: Are you going to consult with the municipalities before you make this
decision?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes,
you're right; we do have a number of municipalities where we do maintain some of
the highways through there because that's some of our routes. This legislation
or the policy that we will be making we would certainly have some discussions
with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to see, in fact, how that would fit into
that piece.
This
legislation right now is for the fee structure. We've already had some requests;
I've dealt with a municipality not very long ago that had some concerns with
development. Development was held up for several months, maybe even the year. So
we're trying to work through these. Some of them we've been able to solve fairly
quickly, but when we look at the safety and the traffic flow, the traffic study
needs to be done. So there are a lot of little more detailed issues that we have
to deal with there. We're working with that, and that will certainly be part of
our discussion that we'll have.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a
couple of quick questions for the minister as well. My one first question is:
Was there a cross-jurisdictional review done? I know he mentions about and
this guideline, I know from time there, is taken from the TAC manual or
whatever, the Transportation Association of Canada's manual as a guideline. That
was something I argued on personally. I argued to pieces within the department.
With the
new revised policy, my question is because I want to reiterate again, be on
record. This policy seems to be still a little bit of a moving target, which
again, we're coming up January 1, 2017, there's a fee implementation and it
seems to be still a bit of work to be done.
A couple
of questions: Is there a cross-jurisdictional review done from other provinces
throughout the country? Is this the way they do it I mean, you have to compare
apples to apples, too, obviously in areas comparable to the Northeast Avalon
to areas throughout the province? I know, like I said, it was taken from the TAC
manual, so I'd like to be on record as saying, is that review being done to make
sure this is in keeping with what's done in the remainder of the country?
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank
you to the hon. Member for the question. Yes, everything we do, it's important
for us to do our due diligence. And part of the whole due diligence process that
we have is we do jurisdictional scans. As I might add, Madam Chair, the two
developments that I talked about when I closed off my debate, that was held up
for several years that could never, ever get through the system, what I
discovered by looking at a jurisdictional scan I found a model in Ontario. And
the model that I found in Ontario, if it worked in Ontario, it certainly could
work in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So part
of the work in that, I brought that model in and my staff looked at the model
and we thought it would be a great idea to put that to the test. As we did that,
we went through the exercise of doing the traffic study for that model. When it
came out, in fact, it did. It exactly showed us what we were thinking because
as I said before, the numbers that were being used to stop that development were
antiquated. They were back years and years and years and years in the system and
certainly were not anywhere close to being relevant for today.
So we
were able to take that example of a model that was in Ontario and adapt it to
Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, the rest is history, if you want to use
that term, because we were able to be in a position, based on that information
we had, based on that model, based on the traffic study that was done, we were
able to make a decision at that particular point in time to allow those two
developments to go ahead.
So, yes,
to the Member opposite, a jurisdictional scan is something that my department
and myself, as a minister, we fully understand. That's something we will
continue to do and work with other provinces to see what best practices are used
there so we can adapt these best practices to make what we're doing more
efficient for our residents.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2, 3 and 4.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2, 3 and 4
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 4 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 Works,
Services and Transportation Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 40, An
Act To Amend The Works, Services and Transportation Act, carried without
amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 40.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 40 carried without amendment.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Deputy Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 40 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 40 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Create Safe Access Zones Around Facilities And Homes Of Doctors And
Service Providers Providing Or Facilitating Abortion Services, Bill 43, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. the Government House Leader that he have leave to introduce Bill 43 and
that the bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, An Act To
Create Safe Access Zones Around Facilities And Homes Of Doctors And Service
Providers Providing Or Facilitating Abortion Services, carried. (Bill 43)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Create Safe
Access Zones Around Facilities And Homes Of Doctors And Service Providers
Providing Or Facilitating Abortion Services. (Bill 43)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow, being Private Members' Day, at 2 p.m.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 p.m.