May 6,
2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 22
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Wiseman):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
MR.
MCGRATH:
A
point of order.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, on a point of order.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Yesterday, during our Question Period I committed that
I would table some documents today, and I would like to table those now, please,
on Humber Valley Paving.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point
of order. There is a place on the
agenda for tabling of documents, but there is no point of order.
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of
Lewisporte; the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; the Member
for the District of Lake Melville; the Member for the District of Bay of
Islands; the Member for the District of St. John's North; and the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl South.
The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
VERGE:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding athlete and citizen of
Lewisporte. Michael Austin is a
Special Olympian who began life with many physical challenges.
Over the course of his lifetime he has undergone in
excess of sixty operations. Sports
became the love of his life as he competed in bowling and track and field,
accumulating over 100 medals. He has
received a Newfoundland Athlete of the Year award, the Male Athlete of the Year
award, and too many sportsmanship awards to count.
He has competed in regional, provincial, and national Special Olympic
events.
Mike specializes in the 100, 200, and 400 metre races,
the shot put, the long jump, and also in snowshoe racing.
Michael earned the name “Awesome Mike” for his kind team spirit, and for
his uncanny ability to help pick up teammates when they are discouraged or they
need some extra cheer to get them going.
In 2013 I had the privilege of presenting Michael with
the Queen's Jubilee for outstanding contributions to his community.
Recently, Michael was chosen to represent Newfoundland and Labrador at
the National Summer Olympics in Vancouver.
Honourable colleagues, please join with me in
congratulating a wonderful athlete, a terrific individual, and a great example
for all of us to follow – Mike Austin.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.
MR.
POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the
Springdale Pee Wee I hockey team.
They captured the gold medal at the provincial championships, hosted by
Stephenville on Easter weekend by edging Conception Bay Regionals 2-1 in the
heart-stopping championship game.
Springdale went undefeated in the six-team tournament.
Teams vying for the coveted title were: Bay d'Espoir,
Stephenville, Clarenville, Lab West, Conception Bay Regional, and Springdale.
Members of the teams include: Colton Boyde, Alex
Oxford, Joey Sparkes, Madison Tizzard, Jake Tizzard, Jake Matthews, Isaiah
Shears, Riley Burt, Mitchel Downton, Lucas Mercer, Robbie Thomas, Josh Andrews,
Erin Butt, Kyle Tuck, Christian Morgan, Victoria Hobbs-Regular, and Aaron Hull.
Coach Jason Sparkes and Manager Lori Spurrell are to be
commended for their dedication and commitment to the development of these young
hockey players. All teams displayed
skill, hard work, and team play throughout the tournament.
In the championship game, fans were treated to a very
intense and entertaining brand of hockey as the young budding players displayed
their sizzling shots, precision passing, and super skating.
I invite all hon. members to join me in applauding the
Springdale Pee Wee I hockey team for capturing the provincial title.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.
MR.
RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the graduating
class from Eric G. Lambert School in Churchill Falls.
This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure to
attend their graduation in Churchill Falls.
I got to meet a group of young adults who are certainly some of the
brightest individuals you will ever meet.
Each one has a great sense of humour, not to mention a down-to-earth
personality that the community of Churchill Falls is well known for.
This year the graduating class consisted of Denika
Blake, Kelsey Burry, Catherine Flynn, Kelsey Kent, Mark Marshall, Brooke
Philpott, as well as Emily-Jane Clark Philpott and Nicholas Cheeseman who were
this year's valedictorians. After
meeting the class, Mr. Speaker, I am more than confident that they will go on to
be great ambassadors of their town and make their friends and families very
proud.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to
join with me in recognizing the graduating class from Eric G. Lambert School in
Churchill Falls.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize eleven-year-old, Jamie
Hickey, of Benoit's Cove.
Jamie, a Grade 5 student at St. Peter's Academy in
Benoit's Cove, won a gold medal in the Bantam Boys Singles Division of the 2014
Youth Bowling Canada Nationals held in Winnipeg this past weekend.
He finished with an average of 186.21 over twenty-one games during the
three-day championship.
Earlier this year, Jamie won the provincial boys
singles with 878 five-game set earning him the opportunity to represent the
Province at his first national's championship.
Mr. Speaker, Jamie practices twice a week and his
passion and commitment to his sport is an example for all young athletes.
Jamie's motto is that it is all about having fun, meeting new friends,
and doing his personal best every time he plays.
Jamie is a great ambassador for the Town of Humber Arm
South and St. Peter's Academy and he has demonstrated at a young age what can be
accomplished when you work hard and are committed to what you do.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in
congratulating Jamie on his gold medal win and wish him continued success in the
future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Mr.
Speaker, I stand in the House today to recognize someone who – at a relatively
young age – has accomplished much more than most.
Nineteen-year-old Caighlan Smith from St. John's has
just completed her second year as an English major at Memorial University of
Newfoundland.
Caighlan is also a published author of some note.
Her debut novel, a supernatural fantasy called
Hallow Hour, was released just last
September. Her second novel,
New Year, will be released this month.
This gives Caighlan the rare distinction of having not one, but two
novels published before the age of twenty.
Caighlan has been a featured author at the Halifax Word
on the Street Book Festival and an invited delegate at the Canada Council's
National Forum on the Literary Arts.
Caighlan has also been invited to be a guest author at
the Emerging Writers Festival in Melbourne, Australia, which takes place at the
end of this month.
Caighlan decided she wanted to be a novelist at the age
of nine. Ten years later – she is
living her dream.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating
Caighlan Smith who teaches us that, with hard work and dedication, dreams do
come true.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a privilege to stand in this hon. House to speak
about a great event which took place in my district this past Sunday evening.
This event was hosted by the Kinsmen Club of Mount Pearl of which I am a
proud member and was promoted as Celebrity Karaoke.
This was a very successful venture which raised significant funds for
three great charities: the K-Rock Children's Trust, the MS Society, and Cystic
Fibrosis.
A big thank you to some wonderful corporate partners:
Steele Communications, Tols Timeout Lounge, the Print Shop, and Browning Harvey
Limited, as well as to the many community-minded businesses who donated prizes
for ticket draws and the silent auction.
Also, a special thank you to all of the local celebrities who took part
in entertaining the crowd including a number of media personalities, local
entertainers, city councillors, community activists, as well as a number of
members of this hon. House.
Finally, a huge congratulations and thank you to the
members of the Kinsmen Club of Mount Pearl for the significant role they play in
my community. Their efforts
certainly do not go unnoticed and they are community heroes, each and every one.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS
SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to
recognize Innovation Week 2014, the first week of its kind in the Province.
Innovation Week brings together both private and public partners to share
ideas and build upon the outstanding atmosphere of innovation in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Innovation has a tremendous influence on our Province's
social and economic development.
Greater creativity invites new opportunities, new industries, and new
accomplishments.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of opening
Innovation Week at Common Ground, a unique space created by local entrepreneurs
for local entrepreneurs to increase collaboration and share small business
energy. Later this week I will
attend the Innovation Outlook Conference, these events allow me to meet with the
people who are making innovation happen, the creative minds behind so many of
our Province's success stories.
It was for these innovators and those they inspire that
we created the Innovation Lives Here
campaign. There are so many
incredible stories emerging from all over the Province that demonstrate
creativity and tenacity, and through the
Innovation Lives Here campaign, our government has created a platform to
celebrate those successes and acknowledge those who are excelling.
Mr. Speaker, since 2005, our government has invested
approximately $210 million to advance business and regional development and
support growth and diversification.
We also know that venture capital is critical for the development of innovation.
Through Budget 2014, we announced we will invest in two Venture Capital
Funds with $10 million to support Build Ventures, and a commitment to establish
a Venture Newfoundland and Labrador fund with angel investors and other venture
capital shareholders.
By fostering innovation among young people, small and
medium-sized businesses, research institutions, and traditional industries, we
are making important investments in the future of Newfoundland and Labrador,
especially in rural communities where the strength of ventures is key to
anchoring youth and driving population growth.
Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting time to live, work,
and do business in Newfoundland and Labrador and innovation is a big part of
that momentum. I invite all my hon.
colleagues to congratulate all those involved in this year's Innovation Week.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are natural innovators, finding local solutions to many complex
problems. We congratulate, as the
Official Opposition, the partners who have worked hard to put together
Innovation Week: the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology
Industries, StartupNL, TEDxStJohns, CNA, NEIA, Genesis Centre, CME Newfoundland
and Labrador, Common Ground, and others.
The events provide a great opportunity to showcase
products such as the DemoCamp and expose youth to technology careers at a
day-long conference for 400 Grade 9 students, as well as the NATI Knowledge
Summit.
NATI has stated that the industry in Newfoundland and
Labrador, the technology sector, has 165 companies employing 3,990 people, at
one point $6 billion in revenue annually.
That is quite significant.
There are lots of opportunities and we have to celebrate the innovation in
technology we have out there.
Government has a role to place greater emphasis on
advancing our telecommunications, such as rural broadband, promoting further
entrepreneurship in the tech sector, and encouraging everyone to work in greater
collaboration so we can find solutions and do things better.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to thank the minister for the advance
copy of her statement here today. I
was quite pleased to see the government pushing ahead with the two initiatives
in question: the Build Ventures program, as well as Venture Newfoundland and
Labrador. I know these monies are in
the Budget and I want to wish government all the luck in the world in pressing
these things forward.
We are innovators in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and
there is no finer example I can think of right now within the City of St.
John's, a small example, if you will, but not very small in the extreme.
It started off with three people at the Genesis Centre at MUN, and I am
talking about Verafin; right now, 115 employees.
We know we can do it here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We know the government is trying to supply those tools.
We will keep an eye on it to see exactly how it works out in the end, but
I encourage everybody to get out there in Innovation Week and express your ideas
to government, and government would be the matching partner in all this.
I want to wish the government, again, all the luck in
the world with this, and express the sentiments of everybody that is out there.
If you have an idea, approach government; they are there.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the
individuals honoured recently at Sport Newfoundland and Labrador's Stars and
Legends Awards gala. The annual
event welcomes the newest members into the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall
of Fame and also acknowledges athletic achievements in the Province over the
past year.
It is an honour to congratulate this year's
Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame inductees – Colin Abbott, Lee
Churchill, Max Kirby, Gerry Rideout, Andy Sullivan, and Ray Will.
Mr. Speaker, this group has set a wonderful example for our Province's
up-and-coming young athletes and our sports community in general, and I
congratulate each of them on receiving this well-deserved honour.
In addition, Sport Newfoundland and Labrador also
recognized the Province's top athletes for 2013.
As highly accomplished athletes, coaches, and executive members, these
women and men continuously strive to reach their goals through dedication and
perseverance. Cross-country runner
Jillian Forsey, swimmer Owen Daly, soccer player Malorie Harris, rugby player
Ciaran Hearn, soccer executive Jeff Babstock, volunteer David Coates, soccer
coach Jack Stanford, and the St. John's Under 18A girls soccer team were all
recognized as the best in their sport in 2013 and are to be commended for their
passion and commitment to sport.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is committed to
supporting athletic excellence. We
provide our provincial athletes, in particular our emerging young men and women,
with opportunities to explore their potential in sport performance.
We continue to provide support through the Premier's Athletic Awards
Program, as well as the Elite Athlete Assistance Program, and the National
Travel Subsidy Initiative.
Since the launch of
Active, Healthy Newfoundland and Labrador: A Recreation and Sport
Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately $192 million has been
committed to recreational sport and infrastructure, programming, and athlete
development throughout our Province.
Continued investment helps our athletes compete at their best elite level.
I invite all members to join me in congratulating this
year's award recipients and inductees for their achievements, and applaud them
for the vital role they play in the advancement of sport in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy, and
congratulations on the first Ministerial Statement as the new Minister of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
Good job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, people on this side of the House, also the Opposition, would like to
congratulate all of the Hall of Fame inductees this past weekend.
We know of a lot of their accomplishments over the years.
It is great to be recognized by your fellow peers.
To all the athletes who won the Athlete of the Year
Awards, congratulations, team sports congratulations.
It shows a lot of hard work and dedication to get to that level in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I also would like to throw out a bouquet to a lot of
the coaches, and a lot of the volunteers who help make these events happen, to
the parents who bring the athletes back and forth.
I too agree with the government that we need to support our young people
in athletics. Anything we can do to
keep people more active in sports.
On the national stage, we are very competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that pretty soon we may
have some great elite athletes out of McIver's.
The former minister just sent out the $15,000 capital grant recreation to
the town of McIver's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JOYCE:
I
thank the former minister for that because it is a great – with 110 students and
athletes ready to go with the playground, Mr. Speaker, and all the parents,
thirty-five parents ready, I say congratulations.
It is what we need to do, is keep our young people active.
Congratulations to the minister.
Good job to the new minister and keep up the work.
Thank you.
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 new Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation for an advance copy of his statement, and congratulations.
Bravo to all those honoured by their induction into the Hall of Fame and
for those recognized for being the best in their sport.
How wonderful to celebrate the passion, commitment, and
excellence. They make us all proud.
It is important to honour achievement but it is also important to ensure
that all people have access to facilities and support to establish and reach of
our own individual goals.
Most of us will never be the provincial best or get
into a hall of fame but we can all find ways to stay active and benefit from
that healthy activity. Access to
fitness opportunities is a measure of a modern, healthy society.
Government must support the many recreational facilities available in our
Province so that everyone can benefit.
I myself play hockey on Sunday afternoon on a women's
hockey league. We duke it out at St.
Bon's arena. The last game I scored
two goals with a little help from my friends – two.
Bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Bravo, bravo!
MS
ROGERS:
Of
course, with a little help from my friends.
No hall of fame for me, Mr. Speaker, no awards, but boy do I have fun.
Bravo to our great athletes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Transportation and Works has been in
the media and in this House saying that there was a bond totalling $9.5 million
returned to Humber Valley Paving. In
fact there were two bonds, Mr. Speaker, a performance bond and a labour and
material bond totalling $19 million plus HST.
I ask the minister: Minister, you either did not know
that there were two bonds totalling $19 million or you chose to paint a totally
different picture, which is it?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when I was referring to the bond, I
referred to the performance bond only because that was the bond that was brought
up in the media, so that is the one I reacted to.
There are two bonds, which I will be tabling later today.
One is a labour and materials bond, the other is a performance bond.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
That is funny, Mr. Speaker, because yesterday I asked him about both bonds and
he still referred to the bond for $9.5 million.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious he did not know there were
two bonds totalling $19 million. In
fact, in Estimates last night, I asked the minister about requirements under
tenders issued by his department that contractors must complete a defined number
of kilometres by September 30 of this year.
He was not aware of that either and his officials had to come to his
rescue.
I ask the minister: Don't you think that the lack of
knowledge on bonds, the lack of knowledge on tenders is a clear display of your
incompetence?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, the numbers that the member from across the way
is using are still baffling me. I do
not know where he is getting his numbers.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister shows incompetence on bonds, he shows incompetence on his
tenders. A performance bond is one
thing and it is issued to ensure that work is completed.
A labour and materials bond is entirely different.
I ask the minister: Do you now agree that, considering
I asked the same questions yesterday, the labour and materials bond would
protect suppliers and subcontractors of Humber Valley Paving?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now I will give the hon. member across the way a little
lesson in bonds and what is in place and is still in place for the small
businesses that deal through private enterprise.
It is called a mechanics lien holdback, and that is still in place.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you one thing, he did not read the labour and materials bond
either because written right in there it says that subcontractors will be
protected if the contractor defaults.
I ask the minister again: Is he going to read the
labour and materials bond, and will he now confirm that bond would, in fact,
have protected the subcontractors who are begging for payment from Humber Valley
Paving?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the mechanics' lien holdback is in place
to protect small businesses and if they choose to put a lien on a business, they
do that on their own, and government has made sure that is in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
That is also what the Labour and Materials Bond is for, and would have provided
greater protection.
Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously felt it was
important to protect Humber Valley Paving, cancelling the contract and returning
the bonds, also propping up the value of that company, I may add; but the
minister certainly did not think it was important to protect the suppliers of
Humber Valley Paving, which the Labour and Materials bond would have done.
I ask: Why not?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, I stated in the
media and I will state again, first and foremost the first goal of this
government was to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The decisions that we made through my department, I think, did exactly
that in protecting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, the first goal of that minister was to protect Humber Valley Paving and
the reasons are obvious.
I ask him why he did not protect the suppliers and the
subcontractors using the Labour and Materials bond.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I will say that the mechanics' lien holdback is
in place and if the small businesses choose to utilize that, that is what it is
there for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS
C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister said yesterday that one of the reasons he cancelled the
contract was to protect the future of Humber Valley Paving.
I ask the minister: Will he now provide a list of all
contracts and bonds that have been cancelled by his government in the last five
years?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I did not say that I was protecting Humber
Valley Paving. I said that in the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MCGRATH: –
interest of the priorities –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MCGRATH:
The
interest that we have is to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
employ the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and protect Newfoundland and
Labrador companies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS
C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister acknowledged cancelling the two bonds, worth over $19
million, to Humber Valley Paving as well as the contract.
Does he recognize the fact that by cancelling these
bonds –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS
C. BENNETT:
–
and the contract he has improved the financial position of Humber Valley Paving?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, once again, and as I stated yesterday,
when I was making the decisions to terminate the contract, in mutual agreement
with the contractor, the interest for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
was our first and foremost priority.
We had a small window of opportunity to bundle some tenders together, and that
is what we have done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS
C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister has acknowledged that there are two bonds that have been
cancelled and a contract that has been cancelled, and these have improved the
financial position of Humber Valley Paving.
There is no arguing that.
I would ask him: Does he agree that improving the
financial position now gave that company a competitive advantage over other
companies in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my role as the Minister of Transportation
and Works is to exactly govern the Transportation and Works issues within the
Province. That is what I will
continue to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS
C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Does he agree that cancelling the bonds and the
contract, giving the company a competitive advantage, and improving their
financial position has all resulted in increased share value for shareholders in
Humber Valley Paving?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will say again that my first goal is to
protect the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, do what is best for the people
in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is exactly what I have done in this
particular case.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he provide that list of contracts and bonds
that have been cancelled by his government in the last five years?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly look into putting that
together and I would have no problem once I get all of that information tabling
it here in the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Can
the minister indicate a time period for which we can expect that information?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will get it done as soon as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, Gene Coleman approached the Minister of Transportation on March 13 and
asked him to cancel the contract and forgive over $19 million in bonds.
I ask the minister: What was your understanding of
Frank Coleman's relationship with Humber Valley Paving at that time?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the contractor, HVP, through Gene Coleman,
who was the spokesman at the time, did speak with my department and talked about
terminating the contractor.
I have to say, just to clarify yesterday, that the
words were minced around a little bit and I did not hear the member from across
the way say the word prior. He used
that to insinuate another thing. The
first meeting I had with the Premier, the present Premier Marshall, concerning
this contract was on April 28. I
would like to clarify that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, there is no mincing of words; the minister chose not to listen.
The questions were very clear.
I ask him again: What was your understanding of Frank
Coleman's involvement with Humber Valley Paving on March 13?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we enter into tenders and contracts
with companies, I really do not care who the owners or the shareholders are.
I had no idea who Frank Coleman was, nor do I care what association he
had with the company. I was dealing
with a contractor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, it is a fact that the same day Gene Coleman approached the minister to
cancel the contract and forgive over $19 million in bonds; Frank Coleman
announced his intention to seek the leadership of the PC Party which, if
successful, would automatically make him the Premier and the minister's boss.
I ask the minister: Did it make you uncomfortable that
the son of the future boss was seeking over $19 million of forgiveness?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, number one, fear mongering does not work
with me, and I do not feel I was fear mongered.
Number two, I think that the member across the way should check his dates
because March 13 was not the date that Mr. Coleman announced he would be seeking
the leadership.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
What date did Mr. Coleman announce that he was seeking the leadership?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest that you go back and check that out.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
It
is absolutely astounding, Mr. Speaker.
Despite all the negotiations and discussions between
March 13 and March 21, does the minister still stand by his statement yesterday
that there was no written documentation whatsoever relating to these
discussions?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I have to just put this out there again, so the minister is telling the
House of Assembly here today and the people of this Province that there was a
deal concerning $20 million in taxpayer money and the minister has nothing on
paper to evidence this – nothing?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that.
It is $19 million in bonds.
There were discussions that took place and then there was a formal letter
terminating the contract.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I would ask the question: Is it common practice in this government to
conclude business deals involving millions of dollars of taxpayer money with no
written documentation?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is a contract that was in place that
addresses the millions of dollars.
That contract is a written document.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, does the minister have any written documentation to provide documenting
and showing the work that was actually completed by this company that he can
show here to the House today?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is a documentation actually in
The
Telegram, on the weekend there was a
list of the work that has been completed and the documentation will be in
invoices.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister negotiated for eight days before letting this company off
the hook for over $19 million. He
did nothing to protect the suppliers, the subcontractors, and the taxpayers.
He showed preferential treatment to the company involving his future
boss. He disadvantaged other
Newfoundland and Labrador companies.
There is evidentially no paper trail whatsoever to show this, and he is
expecting the public to believe that this was all above board.
This is nothing but incompetence.
I ask the minister: Will you do the right thing and
resign?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will go back to my opening statement,
that the first decision when we were making this decision was to make sure that
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were protected, and that is exactly what
I will continue to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
MR.
SLADE:
Mr.
Speaker, nearly three years after the government promised new stadiums to the
Towns of Harbour Grace, Paradise and CBS, only Harbour Grace is still waiting
for construction to begin. The town
has provided all the necessary information to government, yet no tenders have
been called.
I ask the minister: Do you still intend to keep your
promise to the people of Harbour Grace?
If so, will the construction start on that facility this summer?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Speaker, I guess the MHA has read the article that was in his local paper or
online over the last number of days.
I received a request from the Town of Harbour Grace
about a week ago to meet to discuss this project.
A couple of days later I met with the mayor and a member of council.
We had a very positive discussion on the status of the project.
For some time we have been gathering information from the town.
We need to be certain that the town can afford not only to build the
facility but to operate it as well.
We have committed to have that assessment completed by the end of May, and we
look forward to working with the town to move the project forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
MR.
SLADE:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister knows very well that it was a committee struck by a member
of government there some time back and one of the members from his office sat in
on that committee.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware of this file.
The funding was in place, the site selection has been approved, and there
should be nothing technically stopping this rink from being built.
I ask the minister: Who is asking for the review and
the analysis of the project, government or the Town of Harbour Grace?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Speaker, in recent months the Town of Harbour Grace expressed some concerns
about its ability to sustain the operational cost and it wrote me back at the
end of February to say, instead of building a dual ice-surface facility, they
would like to proceed with a single ice rink.
That is certainly acceptable to us.
We still need to complete the important financial analysis.
The mayor and the council member I met with fully
understand that. We have a positive
working relationship. The funds are
still in place to move this project forward.
We just have to be certain we do not place an unfair or unreasonable
burden on taxpayers. I believe the
Mayor of Harbour Grace understands that.
It is unfortunate the MHA does not.
However, it is positive, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time since being
elected he is raising this issue with me.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2009, residents north of Hawke's Bay were told they
will not have to worry, sawmills will not close, people will not have to leave,
and the economy will be more stable than it has been for years.
Five years and $10 million of taxpayers' money later, the people are
questioning government's commitment.
I ask the minister: Are you committed to ensuring the
forestry resources on the Great Northern Peninsula mean local jobs and
value-added products, or are you content with another white elephant?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, I think I could go around this House and speak to every member and
every single member in this House would welcome a $10 million investment from
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
I
think it speaks to our commitment, our investment, and our support for the
economy of the region. There have
been some challenges with that investment.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
DALLEY:
– we have made significant investments in forestry as well, in silviculture, and
in roads.
The member opposite knows full well that we are fully
engaged in a new company that has a keen interest in furthering the development
on the Northern Peninsula with respect to the forestry development, Mr. Speaker.
We are working towards that.
We are working with companies. We
are working with the large industry there in Holson Forest Products and we are
optimistic we are going to have a good outcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Long-term jobs in the economy are key.
Mr. Speaker, on May 1, Rentech announced it acquired
the largest producer of wood pellets for the US heating market.
Rentech already has significant assets in Ontario, and long-term port
facilities in Quebec. The minister
has confirmed they are the sole company for the former Abitibi lands, and are in
negotiations with Holson Forest Products.
I ask the minister: With millions invested in the
Roddickton pellet plant, what actions are you prepared to take to ensure that
our public resources can capitalize on growing market demands?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, long-term jobs and the economy are key.
What a statement, Mr. Speaker.
Take a look at what our government has done.
Take a look at the investments we have done around the Province.
We can take a look at the forest industry, with 5,500
people working in the forest industry.
As well, Mr. Speaker, a struggling industry we have supported in many
different ways. Now we are on an
upturn in the forest industry. We
are optimistic about its future. We
are working with a major company, Mr. Speaker, with major assets to come in and
help stabilize the forest industry.
Not just for the Northern Peninsula, but for the entire Province.
Mr. Speaker, that is a goal we have had.
We are working towards that.
We are going to do everything we can to make that deal work, not only to benefit
the Northern Peninsula but to benefit the long-term stability jobs and the
economy with respect to the forest industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.
MR.
J. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, last week an enlarged Cabinet welcomed a new Justice Minister.
Welcome, minister.
I ask the minister: Was he provided with the customary
briefing book prepared at taxpayers' expense so he could become acquainted with
his new department? If so, will he
provide a copy to the Opposition, as was the case before Bill 29?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
FRENCH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the hon. minister for welcoming me to
the Department of Justice.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Member.
MR.
FRENCH:
Member opposite. I could call him
one of my learned friends, but I am not to that point yet in my Justice
Minister's career. I certainly want
to thank him.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, whatever I have – we just had
Estimates this morning, he is more than welcome to that.
He spent three hours asking questions.
I do not have a book per se but I have all kinds of notes that he is more
than welcome to, Mr. Speaker.
I would also say, Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to
find my way to the bathroom up there, so when I find out that, he is more
welcome to have those directions as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.
MR.
J. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister admits to not having a briefing book or not bothering to
read a briefing book.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
J. BENNETT:
I
ask the minister: Does this mean the new minister does not think Justice is
important enough for a briefing book, or does he not think he will be in this
role long enough to bother to read up on the issues?
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
FRENCH:
Mr.
Speaker, no, I do not have a book per se.
As the hon. member would notice, I do not bring books but I do bring
files, and I am trying to come up to speed on all the files in the department,
and anything that I have in writing the hon. member is more than welcome to
read, Mr. Speaker; it is public knowledge.
As a matter of fact, there was one book that I read on
the weekend; it was the layout of the department, Mr. Speaker.
He is more than welcome to have that booklet.
It is a considerable length.
It is in a binder form. I would be
more than happy to provide it for him.
He can go through it, and he might even learn a few things about the
Department of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.
MR.
J. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, the Family Violence Intervention Court was welcomed and endorsed by the
police, courts, prosecutors, and defence counsel – one of the few successes of
this government. Sadly, the former
Minister of Justice did not believe that reducing family violence was worth $1
per person, per year, and cancelled it.
I ask the new minister: Will he reinstate the Family
Violence Intervention Court to curb the cycle of family violence in our
Province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS
SHEA:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government takes violence prevention
very seriously. We have our Violence
Prevention Initiative. We feel that
as we go through the Violence Prevention Initiative, we need to ensure that
awareness is something – that people are able to understand the issues regarding
family violence or other forms of violence.
If we truly want to have a Province where people are
not subject to violence, we need to ensure that they understand the roots or the
reasons for violence in our society.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Released bonds doubled, alleged ties to the PC
leadership, the questions swirling around Humber Valley Paving smell like a
Trout River whale.
Why did the government give back the people's money for
uncompleted work?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the question was: Why would government give
back money for uncompleted work? So
that is what I will answer. The
government did not give back any money for any work that was not completed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Mr.
Speaker, the government is not being able to clearly show why it released Humber
Valley Paving from the bonds. If
there is nothing untoward, then government has nothing to worry about.
I ask the minister again, I ask the government: In the
spirit of openness and accountability, will government bring in the Auditor
General to look at Humber Valley Paving contract and everything connected with
it?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, as I said yesterday, a decision was
made mutually between the contractor and government to terminate the contract.
That was done in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and to make sure that the work is done on time and on budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS
ROGERS:
Last night I attended a meeting initiated by the parents of Holy Cross
Elementary school who are concerned about the closing of their school.
Students are to be moved from their school of 130 students to a school of
over 500 with room to expand to 700 students.
I ask the minister: Will he reconsider the closure of
this fantastic community school?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the member raising the issue in the House
of Assembly. I think all of us who
have been a part of education at least recognize the tremendous emotion and
strain that goes with any discussions around school closures.
I am sure that this one we are talking about here, Holy Cross, is no
different. I have gone through many
in my previous life as a CEO of the school board.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the gist of the question
asking me to reconsider. I did not
consider any issue in the first place around the closure; it was the school
board. There is no issue for me to
reconsider.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he meet with the parents who are concerned?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KING:
Mr.
Speaker, I have meetings with groups all the time, particularly – school
councils are the groups that are duly legislated to represent parents and
members of a particular school community.
If a group is looking to have a meeting with me, I have no issue
whatsoever in making myself available to hear what they have to say.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the parents will be very happy to meet with
the minister.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has chosen a private,
for-profit corporation to care for the Province's most vulnerable children,
letting go of forty-five experienced staff with hundreds of thousands of hours
of experience in favour of inexperienced staff who will be making $13 an hour.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: As a former board
member of one of these well-established homes, does he think this is in the best
interest of these children?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JACKMAN:
Mr.
Speaker, first and foremost in any decisions of this nature, we consider what is
in the best interest of the youth and children who are in care.
There was a competitive process that was entered into.
The proponents who put forth proposals were people who have experience in
these fields.
Through that process, Mr. Speaker, these workers and
these proponents were chosen. I have
no doubt that quality care will be provided to these children.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, youth in the Stephenville home are scheduled to be moved by May 19, yet
we are told the house that Blue sky has purchased has not been approved by town
council for rezoning or renovated according to code yet.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is the plan for
these youth if a new house is not ready for them for the move?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JACKMAN:
Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the proponent here is meeting with the
council in the particular area to address these issues.
We certainly hope and look forward to that coming to a positive
resolution. If something different
should happen, we will deal with it at that particular time, and that proponent
will deal with it at that time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, many of these youths are very, very concerned, they are very worried.
They do not know what the outcome will be.
It is not likely that the home will be ready by May 19.
There does not seem to be a backup plan.
Mr. Speaker, the youth in Grand Falls-Windsor and Burin
group homes will be moved before school is out, actually during exam week.
These people do not know where they are going and who is going to care
for them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is the plan for
these youth?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JACKMAN:
Mr.
Speaker, as the former Minister of Education one of the things that I did ask
when I came in the department was what impact this might have on exam schedules.
Look, it is quite simple; we are going to do what is right by these
children. If there is an extended
time that is needed – I am not saying here that we are going to extend it until
another five or six months or something like that.
What we will look at is we will support these children
as they are being supported through the transition.
This is about doing what is in the best interest of the children first
and foremost.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, time for a quick question without
preamble.
MS
ROGERS:
Okay.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What exactly is he
going to do to support these children who are being moved before the school year
is over?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, for a quick response.
MR.
JACKMAN:
Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if she heard me or not.
I have just said that if there are students who have challenges with exam
schedules or something of that nature, we will ensure that they are supported
through that effort. We will provide
for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered the matters
to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed, without
amendment, the Estimates of the Department of Finance, Public Service
Commission, Service Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of Transportation
and Works; and from the Executive Council, the Estimates of Labrador and
Aboriginal Affairs Office, the Human Resource Secretariat, and the Office of The
Chief Information Officer.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have four documents that I would like to
table. Yesterday in Question Period
I committed to tabling three documents.
The first document I would like to table is a tender book, Project
1-12PHP. That is the contract
between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Humber Valley Paving.
I would like to table that document.
The second document I would like to table is a labour
and material payment bond CCDC222-2002, and that is the labour and material
payment bond. The third document I
would like to table is the performance bond, and that is CCDC221-2002.
The fourth document I would like to table, Mr. Speaker, is a letter
making the mutual termination of the contract between the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador and Humber Valley Paving.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR.
DALLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act to Amend the Mineral Act, Bill 15.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act to
Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 16.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
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 the Family Violence Intervention Court provided
a comprehensive approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully
understood and dealt with the complex issues of domestic violence; and
WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the
most serious issues facing our Province today, and the cost of the impact of
domestic violence is great both economically and in human suffering; and
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was
welcomed and endorsed by all aspects of the justice system including the police,
the courts, prosecutors, defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as
well as victims, offenders, community agencies and women's groups; and
WHEREAS the recidivism rate for offenders going through
the court was 10 per cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and
WHEREAS the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent
of the entire budget of the Department of Justice;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the
Family Violence Intervention Court.
Mr. Speaker, I am standing yet again to present
petitions about the Family Violence Intervention Court.
I can stand in this House every day for the next five years with the
number of people who want to see the Family Violence Intervention Court
reinstated. This is absolutely
ridiculous.
I sat through Justice Estimates today where there were
hundreds of thousands of dollars that were not spent last year in that Justice
budget – hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Do you know what happened to some of that money?
Some of it went to buy a car here, some of it went to buy a car there,
and some went for this. Mr. Speaker,
that money could have been spent, $500,000, to protect women and children in
this Province and to help men who could have gone through the Family Violence
Intervention Court have rehabilitation about diverting people from
incarceration. It would have saved
the government money.
We know this government has done nothing to assess the
financial impact of what the court had on the justice system, nor did it do
anything. This government did
nothing to assess the financial impact on the justice system after closing the
Family Violence Intervention Court.
There was so much money that was moved around last year that could have funded
the Family Violence Intervention Court ten times over.
Mr. Speaker, this goes to show where this government's
priorities are. Why will they not
reinstate the court when they know it is the right thing to do?
Is it simply about saving face?
Are the lives of women and children being bargained for simply so this
government can save face for the inadequate job they did in cancelling that
court?
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Your time has expired.
The hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SLADE:
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 the Town of Harbour Grace has been promised
provincial funding for a regional stadium since August 2011 and there has been
no progress on this facility since that time; and
WHEREAS the stadiums announced at the same time for the
Towns of Paradise and CBS are under full construction; and
WHEREAS the Harbour Grace town council has indicated
that they have secured financing and has approved the entire site
recommendations as suggested by a government-appointed building committee; and
WHEREAS the residents of the District of Carbonear –
Harbour Grace feel that their proposed stadium is not receiving government
attention and priority, and they are duly concerned that continuous delays will
lead to a cancellation of the promised project –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
SLADE:
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to recommit to this project and commence
construction immediately, so as to provide the people of Carbonear – Harbour
Grace District an opportunity to strengthen their commitments to a healthy
lifestyle and use the facility for sports, concerts and trade shows.
As in duty bound, your petitions will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what is taking place
here. The Town of Harbour Grace has
a financial commitment to support the $21 million.
I take note, the Member for Port de Grave District is
over there taunting. Mr. Speaker, I
am doing the same thing as he is doing for his district.
I am standing up and speaking for the people of my district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SLADE:
I
would like for him to stay still there for a little bit, Mr. Speaker, so that I
can get my point out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
SLADE:
They are totally committed, Mr. Speaker.
The Harbour Grace Town Council is totally committed to it.
Government knew they were going to get the $21 million.
Now they are coming back to a single ice service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
SLADE:
This group over here, Mr. Speaker, do not want to allow the Town of Harbour
Grace and the residents of Harbour Grace that stadium.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
SLADE:
I
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am going to stand up every day and fight for the
people in my district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is regarding the meeting I
attended at Holy Cross last night.
It is:
WHEREAS Holy Cross School is a small, family orientated
school that gives all the children the highest education possible; and
WHEREAS Holy Cross School helps support the many
students who have difficulty and/or learning disabilities to reach their highest
potential; and
WHEREAS the school has a friendly atmosphere for
children and parents, the staff knowing all the children and parents by name;
and
WHEREAS the teachers at Holy Cross bring the extra
supports that would not be present in a larger school or larger classroom;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to consider keeping
Holy Cross open and to allow the children of the area to attend a neighbourhood
school as was promised by education reform.
Mr. Speaker, I presented a similar petition yesterday.
The reality here is government had announced all-day Kindergarten in this
year's Budget. That was not taken
into consideration a couple of years ago when the decision was made to close
Holy Cross Elementary.
I think the schools will require additional classroom
space as a result of that announcement, a good announcement, I say.
It is something this party has called for, for some time, but the
announcement that government will introduce all-day Kindergarten will certainly
require additional classroom space.
I ask government, I ask the school board and the trustees of the school board,
to reconsider the closure of Holy Cross Elementary taking into account the fact
that we now need additional classroom space as a result of all-day Kindergarten,
taking into consideration the fact that parents and students were promised a
neighbourhood school under education reform and the fact that Holy Cross school
is a smaller school.
I am familiar with the smaller schools, Mr. Speaker,
having a couple of them in my district.
I can say that it is a much, much stronger community feeling within the
smaller school than it is in a larger super school.
The students, I believe, receive a better one-on-one experience with the
teachers, and the students have a better opportunity to receive help from
teachers if they require it than they would in a larger super school.
I do ask government to reconsider the decision to close
Holy Cross Elementary.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again in this House, 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 we wish to raise concerns regarding the recent
delays of the construction of the new hospital in Corner Brook in Newfoundland
and Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to commit to the planning and construction of a new hospital in
Corner Brook as previously committed to in a timely manner as originally
announced and without further delay or changes.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition here today.
I look at the people all around Corner Brook; we look at people here from
Irishtown. Once again this petition
is calling upon the government to start this new hospital as soon as possible.
From my understanding there have been some changes to
the design. There have been some
amendments made to the hospital, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have a copy of them yet, but I will shortly have a copy of them
to see if in that fact the radiation and PET scanner – radiation units, not just
radiation unit, units – will be in the design of the hospital.
Mr. Speaker, I was actually sad to hear that the
current Premier, who is the Member for Humber East, made the announcement back
in 2011 when I said the hospital is delayed, there is no construction, that he
would not resign until steel is built on the site in hospital.
Mr. Speaker, he is trying to get out of that now faster
than anyone you can ever imagine trying to get out of politics.
This hospital has been delayed upon delayed upon delayed.
I said, Mr. Speaker, the only one – I will say this honestly to the
people of Western Newfoundland, of Corner Brook, and Labrador – the only one
that ever gave me the answer, the up-front answer, is the Parliamentary
Assistant to the Premier. He is the
only one in Estimates who gave me an up-front answer of exactly where is the
standing of the hospital, what stage it is at.
That is the only person that, out of all the questions I asked, gave me
an up-front answer, Mr. Speaker.
Even the former minister was out saying it is only 35
per cent – the former Minister of Health out saying 35 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I fought tooth and nail, the Opposition here fought tooth
and nail, and now the Premier saying it is not one machine, but two machines.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure that this is done in
a timely manner. We have to ensure
that other services in the hospital will not be taken out to make room for this.
Those are the kind of things that we have to ensure, Mr. Speaker.
That is why I am presenting this petition, because –
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Your time has expired.
MR.
JOYCE:
I
will have another chance, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, the citizens, serviced by Curtis Hospital located
in St. Anthony, Newfoundland and Labrador, petition the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador-Grenfell Health to retain the midwives
and allow them continue to perform all of their duties at Curtis Hospital.
Our midwives offer services that cannot be duplicated,
and which cannot be replaced. The
level of care they offer and the knowledge and training they have in the area of
obstetrics is immense. It will be a
great disservice to the people of this area if midwives are no longer available
to care for the people here.
Privatizing midwifery or waiting five to seven years for regulation, as stated
by government, is unacceptable. We
have an operational model of midwifery here in St. Anthony that has been
delivering outstanding care for over ninety years.
We urge the House of Assembly to implore the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador-Grenfell Health to preserve midwifery
services at Curtis Hospital.
Mr. Speaker, the Health Professions Act was passed in
2010, which had stated there that seven health professions would be
self-regulated, and six of the seven have already completed the regulations.
Government has waited and dragged its heels, and at this point, no longer
will allow the midwives that were operating in a publicly-funded setting to
continue the service that they offered in St. Anthony.
This is something that petitioners, citizens of my
district, from Southern Labrador, as well as the North Shore of Quebec, and the
District of St. Barbe – they are all serviced by this health facility and
received immense care from midwives.
So, I put this forward to the new Minister of Health
and Community Services to see the immense value that midwifery can have in a
publicly-funded setting, and that we need to move much quicker than five to
seven years. These regulations
should be established. Women
experience less pre-term births, less assisted deliveries, and greater
satisfaction with care under midwifery.
The world needs more midwives.
Yesterday was the International Day of the Midwife, and
we have not seen further progress to having midwifery implemented in a
publicly-funded setting. We have
actually turned the page backwards under this government, under this current
Administration, when it comes to the role of midwifery and how women and
families can utilize this service in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
I urge the House to urge government to make those changes.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
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 current government regulations deny busing
services to students who live closer than 1.6 kilometres from school;
WHEREAS parents have expressed concern that children
living within 1.6 kilometres of school face dangers in walking to school, such
as congested streets, busy intersections, and no sidewalks, especially during
winter weather conditions;
WHEREAS the $75,000 review of the school transportation
system completed by Deloitte recommended that the Department of Education
consider reducing the 1.6 kilometre eligibility zone for Kindergarten and
elementary students;
WHEREAS the $75,000 Deloitte report also noted that
only 10 per cent of those surveyed for the school transportation system review
agree that the 1.6 kilometre policy is reasonable for students and families; and
WHEREAS parents are continuing to demand more flexible
policies to meet the current needs of school children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to change the
outdated 1.6 kilometre school busing eligibility policy in order to ensure safe
travel to school for primary and elementary school children in the Province.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important petition and it
is really about protecting our most precious resource – our children.
It truly is a safety concern.
I know in the past I have brought forth petitions, I have spoken in the House of
Assembly, and I have questioned the former Minister of Education on very
important matters as it relates to our children and as it relates to our school
system. The former Minister of
Education unfortunately did not see fit to listen to what I had to say and to
listen to what some of his colleagues on his side of the House had to say about
school issues, as we know. I am
hoping this is going to be a fresh start and that the new Minister of Education,
unlike the minister before, is going to start listening to the parents, to the
families, and to the students within our school system.
I will be having a lot more to say as it relates to the
Mount Pearl school system in days to come, but in terms of this issue today,
also a very important one as it relates to the safety our children in getting to
school, particularly the young children, particularly the K-6 kids, particularly
in busy areas. I know certainly in
Mount Pearl and in the greater St. John's region in particular we see a lot of
traffic, busy four-lane roads, and so on.
Snow clearing is an issue and it is a safety concern.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that
we move to Orders of the Day.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that we move to Orders of the Day.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I move Motion 6, pursuant to Standing
Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, Tuesday, May 6,
2014.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 7, pursuant to
Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May
6, 2014.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today,
Tuesday, May 6; and it has been further moved and seconded that this House do
not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 6.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to give notice and ask leave to make a change to the
Public Accounts Committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader has the floor.
Go ahead, please, Sir.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to give notice and ask for leave to
introduce a change to the Public Accounts Committee membership, with leave.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Leave?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
By
leave.
MR.
SPEAKER:
By
leave.
Please, go ahead.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Lake Melville will replace the Member
for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune as a permanent member of the Public Accounts
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to call from the
Order Paper, Motion 1, to move that the House approves in general the budgetary
policy of the government, the Budget Speech.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity to again speak on the
Budget for 2014. Mr. Speaker, a
little earlier today I presented the report of the Government Services Committee
and I would just like to explain to anyone who is not aware of it or is
interested in it that Government Services Committee is one of the Committees
that are made up to review budget Estimates.
The departments that come under the Government Services Committee are:
the Department of Finance, the Public Service Commission, Service Newfoundland
and Labrador, the Department of Transportation and Works; and from the Executive
Council, the Estimates of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Office, Human Resource
Secretariat, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
That is just one of three Committees, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee is made up of government members, Opposition members, and
the Third Party. The members of the
Government Services Committee, which I Chaired, were: the Member for Mount Pearl
South, the Member for Kilbride, the Member for St. John's East, the Member for
St. John's South, the Member for Cape St. Francis, and the Member for Bellevue.
I would just like to thank these members for their time and their input.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR.
FORSEY:
The
Member for Bay of Islands was not on this one this year; he was on another one,
I believe.
In the meantime, I would like to thank them for their
input. Usually what happens is it is
a great exercise, Mr. Speaker, when we do budget Estimates, especially we get
the opportunity and some members in Opposition get the opportunity to ask
questions of the minister and the budget items that are there.
Being on the government side, Mr. Speaker, and being a
government member, we have the privilege of, I guess, the opportunity, to ask
questions around our caucus table as well as when we are doing budgets that we
get the opportunity to present our issues and our concerns to our government,
and to our Finance Minister and as well to our Premier.
That works both ways when we are putting forth our issues and our
concerns for the budget and also discussing the budget after it is completed and
we will always look at the budget for the previous year, which of course was
2013, and in a lot of cases when we are doing budgets, especially budget items,
we go down through the budget and we will see a lot of revised numbers there,
and then there will be the budget for this year.
Of course the budget is what it is; it is a budget and
it is estimated. We will always see
quite a few changes, Mr. Speaker, in the revised and the actual budget for the
end of the year because of different changes in the line items throughout the
year.
Also, Mr. Speaker, just for a point of interest, I
think it is important to know the different departments.
We look at Service Newfoundland and Labrador and we look at
Transportation and Works and different departments that came under Government
Services, for argument's sake. What
people do not probably realize is how much is entailed in the different
departments.
For argument's sake, Service Newfoundland and Labrador,
we had three hours of budget Estimates where we discussed line items and budget
items for that department. There are
so many different sections of the department that come under Service
Newfoundland and Labrador.
For argument's sake, the residential landlord and
tenants' office, where we can put in complaints, they provide the mediation of
consumer complaints. Service NL
provides supervision of insurances, securities, real estate, and mortgage
brokers. It also provides for
regulation of all pension plans registered in the Province.
It all comes under Service Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
What is interesting also is that it provides for the
administration of registered deeds and companies, personal property, and limited
partnerships. All of this comes
under Service NL. There is a cost of
operating, there is a cost of rental, there is a cost of maintenance, and there
is a cost of staffing.
When we go through the budget items we will always see
differences in the budget, Mr. Speaker.
A lot of times it is to do with probably some staffing, there are jobs or
positions that need to be filled, or there was some office rental that was
needed and probably was not acquired at that particular time.
There are so many things that could change the figures.
There could be new positions; there could be professional services and
purchases, all of which is part of the budget.
We also did Transportation and Works.
Transportation and Works comes under Government Services.
That is another department that has a lot of other sectors that we
probably are not even aware of. Some
we are, of course, like snow and ice control.
I know we did Transportation and Works last night and there was a $4
million difference in the snow and ice control, Mr. Speaker.
That was actually budgeted for, but $4 million over.
I guess when you look and when we realize how much snow and ice we had
this year, we can understand why there was extra money spent for things such as
salt.
All of the government buildings, Mr. Speaker, come
under Transportation and Works, such as the hospitals, the schools and other
buildings. You can imagine, along
with the expenses and the operations of the government buildings that comes
under Transportation and Works, you can just imagine the cost to maintain roads
and bridges. The investment we have
had this year was unprecedented to many years regarding road investment, road
infrastructure and bridges. It is
quite an exercise. It is one I was
certainly pleased to be a part of, and while going through it – it came out in
the Budget, and there were a lot of communications that came out and a lot of
releases came out about our investments this year, Mr. Speaker, and there have
been many. There have been quite a
few.
I would just like to touch on a couple of different
departments now regarding investments by our government this year.
One in particular – and these are some facts and some information I think
that should be out there in the public.
I will start with the forestry and agriculture industries, Mr. Speaker,
$20 million to support a diversified and sustainable forest industry.
This includes $985,000 for an agriculture research initiative to fund
research and development projects related to agriculture.
We are always investing in agriculture.
Even in the past couple of years we have invested heavily into the
cranberry industry. We are hoping to
see some fruits of that particular labour in the very near future.
I know out in the Central part of the Province where I am from, the
cranberry industry is certainly doing well.
They have expanded, and pardon the pun, but we are expecting it to grow.
We also have an $8.3 million investment for
silviculture projects, Mr. Speaker.
Again, in Central Newfoundland, the agriculture and the silviculture, the
forestry is a very big part of our industry and our livelihood in the Province,
especially in the Central region.
We have the tree nursery in Central Newfoundland at
Wooddale. Whenever there is
reforestation and replanting right across the Province, it all comes from
Wooddale, Mr. Speaker. That is only
just a portion of what is going on in the Wooddale region.
There is a lot of agriculture in there, a lot of root crops regarding the
vegetables that are grown there.
Again, investments by our government in forestry and agriculture; $5.9 million
to construct resource roads for timber harvesting, Mr. Speaker.
Right across the Province and in Labrador as well, we
are still into the harvesting of forests, of our timber.
It is big in our Province. We
still have papermaking in Corner Brook.
We also have timber sawmills.
We are big in lumber. We are doing
very well in that industry, Mr. Speaker.
We want to utilize all parts of the forest industry, especially our
fibre.
I know during Question Period the Minister of Natural
Resources was actually questioned on that particular aspect of his department
when it comes to forestry with regard to the timber and the fibre, and what we
are doing with it. We are expecting
it to grow. We are looking at new
ventures and we are very optimistic, Mr. Speaker.
That is why this government is looking towards the future and investing
in the very same.
We have $1.7 million for forest insect and disease
control; $4.1 million for fire suppression; close to $12 million for programs
that will further grow the industry, including $3.3 million for the Growing
Forward 2 program, a Federal/Provincial/Territorial initiative helping industry
become more innovative and cost competitive.
That has been a very good program, Mr. Speaker.
It is one that our farmers have availed of, and that is why we are able
to move forward with innovative ways when it comes to farming and harvesting.
Again, as I mentioned regarding the cranberry industry, it has been a
great investment for that particular industry, and the same will go for other
parts of the forest industry when it comes to lumber and sawmills, the
contractors and the woods contractors and so on, Mr. Speaker.
There is $2.5 million for the Agriculture and Agrifoods
Development Fund to help farmers develop larger acreages of land to increase
forage production. I know right
across the Province actually, we hear more about it, that we are developing more
farmland, and we do need to develop more farmland, Mr. Speaker.
We, as a Province, have come a long way but we still have a long way to
go.
We are self-sufficient in fluid milk.
As a matter of fact, we do so well in the dairy industry, Mr. Speaker,
that we have even industrial-use milk right now, which is beneficial for the
farmers, especially the dairy farmers, because what is not used in the Province
to supply all the needs in Newfoundland and Labrador is shipped out of the
Province. When we say industrial
milk, industrial milk is for export and we ship it out of Newfoundland and
Labrador. So, we are self-sufficient
in the dairy industry.
We are very much the same when it comes to eggs and egg
grading, where we still have a couple of egg grading plants in the Province.
The biggest one, of course, being on the Avalon Peninsula.
Probably running around 85 per cent of the production across the
Province.
We are doing very well in some of the farming sectors,
but we are still using the Growing Forward 2 fund to do better in the
agriculture, in the root crops especially, Mr. Speaker.
I have talked to some farmers out my way and they have expanded.
They have cleared extra acreages of land so they can rotate and increase
their crop. We need to do this, Mr.
Speaker, because it was not very long ago this winter when we could not get the
shipments across the gulf because of ice conditions.
We need to make sure that we can avail of certain fruits and vegetables,
especially vegetables and food security.
I thank the Member for Harbour Main.
Harbour Main?
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Harbour Main.
MR.
FORSEY:
Harbour Main - for getting that right word in there.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Not
far from Roaches Line (inaudible).
MR.
FORSEY:
Not
far from Roaches Line. Yes, he is
very familiar with the egg grading there, of course.
Another thing I should mention while I am up is that
when we go to the supermarket, you will still see products there locally and
products from outside the Province, but it is always nice to be able to grab the
local product. Look at the label, I
say, and see where it is manufactured, see where it is harvested or see where it
is packaged. You will probably see
something about Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe in Roaches Line.
You can pick up your dozen eggs and they are locally packaged, Mr.
Speaker.
You can still avail of mainland product and, I guess,
we always will. What I am saying is
we need to move forward with our food security.
That is why we are investing in the Growing Forward program.
Mr. Speaker, $2.2 million for the Provincial Agrifoods
Assistance Program to fund activities to improve industry competitiveness and
promote growth and commercialization.
That is what I was just talking about.
It is a bigger investment.
The $2.3 million for the land consolidation is another
good one, too. Sometimes farmers do
it – I think they survive in that industry because of their passion for it.
It is not so much the money they make.
They survive; they make a good dollar.
I think it is the passion that they do it, but they also provide a
necessity for us. We do not see it
sometimes and do not notice it.
Mr. Speaker, $2.3 million for the Land Consolidation
Program to provide an opportunity for non-farm landowners and retiring farmers
to sell granted land to the provincial government.
We can utilize that land as well, Mr. Speaker.
It gives the opportunity for a farmer who spent forty and fifty years
getting out there every morning, 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning, and working from
dawn until dark.
It is great to be able to give them that opportunity as
we have done with the fishery in the past, Mr. Speaker, through buyouts and so
on. It is a very similar process.
That is why we saw the need for that.
We need to invest more and we need to keep an eye on that, but we also
need to bring in, as we said, young farmers as well.
There are some interested right now.
It was only this past week when this House was closed,
in my own district I sat down with a constituent, a resident of the area, who
has now gone through an environmental assessment for farming land there.
He will be going into farming, Mr. Speaker, and he will also be going
into probably dairy, maybe eggs, some animals, and such, which is what we need.
They see the need. They are
young, but they are willing to take that chance and we want to be there to
support them.
There is $411,000 for agricultural limestone programs
so the farmers are able to purchase limestone at a reasonable cost.
Can you imagine, almost $500,000 for limestone?
It seems like could it ever be that much money just for that alone?
You can imagine the cost for the operation for farmers, what it costs,
and the time they put into it, Mr. Speaker.
There are so many good things in the Budget this year.
I am sure I will get another chance.
I wanted to get into some things that are going on in my district but it
affects us provincially. Of course,
it was our investment in education and the number of schools that are being
built and the amount of renovations.
I recall in 2003 when the Opposition Party, or the
government of the day but they became the Opposition Party, wanted to eliminate
school fees. That was their big
platform that time. Well, we have
eliminated school fees, Mr. Speaker.
We brought in free textbooks. We
brought in skilled trades in the high schools.
Today, students do not have to wonder about where they want to go if they
want to go into the trades; they are taught it in the high schools now, which of
course is great. There are better
opportunities than I had at the time when I went to school.
I thank you for your time, and hopefully I will have
another chance to speak on the Budget.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR.
EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have to say, before I begin, I would just like to
wish all of the candidates in the Nunatsiavut election that is taking place
today the best of luck and the best of a good future.
We are all interested to learn who is going to form the new government in
Nunatsiavut today.
Mr. Speaker, I was certainly glad to hear the Member
for Exploits talking about the need that still remains when you look at this
year's Budget. It is a good Budget.
There are obvious reasons for that; it is because it is probably an
election Budget. It does a lot when
you consider that you had to borrow money, especially coming off of ten years of
the most resources, the most royalties this Province has ever seen, Mr. Speaker.
I find it hard for that government to go back past ten years and still
trying to lay blame for things that happened in the last ten years.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to talk about
the petition that my hon. colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl South, talked
about which was busing. I think the
law states that at 1.6 kilometres, students have to be bused.
I would like to take that rule and apply it up in Northern Labrador,
where temperatures reach fifty-two degrees sometimes.
I would like to talk about a Kindergarten student because the government
has proposed all-day Kindergarten, something that we pushed for.
In January, Mr. Speaker, a Kindergarten student has to
walk as much as 1.4 kilometres at minus forty-five degrees.
Minus forty-five, walking 1.4 kilometres, Mr. Speaker, if it is further
than 1.6 kilometres down here in the sunny south, they get a bus.
Mr. Speaker, this government has been contacted, I know the former member
has been contacted, about coming up with a plan that will allow these students
to be picked up, these young kids having to walk all this distance in sometimes
clothing that is not good enough to walk to school in St. John's in.
The Nunatsiavut Government minister has tried to make
contact with this government about drafting up a plan.
Now I know that the environment sometimes does not permit roads to be
paved in all the communities on the North Coast, but there are alternatives.
We use snowmobiles all winter.
So, there is room for improvement, Mr. Speaker.
I would certainly like to be able to see a day when a Kindergarten
student can be driven to school in minus forty-five degree temperatures rather
than walk.
Any lower than minus forty-five, the schools have to
shut down and that is the cut-off up there.
I know what it is like to be out in minus forty-five, Mr. Speaker, and so
do a lot of us, but there are many of us who have never seen it.
I am certainly hopeful there can be some contact made and there can be a
plan for students as young as five years old walking around in minus forty-five
degree temperatures.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the
announcement that was made on upgrading the long-term care facility in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay. I was glad to see
there is a twenty-bed extension in the plan, because I go into the long-term
care facility almost on a weekly basis and it is sad to see a lot of our seniors
who are stuck in the hallways. These
people have laid the foundation for which we live today, and this is the respect
they get. Mr. Speaker, that is
unbecoming. It is unbecoming of any
government. I am looking forward to
an extension.
Just to add to that, Mr. Speaker, we saw the Newman
Building in Goose Bay close down last month.
All of a sudden there were thirty people out on the street.
A lot of these residents who were forced to leave this home were special
needs residents from all over Labrador.
That is the reason I bring this up, Mr. Speaker.
It was good to see there was a prompt response for the short term.
There is even some work being done in the long term.
I would just like to stress that there is a need for
another facility that looks after single, special needs residents who need that
extra little bit of care. It should
be provided. It is provided
everywhere else. A lot of the
reasons for the hardships on these young people, and old people, is the rental
rates in Lake Melville – because of the Muskrat Falls deal – have skyrocketed.
It has gone to a point where even some middle-income families and
individuals cannot afford to pay their rent, Mr. Speaker.
They just cannot afford it.
You are looking at $3,500 or $4,000 a month.
That is beyond the reach of many, many people and that list is growing as
we speak.
I also saw in the Budget that this government has
installed broadband and Internet capability.
I think the number was 95 per cent of the communities in this Province,
Mr. Speaker, which is good. It is
good to see. It is good to see that
we have come a long way, but there is still a large percentage who do not know
what it is like to have high-speed Internet, cell service.
That need is still out there.
An area that I represent, Mr. Speaker, happens to be
one of those places. I have said it
time and time again to drive this fact home, that when young Burton Winters went
missing he had a cellphone in his pocket, and he was five kilometres from
Makkovik. It would save lives.
It has saved lives. I have
heard many stories up and down the highways of the Province, on both the Island
portion and Labrador, where cell service has saved lives.
We hear petitions on this side almost on a daily basis of how important
that need is.
I have talked to officials at Bell Aliant about the
need to upgrade services for Internet capability.
Many areas in this Province are expanding in terms of development.
My district is no exception.
We have had some major developments over the last ten years, both in the
offshore and in the mining sector, and there is still potential for development,
Mr. Speaker, but what we are not seeing is the services that is required to
deliver those developments.
On the South Coast it is the same problem.
You have a road that is coming up through, and we hear of accidents
almost on a daily basis. Some of
them are near fatal. That just shows
there is need for improvement. It is
just a basic gravel road, Mr. Speaker.
I have seen pictures of the South Coast highway and it is hard to drive
an eighteen wheeler over that let alone a small car.
It is virtually impossible.
That just drives home the need for communications that this government brags
about but we are still waiting for.
As I said earlier, I did talk to officials at Bell
Aliant about the prospects of how you would increase Internet capability and
they actually came forward with a number of options.
I did speak to the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs about it
briefly. They have been given
development plans from Bell Aliant.
When Muskrat Falls was being started, Mr. Speaker,
there was no cell service and there was no Internet capability.
What did this government do?
They spent $24 million to pipe a fibre op cable into Muskrat Falls.
The fortunate thing is that the rest of Lake Melville benefitted from
this fibre op link as well. It was
just recently that this government made a $4 million contribution to the Conne
River area, which is a good thing.
It upgraded the Internet capability.
A couple of options are to bring fibre op cable out of
Goose Bay where it is now, either up the coast or down the coast.
If it does not reach all the destinations, what it will do is it will
free up broadband radio signals that can be sent via microwave up as far north
as Nain, Natuashish, and Voisey's Bay for that matter.
There is always room for improvement.
When you look at the fact that Internet capability on the North Coast of
Labrador and on the South Coast of Labrador is totally maxed out, there is no
room, what does that show for support of development?
It shows absolutely no support for development.
This is a region that is progressing in terms of development every year.
I talked to the minister just last night in Estimates.
We talked about the ferry service and the fact that the contract is
delayed. I think one thing that
bothered me the most is the fact that the existing ferry is in need of
replacement engines. We all knew
this, given the service we had over the last two summers.
It is not comforting to know when a ferry with a full
load of passengers goes dead in the water, Mr. Speaker, with a full complement
of crew and passengers aboard. A
multi-engine ship going dead in the water is a danger.
They were lucky they were not in some dangerous area like the rugged
coast in the Cape Harrison area where there is no forgiveness should something
like this go wrong.
Both engines have to be replaced.
It is comforting to know that work has started, it is being done.
To know that the Northern Ranger
is going to run on one engine admittedly this year until they can get the second
one done just shows the lack of timing and commitment.
This work should have been done last fall, not in the spring when
shipping season is coming upon us.
That is another area where we anticipate problems when we are trying to deliver
e-service. Now that Nunatsiavut
Group of Companies has taken over delivery of the service 100 per cent, they
certainly have their work cut out to try to maintain a schedule and to satisfy
the local passengers as well as tourism, which is another expanding development
area in Nunatsiavut.
Another area that I was glad to see forward movement
was a commitment of $350,000 in a cost-share agreement with the Nunatsiavut
Government, bringing the total up to $700,000 on housing repairs.
It is certainly a step in the right direction, but I would just like to
present some statistics from one housing construction agency in Nunatsiavut.
The cost of a three-bedroom home, and this is when you factor in land
readiness and installation of water and sewer hookups, which is mandatory, is
approximately $300,000 per home. You
take a cost-share agreement and you look at the Province's portion of $350,000,
you have enough to build one home – one home – and if it is a four-bedroom home
$350,000 would not cover the cost of that one construction.
For new housing, this one housing agency says there are
sixty-seven applications for new homes, and the list is growing.
When you look at applications for repairs, which are what this $350,000
is earmarked for, there are eighty-one applications for repairs.
I am sure the previous minister did visit Nain; he must have seen some of
the conditions of these houses. They
are almost to the point where it is actually better to tear them down and build
new. Anyway, if you took an average
of $20,000 per repair, which is very, very conservative, and you managed to pull
in eighty-one applications, it would not require $350,000; it would require $1.6
million. That is just for repairs.
There is forward movement through the contributions
from this government, and the contributions through the Nunatsiavut Government.
It is good news, it is a small contribution, but I know that over the
last two weeks housing issues in the campaigns of many of the candidates in the
Nunatsiavut election that is actually taking place today did resonate, and
certainly they have made plans to address the housing needs.
I think I would just like to talk a little bit about
the remediation program for Hopedale.
I just have a few minutes and I do know that I will get another chance.
I was glad to see they continued the commitment for the community of
Hopedale that has been stuck with PCBs because of the American base there in the
1950s and where they dumped their waste products.
I guess the environmental guidelines back then are nothing to where they
are now.
The reason I am thankful for this, Mr. Speaker, is
because if you look at the cancer rates in relation to neighbouring communities,
the rate of cancer in Hopedale is marginally higher than any other community.
If you classify Hopedale as an impacted site, like this government has, a
whole different set of guidelines are applied; but if you talk to many of the
experts that have worked on the site, there are portions of Hopedale, the
community itself and nearby areas, that are 100 per cent contaminated with PCBs
– 100 per cent contaminated, which makes it a contaminated site.
Now, I know that all of the work to remediate the PCBs
or remove the PCBs from this community is not going to happen overnight.
Mr. Speaker, the PCBs have leaked into the harbour where a lot of the
residents actually gather fish for subsistence.
Now they cannot, because it is contaminated; the fish are contaminated.
They struggle through new knowledge, new guidelines,
Health Canada guidelines have kicked in, and they are struggling through this,
Mr. Speaker. To see that there is a
commitment in terms of a site being impacted, I am hopeful that someday that
Hopedale can be designated as a contaminated site.
If, in fact, it is a contaminated site, as many experts already say, then
the guidelines for remediation change and it becomes more of a health issue,
more of a focus, and more of a demand for the contaminants in Hopedale to be
removed.
I think I am going to leave it there, Mr. Speaker,
because I do have a number of other issues and I do realize that I will probably
get another chance to address this Budget.
I will take my place for now.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
recognize the hon. The Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is indeed an honour and a privilege to get up in
this House once again and speak to the Budget this year.
First and foremost, if I may, I would like to say thank you to the people
of the great District of Lake Melville for their continued support, their
continued faith in me, and the continuing dialogue where we sit, we talk, we
have a cup of tea, we go to sporting events together and we talk about the
things that matter to us in the Big Land.
Mr. Speaker, I have that same rapport with the members
on this side of the House, and our Cabinet and our Premier; we talk about what
matters. I have always taken the
time to go out and see as many people as I can.
When we are not in the Legislature, we like to get to the various
communities in our districts, see the community events, get out and talk with
the youth, talk with the elders, and find out how we are doing.
All indicators in Lake Melville, of course we are having challenging
times because we are growing so fast, we have so much economic development, so
much prosperity, of course there are going to be stresses with that; but, by all
indictors from the people within my district, they see what we are doing, they
know what we are doing, and they are responding to the amounts of money that we
are putting into the areas of concern that they have.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague across the House, the
hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, I, too, would like to extend my best wishes
to all those people up in Nunatsiavut and in Labrador who are running in the
elections today. It is also well
known in this House that I served two terms within the Nunatsiavut Government.
It is a very challenging job.
These people, they put themselves out there as well.
I guess anybody who puts themselves out for public office to represent
the best interests of the people that live in their communities, they have to
have a lot of guts. It takes a lot
of strength and fortitude. It takes
a lot of nerve. You have to have
thick, almost rhino-like skin, if you will, to put up with the demands that
people put on you. That is fair.
People want and expect a lot from you as an elected official.
It certainly, at times, takes the good out of you.
It is certainly stressful, but the people want to make sure that you have
the right stuff to be in those jobs, and they want to make sure that you are
going to be there to speak for them and to fight for the things they want.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
RUSSELL:
The
best of luck to everybody in the Nunatsiavut Government running for election,
those new candidates out there and those people that are seeking re-election.
I truly wish them the best for themselves and their families.
I wish the Nunatsiavut Government all the best as well, Mr. Speaker.
They have a tough job in terms of administering their trust funds doing
what is best for the Aboriginal communities.
I, being a beneficiary, like my hon. colleague across the way, of the
Nunatsiavut Land Claims Agreement, I want to see them succeed in every aspect of
what they do.
Mr. Speaker, I was certainly glad to hear my colleague
across the way say that he was glad to see the $6.6 million that I have
certainly lobbied and advocated for, for some time, to see the twenty-bed
expansion to the long-term care centre in Goose Bay.
Is it needed? Absolutely.
Did the people look for it when I was even campaigning back in 2011?
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Here
we are delivering, responding to the needs of the people.
We know that Happy Valley-Goose Bay is the hub of
Labrador, if you will. People come
from near and far, especially for the opportunities that we have with Muskrat
Falls right now, especially with the boom that is happening with all of the new
businesses setting up shop. With
that, it is guaranteed to have increased demands on our infrastructure.
What we have done here with this government is said okay, we need this
allocation of funds, we need those beds, we need to serve our seniors and the
people who were there for the long haul, those new people who are coming in and
bringing their family with them, we are going to be there to see them through.
I would like to thank the outgoing Minister of Health
for her hard work. It is certainly
not an easy job. I commend her on
everything she has done. She was
certainly responsive to me. Whether
it was allocations of money over the years for new equipment, for new programs
to be offered within Labrador-Grenfell Health up our way, she was always there
to take the time, to spend the time with me in representation of the people of
the great District of Lake Melville, just to talk about our needs and to
respond, to get the gear there, to get the money allocated there.
This is just the latest one, Mr. Speaker, because not only are we
responding to the needs of the people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in the great
District of Lake Melville, but also in Lab West.
As you see, the Minister of Transportation too, we have
an allocation of upwards of $14 million to finish up the hospital over there.
It is well needed, Mr. Speaker.
That community is certainly always booming.
I cannot see that there has ever been a slowdown to date in Lab West.
I spent a lot of time there and talked with a lot of people, and we are
responding to their needs as well.
My hon. colleague across the way for Torngat Mountains
also referenced the closing of the boarding home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
That was something beyond our control.
I want to commend the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills on his
rapid response to the issue that our community faced.
We put together and the minister put together, representing several
different departments, an action team comprised of officials to look at, to
gauge what needs to be done to respond to the thirty or so residents who had to
be moved immediately.
I would also like to take this time, and I would be
remiss if I did not, Mr. Speaker, to commend the Salvation Army, and to commend
our mayor and our town council for their reaction to this issue as well.
The Salvation Army was there to make sure that nobody was going to go
hungry during the transition. Our
Housing Corporation was there, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
We made sure, Mr. Speaker, that nobody was without a
roof, and nobody was without a meal.
Labrador-Grenfell Health, our officials, was all there.
We had social workers present to make sure that people – and he was
indeed right, we do have people who have complex needs.
Our response was there, it was appropriate, adequate, and we are
continuing to work towards a long-term solution to that issue.
To know the people were cared for, everybody – and jump
is a good word to say it, Mr. Speaker.
When it became known that this was a problem we were going to face,
everybody jumped. We jumped together
and we jumped high enough to solve the problem.
Everybody is taken care of and I am glad to see that response from not
only the local community, the municipal government, those not-for-profit groups
like the Salvation Army that are there with their hearts on their sleeves making
sure that they are there to support real people in need.
Everybody came together and it was a beautiful thing.
The work is still ongoing, I will say.
Moving on, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say just a
few comments about the pavement.
Everybody loves pavement no matter where you are.
I will say something –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
RUSSELL:
Thanks, guys. I will say something
that I said in this House before; as a young man growing up in Labrador, the
Churchill road was really not much more than a trail.
I hunt, I fished, and I trapped that trail, if you will, with my father.
I can remember crossing some of those places in the
winter where there were just sheer cliffs on either side, Mr. Speaker.
It was an exhilarating yet scary experience.
Back in those days we needed to hunt, we needed to fish, we needed to
trap, and we needed to have gardens.
You needed that in order to sustain your family, in order to supplement your
income, and supplement your diet.
People in Labrador are no strangers to having to rely heavily on the land.
The Big Land certainly offers up all we needed, Mr. Speaker.
My point being is that I remember somebody saying to me
as a young boy: Why don't we have this?
Why isn't this paved? Why
isn't this done? Why are the curves
in the hills so steep? Mr. Speaker,
they said: You will never see it paved in your lifetime.
Here we are, Mr. Speaker – and I am going to segue into
why I want to talk about the road right here by my recent trip.
For those who were watching the proceedings in the House today, you saw
me talk about the great people of Churchill Falls.
This past weekend they had a wonderful graduation.
I tell you what, they say it is a company town in Churchill Falls – of
course, I had to drive that 300 kilometres to get there, which is how I am tying
this into pavement.
They say that this is a company town, but if you go and
you spend a little time with the people of Churchill Falls – and certainly now
they are there to fulfill a purpose, to run the plant, to make sure the power
flows and the water is regulated, and all that good stuff – but how intimate and
how beautiful the graduation was in Churchill Falls; it cannot be said enough.
If you have 100 students, Mr. Speaker, in some of the bigger
municipalities, it just would not have the level of personal attention to these
young adults that we did have up in Labrador in Churchill Falls.
Once again, Mr. Speaker – and this was my third
consecutive grad that I attended – it was an honour and privilege to get up,
bring greetings, and present the certificates of accomplishment on behalf of
Premier Marshall to these eight outstanding individuals.
To see what the town, the people, the volunteers, the beautiful work they
did on the Safe Grad was just a wonderful event for the kids.
To see how the company, Nalcor, of course, comes in there and helps
support the youth in the town and the people was a beautiful thing.
Mr. Speaker, my wife and I – of course, my wife wanted
to come to the grad. Her work
schedule and my work schedule, for once in a blue moon, if you will, actually
coincided that we could actually get to an event on the outskirts of my district
at the same time, but we had to drive that 300 kilometres.
I tell you what, everybody is anticipating that sixty or so kilometres in
between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls that, once done this year,
with the money allocated in this Budget by the Minister of Transportation, will
see us with that full stretch of pavement.
The road was beautiful, the work was top-notch, Mr.
Speaker, and if you have ever driven that road you will know it is beautiful in
terms of the wildlife, the scenery.
In years gone by, those big hills, those dips, those are all gone; we have taken
care of that. What we have now is a
beautiful drive, Mr. Speaker. When
the road is completed both going from east to west and then going from north to
south, it is going to make a difference in terms of people coming in to see our
beautiful communities in the Big Land, spending some money, and helping with the
economic generation within the communities.
So, with that, I would just like to say that
sixty-kilometre stretch is about to be a thing of the past, Mr. Speaker, because
you do have to reduce your speed.
You want to make sure whoever you have in the vehicle with you are safe.
We are on the cusp of finishing the Trans-Labrador Highway from east to
west.
Also in this Budget, and it counts because the branch
to turnoff, Mr. Speaker, is in Lake Melville.
So we have also committed to go eighty kilometres toward Cartwright
Junction, which says, one, we are committed and we are responding to the needs
of the people. In my district, they
are made up of everybody from Cartwright and from the smaller communities on the
South Coast. They are all coming up
my way for the opportunities we have there and they are most welcome, I will say
that.
What you are seeing is a government that responds.
We put the money where we need to.
You look through the Budget documents that are coming, we are not only
spending money in blue districts; we are spending money in districts that are
represented by other stripes in this House, Mr. Speaker.
We are doing what is right by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and
that is what we do.
Before I stop talking about pavement, Mr. Speaker, and
I know there is a lot of drama going on in the House and all that about pavement
and about paving companies and all this, but I tell you one thing.
If you have not been in Labrador and you have not been up the
Trans-Labrador Highway, you have to understand this: there are no alternate
routes. There is no other way to go.
When there is a forest fire on, that is it.
You have people backed up.
You have vehicles upon vehicles backed up.
They are being escorted through zones that are covered by fire and smoke,
Mr. Speaker. To think that we are
going to be able to engage in laying down asphalt during a time like that, where
pretty much Labrador has been disconnected from itself in terms of the
communities reaching from Labrador West into Lake Melville, it is just not
possible.
Now, in terms of keeping everybody safe, keeping
contractors safe and their workers, that has to be paramount, too.
Everybody has to take their time in crossing that stretch of road, Mr.
Speaker, when you have an act of God in progress that happens to be a forest
fire that nobody can help. It is as
simple as that. You do not put
anybody at risk, certainly not.
I tell you what; we have $11.7 million, Mr. Speaker, in
new water bombers to help with events like that.
This is response from the government.
If you were in Labrador, you look at our timber stands and you will
realize Labrador is beautiful in its majesty in terms of the wilderness we have
and the resources. The logging is
huge. When a forest fire hits, it
hits; nothing can be done about that.
We had $11.7 million for two new water bombers, and
that only builds on the $40 million or so that we spent in the year before.
This is a government that says, not only are we going to invest in the
safety of people in our communities, but also in terms of our wilderness, our
natural resources. We want to
protect that as well. Sometimes you
cannot help these things but it is nice to know that the government is going to
be there to put money where it is needed in order to deal with tragedies such as
that, Mr. Speaker.
I am running out of time again, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly hope to get up again but I would just like to talk about a
few more things before we go on, in terms of what is offered in this Budget.
I just talked a little bit about pavement but I will talk about $76.3
million for the widening and upgrading of Phase II and Phase III of the
Trans-Labrador Highway. We know the
importance on this side of the House of the connectivity of the road.
We know what it means to the people in these isolated communities who are
driving these dirt roads, and we will call a spade a spade.
I am blessed with having my wonderful wife from the
Northern Peninsula, and her family has always been there.
I have driven that south coast road many, many times, although my
colleague from Torngat Mountains said if you want to drive it in a small car it
is virtually impossible. Well we
have made the trip in my truck, my car, many, many times to get the kids to the
Island for medical, to visit the family, to get out and enjoy some of the things
that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer across this great Province for
families as well, Mr. Speaker.
It is not as bad as it is being made out to be, but it
is a gravel road. When weather does
not work with us in terms of keeping that nice, dry surface on the road, Mr.
Speaker, that is all we can do. When
it gets soft, it gets mushy. When
the water comes down, what do we do?
We send our people out and we grade it.
We maintain it as best we can.
The one thing we are seeing as a result of all of that
from this government is a continued focus on making sure the people of Labrador
will enjoy asphalt and blacktop on that road progressively over time, and year
after year we will make a dent in it until it is done, Mr. Speaker.
That is our commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is the way it goes.
Mr. Speaker, we talked already about the $13.3 million
for the hospital in Lab West. We
have talked about, and I cannot talk about this enough, Mr. Speaker, the $6.6
million for the expansion in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, one that is currently being
celebrated by the people of the great District of Lake Melville.
They have watched me respond as the MHA.
They watched this government respond as the government of the day.
What they have seen is that we recognize and respect, as is done in
Labrador, our elders, those who have paved the way for us, and pardon the pun,
we are paving the way for them too, Mr. Speaker, with not only asphalt but with
the right amount of infrastructure to meet the needs of the people.
Are we growing?
Are we going to have growing pains as we keep having this prosperity in
this great Province? You are darn
right we are, Mr. Speaker. That is
all part and parcel with economic success.
With increases in mineral shipments, with new ventures such as Muskrat
Falls, with new mines that are going to open up, with new power available for
these mines, all things done by this government, Mr. Speaker, we are in good
shape.
If you look at some of the economic indicators that are
out there for all the world to see – the people from across the way might want
to tell all you people out there in TV land and out there who are in the public:
oh, they might put spin on stuff and they might create drama where there is
none. The bottom line is this, this
Province has never been better. More
people are working here than ever before. More
people are working.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
RUSSELL:
More people are making more money, Mr. Speaker, than they ever have in their
lives.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
RUSSELL:
Not
only that, but in terms of growth, we are number one across the country, Mr.
Speaker. Do not listen to anything
you hear, do not listen to the spin and the rhetoric being used out there.
The bottom line is this; things are great right here at home.
It is only getting better.
When it comes to those measurements taken across the
country, we are right up there in the top in most if not all of them, Mr.
Speaker. Like I said, people are
making money than they ever have.
People are buying automobiles. They
are having higher levels of disposable income than they have ever had, which
means after the bills are paid, after the mortgage –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) fact.
MR.
RUSSELL:
This is fact, this is irrefutable.
Once you have the bills paid, Mr. Speaker, then you have some money to chip in
and have some fun with the family for recreation, like never before.
We have control of our unemployment rates.
We have more opportunities coming for people in this Province.
You cannot refute that.
The bottom line here is this; I stood up with the
intention of talking mostly about my district and went a little further.
I talked a little bit about Lab West and our investments in asphalt,
blacktop, about health care services, and about responding to those in need.
I talked a little bit about some of the issues that we
jumped on in a rapid response type of fashion, Mr. Speaker, to deal with people
with complex needs up my way in the great District of Lake Melville.
It all comes down to this, if people are saying oh we have to change,
this is a tired old government. This
tired old government is putting us to heights that have never been attained in
our past as a Province, leading into the future.
What I am saying is things are good, we are strong.
This Province is strong. Our
youth are going to be strong and have opportunities like never before, Mr.
Speaker. As we go forward as a
government, we will talk with the people and sit with the people.
If it takes a cup of tea or a formal
presentation via committees at the town halls, whatever it takes, we will be
listening to the people. We will be
responding to the people. We will
maintain the prosperity, the economic development, and the success that we have
had. This government has put into
place, fostered, and facilitated the supports here in the great Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a privilege for me to stand in my place here and
offer a few more comments with respect to the Budget, and in particular how it
relates to the Department of Education, seeing that I am the critic for the
department.
I first wanted to say a special thank you to the
Wigmore Seniors Association who had me out to their monthly meeting last night
and talked about some issues of relevance to the people who live in that area of
St. John's North. Whether they are
municipal issues or provincial issues or federal issues, it is always useful for
me to know what my constituents are thinking.
I think, like a number of members in the House, I have
a privileged position in that while the House of Assembly is sitting, I can
participate in district events in the mornings when the House is not sitting,
and in the evenings. I know that
lots of members who are in from out of town do not enjoy that option and, in
fact, spend time away from their families.
So, it is not lost on me that is a great privilege that I have.
In addition to having a seat in the House of Assembly,
I wanted say a special thank you to Pearl, Ralph, Carm, Ros, and Gert who all
volunteer with the Wigmore Seniors Association and have been very kind to me
over the years.
I would like to welcome back the former Minister of
Education, who has now returned to – I do not know if it is like
Welcome Back, Kotter or not.
He is an educator, and I guess Mr. Kotter was an educator, and we have
the minister returning. I believe he
originally was appointed that position back in 2009, and here we are and he is
back again.
I was interested to question and hear from the former
Minister of Education in the Estimates Committee.
Some of the things he said I agreed with, some of them I did not agree
with, and some of them I am still trying to figure out.
One of the things that I have raised in the House of Assembly, my
colleagues have raised in the House of Assembly, we have raised publicly, is the
whole issue of school size and capacity to house and provide a decent level of
education to students in this Province.
We have pointed out on a number of occasions that government seems to be
building school facilities that are too small to house and to provide education
to the school population that it was intended to serve.
We have seen that with Carbonear Academy, with gym class in the lunchroom
and students eating their lunch at their desk, which is certainly unsanitary,
amongst other things.
The former Minister of Education had said in Estimates,
and I am still trying to figure it out – I went back a couple of times and
listened to the audio recording, even though the transcript is not up yet.
The minister talked about the literature, I guess he meant the research
literature, not supporting or having as many – he said: We could build schools
that houses as many as 2,000 students, but the literature does not support that.
He said: We are trying to build schools that are more appropriate, or
suggests they will be more appropriate to house about 600 students.
I thought that was interesting because we have many
schools that have more than 600 students, and many of those that were built
under capacity have modular classrooms, portable classrooms, where students are
basically having education delivered in the front or the back lot in a temporary
facility. Now, a lot of people
question that, and I certainly do.
Some people do not have any problem.
The former minister did not have any problem with that.
I am not sure about the current minister.
It really comes down to a question of whether or not people are entitled
to receive the same level of education uniformly across the Province, if indeed
that is what government's intention is.
So I went back and I looked at some of the statistics
online for schools that the minister implied would be overcrowded, those that
would have over 600 students in them.
I certainly noted that there were quite a number: Holy Trinity Elementary
has 752 students, Holy Trinity High has 710 students, Paradise Elementary has
710 students, and Holy Family Elementary School has 715 students.
Beachy Cove Elementary as we know is overcrowded with 688 students.
Goulds Elementary are undergoing reorganization due to overcrowding
there. They had 636 students, and
this was data from 2012-2013.
As we know, there has been quite a lot of discussion
and turmoil as it comes to the Mount Pearl-Paradise system: Mount Pearl
Intermediate has 816 students, 619 at Mount Pearl Senior High, 719 at O'Donel,
and St. Peter's Elementary, which we all know is overcrowded, has 750 students.
Then other schools in the Province that meet the former minister's
definition of being overcrowded, and I am not sure if he was just implying this
would be the case with elementary schools or all schools but Prince of Wales
Collegiate in my district, in St. John's North, has 702 students, MacDonald
Drive Elementary has 702 students, Mary Queen of Peace has 703, Gonzaga has 716,
Holy Heart has 956, and that would be massively overcrowded according to the
former minister's definition.
I could go on and on and on, but I think at some point
somebody over on the other side is going to have to get a handle on what is big
enough, what is too big, what overcrowding in schools constitutes, and then
whether or not it makes sense to have students in portable, modular classrooms
for up to a decade until we assume or government is hoping that the pressure
goes away.
Their hope that the pressure goes away is not
consistent with their Population Growth Strategy or any of the purported belief
that our population is actually going to increase with time.
If it would, we would have even more overcrowding or at least we would
have a static situation; there would be some consistency in the overcrowding
that was suggested in what the minister said in Estimates.
That was one thing I wanted to mention, and maybe the
new Minister of Education can look into that.
We could build schools that are large enough to house the students who
have their education provided in our schools.
I wanted to also talk about evaluation because
evaluation is the cornerstone of quality assessment, of improvement of student
performance and student success in our schools.
I know the former Minister of Education amalgamated all of the English
language school districts last year with the promise that we are going to save
millions of dollars, and it looks, from the budget Estimates document, that in
fact actually it is costing more now than it did before.
There was no cost savings that anybody can really see, and the minister
has been asked numerous times and he has not been able to provide any answer
about what it is he was talking about last year.
No one seems to know.
Since he created the mega school district, which I do
not know if he was hoping that they would be able to control it from this
building rather than having a democratically elected system of school trustees,
but either way, the mega school boards still has, as far as I know, no
constitution in by-laws and no formal evaluation policy.
Basically the cornerstone of education is missing.
It raises a lot of questions.
One of the things that I asked the minister about he seemed to – well, I am not
sure where he is still, the former minister, but I would certainly like to hear
from the new minister about this so-called no zero policy that the Eastern
School District had, a number of other school districts had, and I guess a
number of parents and teachers are wondering whether the new English language
school district is going to go down that road.
There are many reasons to avoid this so-called no zero policy.
That is why many students and a great many teachers oppose such a policy.
They oppose it for a variety of reasons.
It is pretty obvious to me as an educator that this
policy really flies in the face of the idea that teachers would have some
professional discretion in what they do, that they would more or less have their
grading policy dictated to them in such a micromanaging way.
In fact, my wife is a teacher and there are certainly a lot of teachers
in this House of Assembly and former teachers.
Teachers know who their students are.
It is not like they need to be told this sort of thing.
They know it is unrealistic to expect to have a one-size-fits-all model
for evaluation for students. They
know that.
Another thing a no zero policy does is it takes away
significant consequences that teachers can use for students who fail their work.
I had a parent say to me the other day: My student is doing reasonably
well in school and now they realize they are getting into the high school years
and they do not have to submit the work if they do not want to.
They just do not have to do it.
This is actually causing their child to slack off.
If you look at it really, it makes a lot of sense.
That child is actually reasonably smart.
If you look at a child who does hand in their work, who does work hard
and say they get a grade of – if they were to submit the work and only get a
failing grade of 40 per cent or 30 per cent, they would be better off not
handing it in at all under this so-called no zero policy that the former
minister seemed to embrace before we left for the Easter break.
Conscientious students, students who work hard,
students who hand in their work get penalized while others do not learn any
value at all of completing their work.
It really fails students in my opinion and certainly in the opinion of
others because there is basically no research backing this up at all.
In addition to being logically flawed it is unsupported by research.
As far as I have been able to gather, this particular policy is supported
by exactly one study that was conducted in British Columbia with students with
special education needs. It is sort
of odd that is forming the cornerstone of our evaluation policy in our schools.
I go back to what I was saying before; it really fails
to prepare students for life after school.
Employers do not pay people for doing nothing.
We do know that the Minister of Transportation and Works does pay – at
least he paid Humber Valley Paving 60 per cent of a contract for doing 30 per
cent of the work. I would not want
that minister to be the Minister of Education, I do not think, if you get 60 per
cent for doing 30 per cent. I think
it is an odd way of doing business.
Most employers, a vast majority of employers, would not
pay somebody for doing nothing. I
certainly understand that a college, a university, private training institutions
across Newfoundland and Labrador in the post-secondary system, they are
certainly not going to be rewarding young people for doing no work, for
plagiarizing work, for cheating on assignments, for copying from somebody else,
or just not handing in their work at all.
No one is going to reward our young people for that.
No one is going to reward our students who learn not to hand in their
assignments in high school; no one is going to reward them for that in college,
university, or in life.
I was reading an interesting article about this.
It said a pilot who never flies a plane, an electrician who never wires a
house, and a journalist who never hands in a story can never expect to be paid.
Employers are never going to accommodate workers who do not do their
work, so teachers need to prepare our students for these realities of the work
world. So, I wanted to point that
out.
People say: Well, what are the consequences beyond not
preparing our children for the real world? Well, all we have to do is look at
international test scores. Last
December, we had scores released by the Program for International Student
Assessment, PISA – not pizza. That
is a test of competencies of fifteen-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and
science. It is carried out by all
the member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation Development.
One of the great thing about this, it provides a province-by-province
breakdown of all of our students' performance in reading, writing, and science.
We can look across the provinces, we can look at the
Canadian average, we can look at the OECD average, and we can look at all the
member nations and participants in that study.
Of course, former educators across the way will have some familiarity
with this.
In this test – and I will give you an example of some
of the consequences of not providing a decent level of education to our
children. Mathematical literacy – I
do not want to get too technical here – is assessed on a six point scale with
this particular test, with level one being the lowest end of the scale, so one
being the lowest end of the scale.
The tasks gets more and more difficult as you go along and more complex towards
the higher end of the scale, which is six.
So it goes from one up to six.
Thirty-nine per cent of students in Canada were at least at level three,
and 86 per cent of students in Canada were at least at level two.
Level two is required.
Educators will know that level two is basically considered to be a baseline of
mathematical proficiency that is required to participate fully in modern
society. It is the basic level of
mathematical knowledge one would need to survive in our world, effectively.
Well, how did our fifteen-year-old students' test
scores compare with the rest of Canada and the rest of the member nations of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development?
We should be concerned about how all that turned out.
In Canada, only 14 per cent of students scored below level two.
That is below that level of mathematical proficiency that is required to
participate in our modern society and to get by.
In this Province, no less than 21 per cent of our fifteen-year-olds were
below level two on mathematical proficiency on that PISA international test.
It is one of the worst results in Canada, and it really
pains me to say that because I know how hard our teachers work.
I know how hard our principals work.
I have spoken to many of them and I have spoken to many people who give
freely of their time to become involved with school councils and try to improve
our school communities. The fact
that we have our students failing to this degree to approximate the Canadian
average and to more or less keep up with the rest of the industrialized world is
nothing short of shocking and something that we ought to be deeply concerned
about.
If you look at the other end of the scale with the
PISA, like I said earlier, remember, it goes from level one, the lowest end,
with increasing complexity up to level six.
Well, at the other end of the scale, toward six, with respect to the
performance at the highest levels of the mathematics test, over 16 per cent of
Canadian students, so of all Canadian students, perform at level five or above –
16 per cent. Here in this Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, just 9 per cent of students were performing at the
highest levels; again, amongst the worst results in Canada.
It is something to be seriously alarmed about because we know the vast
majority of jobs – when we talk about Outlook 2020 and the number of jobs that
are going to become available in this Province over the coming years, over the
next, say, fifteen years as a result of resource development, whether that is in
the oil industry or further extraction of other natural resources, minerals,
whether it is a revival in our fisheries, a further revival in our fisheries, a
revival in our forestry industry, whether it is in information technology, or
the knowledge economy and the service industry, in finance, in health care, we
know the majority of those jobs, a vast majority of them, require higher levels
of education.
These test results demonstrate that we are not
providing the most basic level of education to a significant number, a
significant percentage of our students.
There are really nice charts and graphs in this report, the PISA report,
that demonstrate where we are, that provide a visual representation of where we
fall with respect to other provinces in Canada and other countries in the world.
If you look at our performance in mathematics, I think
it is most concerning. We are
behind. Newfoundland and Labrador
falls behind Latvia, behind Iceland, behind France, behind the Czech Republic –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Moldova.
MR.
KIRBY:
Moldova is not on here.
Denmark, we fall behind Slovenia, behind Vietnam,
behind Poland, behind the rest of Canada, as I said, behind Finland, behind
Estonia, behind Lichtenstein, behind the Netherlands, behind Switzerland, behind
Korea, behind Taiwan and on and on.
That is just mathematics.
If you look at our student scores on science and
reading, the same pattern emerges.
We are behind all of these other countries.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member his time for speaking has expired.
MR.
KIRBY:
There is something we have to do, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
recognize the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I have to say, I am going to go a little different
route than the former member who just stood up and spoke.
I have a lot of confidence in our teachers and our students in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I want to rise today, and first of all I want to welcome the newest
member here in the House of Assembly, the Member for Virginia Waters.
I would like to welcome her here and hope she enjoys it, and enjoys the
job as an MHA because it is a great, rewarding job.
It is the most rewarding job I have ever done in my
life because you get to meet the people and you get to listen to their concerns,
and there is a lot of help you can do out there.
There are a lot of things you can do on a daily basis from your calls.
Every day I get calls from constituents of mine, and it gives me great
pleasure to be able to help them and be able to assist them in different things
they are doing. I am sure you will
enjoy that also. It is a great job,
it is a great position, and it is great that people show trust in you to be able
to do that type of job.
Also today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate
the new Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
I
think he is going to do a fantastic job.
He has been on the ball a lot.
He has done a lot for this party.
He has done a lot for everyone, and I think he is going to do a fantastic
job as minister. He is pretty good
at the Twitter and he is pretty good at everything else.
I do not know if he will have the time to do some of the stuff he was
doing. I know some people in his
district and they tell me he is a great district person also.
So I hope he continues to do the stuff for the people in his district and
I wish him all the best.
Mr. Speaker, I am just going to start off today, I had
the opportunity actually to go to a function for the Department of Tourism.
The former minister could not make it and he asked me to do it.
When I had the opportunity to do it – involved in sports all my life, I
really thought this was a great opportunity for me to go down and see what it
was all about, inductions into the Hall of Fame and things like this.
Mr. Speaker, when I went down there my eyes just came
open. They came open from the people
who were down there and the praise they were giving our government for the
investments we are after doing in sports and recreation.
Since 2007, we have invested $192 million in recreation, strategies, and
different sports and facilities, infrastructure and everything else.
Do you know what the big thing in the room was that night?
It was how good our athletes were doing right across Canada, and
internationally.
We look at Kaetlyn Osmond over in the Olympics.
We looked at different athletes who have performed all over the place.
That night there was some inductees.
It was pretty interesting watching the inductees.
I knew two, and actually competed against two of them.
There was Colin Abbott who was inducted for softball.
I can remember being down to the nationals in Pleasantville.
They were playing British Columbia in the semifinals game, and Pietnick
was one of the top pitchers in the world at the time, and Colin Abbott was
coming up in the tenth inning and the coach from BC went out and said to walk
him. Pietnick said, no, I am not
walking him. Anyway, the next pitch
he threw Colin put it out over the beer tent and Newfoundland went on and won
the game. It was unbelievable.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Were you in the beer tent?
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Yes, I was in the beer tent. It went
over my head.
Mr. Speaker, just to tell you that Colin Abbott
competed internationally for Canada all over the world.
I know the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island did a member's
statement on him a little while ago.
Colin represented Canada all over the world and everywhere he went he won
awards. He was always selected as
the top and a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
I happened to play ball against Colin.
A lot of people do not know that Colin was a pretty good hockey player.
He played with Portugal Cove in the Avalon East hockey league.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
As
good as you?
MR.
K. PARSONS:
No,
not as good as me. A different style
of hockey player we will say than I was.
He scored goals, I scored goals.
I got a few more penalties than he did but it was different stuff.
He was a good athlete all the way around.
Now Colin gives back a lot to minor hockey as a coach.
He is also recognized as one of the best referees in this Province.
I went down and watched the finals in the Avalon East hockey league and
he was refereeing nearly all the games.
Colin was another great athlete.
Then there was Lee Churchill who won so many awards.
He was a cross-country skier.
There was a gentleman, Max Kirby stood up and spoke.
I did not know much about Mr. Kirby.
I was amazed with his speech.
He is an older gentleman and he gave one of the best speeches down there.
He talked about how it was in track and field and stuff like that in days
gone by.
There was a gentleman there, Gerry Rideout, who was in
cross-country skiing. Actually, the
Minister of Transportation and Works was there as one of his invited guests.
He was from Labrador City and a lot he did for cross-country skiing.
Then there was Andy Sullivan, another fellow, a little
bit different hockey player than I was.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
He
was smooth.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
He
was a pretty smooth hockey player. I
had the opportunity to play against Andy Sullivan in both the Avalon East hockey
league and the inter-city hockey league.
I can tell you if the scouts had to be around like they are today there
is no doubt in my mind that he would be one of the NHL players we would be
talking about for years to come. He
had the skill level and he was just a fantastic hockey player.
The last one who went in was Ray Will.
Ray Will was a track and field guy.
He came from England, I believe, originally and took over track and field
here. To this day, I think he still
coaches and helps out in track and field.
It was a great opportunity and I want to thank the
former minister for giving me that opportunity.
I just want to recognize those people here today because we have to
invest. Like I said, since 2007 we
have invested $192 million.
Infrastructure – would we like to see stadiums in every
community? Yes, we would.
Would we like to see soccer fields in every community?
We are after growing so far with our recreation program since 2007, it is
unbelievable.
When I look in my own district, I look at the
absolutely beautiful arena we have down there that this government invested in
and opened in 2008, which was the Jack Byrne Arena.
I always say when I stand up here just to give you an idea of these
investments and what they do, in 2004 there were 165 children involved in minor
hockey in the Northeast Avalon, it was called then.
Today there are up to 700. So
just by putting an arena in and doing that kind of investment, and any time we
can have our kids out playing hockey, skating, or figure skating – the arenas
are not just for hockey players.
People like to get out and general skate.
I know the schools down there participate all the time.
This time of year in particular, they will have some of their gym classes
there. I know the other day when I
was down there was a group there from Cape St. Francis up skating in the
morning. It is a great opportunity
for everybody to get out and enjoy these facilities.
Again, like I said, it was a great evening.
I was speaking to the president of Sport NL, and his name is Mr. Nicholl.
He just said to me: Kevin, I want you to
tell your government that I am really pleased with the investments you are
making, investments you are making in our young people, old people, or whatever
it is, to put the best facilities we can possibly have in this Province.
I just wanted to get up today and say a few words about that.
Mr. Speaker, I had another opportunity, too, and it is
great as an MHA sometimes when we have busy ministers and we get the opportunity
to go around to different events, bring greetings on their behalf, and do a
little announcing or whatever. Also,
I went to one recently. It was down
to the Red Cross, and actually the Red Cross building there on Major's Path is
in my district, so I was down in my own district doing an announcement.
It was the Age-Friendly Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation Project.
I did not know much about the project, actually, until I really got the
few notes and got down there. Our
government is investing $1.3 million in an Age-Friendly Newfoundland and
Labrador Transportation Project.
This is a great project. What this
does –
MR.
POLLARD:
Yes, Springdale (inaudible).
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Springdale has one, too, yes. There
were five projects that were chosen, and each project gets $100,000 for up to
three years to carry out their proposals.
The people who got the projects, and I was really impressed with this,
were the Canadian Red Cross, Metrobus, the Town of Springdale, the Town of
Clarenville, and the Bay St. George South Area Development Association.
They were the ones who were chosen.
Mr. Speaker, what an opportunity for us to really show
our seniors how much we appreciate them.
This gives them the opportunity to get out and partake in all different
kinds of activities. No matter if it
is going to a doctor's appointment, it could be going out to a social, or
whatever it is. They really do
appreciate this. They have been the
backbone of our society for years, they are the lifeblood of Newfoundland and
Labrador, they have grown this Province, and they are the people we should be
taking care of.
This initiative, I have to say – and I just spoke to
the people who were there at the event and they said it is unbelievable we will
have the opportunity to take people who normally cannot get to a doctor's
appointment or cannot go get their groceries.
It is simple things like that a lot of us take for granted.
While I know most people would prefer to call their son, daughter, very
good neighbour, a good friend, or whatever, there are a lot of people out there
who cannot do that. This initiative,
and I must say it is a great initiative, gives them the opportunity to do so.
I know I spoke to a resident in my district who has
some medical needs and does a lot of different – I think last year he told me he
had about fifty different appointments, and that was with specialists.
I explained this to him and hopefully he was going to contact the Red
Cross. He may be able to avail of
this because he does not have family in the area and it is hard for him to get
his wife to take time off to go even to the doctor's appointments, to go all the
way down and come back.
I really wanted to just mention that because these are
initiatives that people do not see every day.
They do not see these investments.
Someone might say it is only $1.3 million, but what an investment for our
seniors and for people who are stuck in their homes, cannot get out, and need a
little help.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
I
want to applaud the former minister.
I think she did a fantastic job on this project.
I know the people I spoke to really appreciated the money government was
investing.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit today about
different things, and I am going to speak now about our Budget in general.
It is easy to get up here and say positive things, just like it is over
on the other side. They say negative
things all the time. We really have
to look at where we come from. In
2003, when this government took over – and there is no doubt about it, the oil
industry has boomed. The oil
industry has given us a lot of money.
It has increased what we have done and what we are able to do, basically,
with our health care, with our education, and with everything – with our
roadwork. You name it.
Mr. Speaker, we are spending that money, and we would
all like to have more. I know every
year when I go over and look for my transportation needs, I go to the Department
of Transportation and I have a list about a mile long, like everybody does.
I would like to have everything.
I think the Minister of Transportation told me this year they have an $80
million budget and he said the requests were around $800 million for the
different roadwork they want to be done.
What I do in my area, I looked at the parts of the
roads that really needed work. I was
very pleased the other day to be part of an announcement, basically, for Cape
St. Francis for roadwork this year.
At the end of the bypass road there is a real rough section coming into
Flatrock. I know the people from
Flatrock to Pouch Cove are really going to appreciate that.
There is 1.1 kilometres going to be – levelling is what they call it.
That will be done and that is probably the worst spot in the whole area.
Then the other section that we are going to do a piece
between is Pouch Cove and Bauline.
Last year, we had 1.2 kilometres done and this year we are hoping to get two
kilometres done on that stretch of road.
That is very important because the people from Bauline and the students –
there are children coming across that.
It is a very rough section of road.
The students are coming across that every day and now, by the end of this
year, I am hoping that half of that road will be done, the worst half will be
done, and then we will work on it as years go by to make sure it all gets done.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am realistic and I knew that.
I would like to get the whole thing done.
I would like to get other roads done that are not so good in my district,
but there is only so much money to go around and we all have to realize that.
I am very fortunate.
I am very, very fortunate that in my district I do not have the roads
that other members do, hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of roads.
Here I am down there with about forty kilometres of road in total that
goes through my district, a very short district.
MS
PERRY:
Oh
my God.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Here is the poor Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Lune.
Oh my God, she says, if she only had that.
I realize there has to be a lot of road work done in
her district. I realize the Member
for Baie Verte – Springdale, he is in the same boat and other members are, too.
Mr. Speaker, it is a juggling act for everybody, but do you know what?
Since 2003, just look at the difference in what we are doing in our road
work. Improvements are getting made.
It is unbelievable the amount of investments we are making.
I know I had the opportunity a little while ago to go
with my friend from Bell Island; we went over when they did the announcement for
the new ferry over on Bell Island.
It was a great day. We were down in
Portugal Cove and they did the media thing, but then I said, well, I am going to
go on over on the boat with you. I
was hoping I would not get sea sick.
It was a calm day. I do not get sea
sick very often, now, Mr. Speaker.
Anyway, I went over with him and we went over to a hall
over on Bell Island. When we walked
inside there were all kinds of people there.
They had cookies and they had all kinds of drinks, but the place was
absolutely packed. Everybody over
there was just so excited that the minister was over there, the member was
there, and the announcement of a new ferry.
That new ferry, I think, altogether, when it is all
said and done, is going to be about $70 million, and that is to do the wharf and
everything else. That is because of
the hard work of the member and what he did.
Again, that is part of our total Budget.
That is a huge investment. I
know the hon. Member for The Isles of Notre Dame is also getting a ferry.
We would like to invest in everything.
We would like to give everybody a new ferry, but we have to do it time
after time. If we go and invest it
all in one year, Mr. Speaker, we will be back to the days of when we did not
have a cent to do anything only pay off debt.
We have come a long way. That
is the thing I want to emphasize here today.
Since 2003 our government has come so far.
We have paid down our debt.
We did infrastructure investments in this Province like never seen before.
Mr. Speaker, I did not think I was going to get twenty
minutes in today, but I want to talk a little bit about people in my district
and volunteers. I had a great
opportunity on Sunday to go down with the heritage committee in Pouch Cove.
I know you are not allowed to show anything, but I am just going to give
you a quick look at the book that they did.
It is a beautiful book that the heritage people put together in Pouch
Cove. I think it is 365 pages.
It has all kinds of pictures.
You should see what went into this book.
They had a heritage committee down there.
Different people in the heritage committee had a different role to do.
They went and they researched this and researched war veterans and stuff
like this. One lady in particular,
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Shirley Bragg gave them a lot of information.
She was the first person to get up and speak.
She was a nurse in her day.
She got up with her little nurse's uniform on and did a reading from the book of
years gone by.
I have to tell you a little thing about Shirley.
I was at a function a little while ago and the place was absolutely full.
Actually the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island came down too
because he knew her son. It was her
ninetieth birthday – ninety years old, Mr. Speaker.
She was up the other day and she gave a reading out of this book.
We had a gentleman who got up and played a tune and she got up and she
did a little dance out on the floor.
I tell you if you want to see a spirited Pouch Cove that day and how much people
appreciated what Mrs. Bragg was all about.
She is just a wonderful lady.
I am very proud of what the heritage committee did in
Pouch Cove. I want to congratulate
Dan Rubin – some of you people know Dan – and other members of that committee.
There is a lot of work and a lot of effort goes into putting something
through like this.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about another little
thing I went to this weekend – I go to a lot of stuff during the weekend – it
was the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department.
I am going to do a member's statement on them in a little while.
They had their fortieth anniversary on Saturday night.
I went down there and it was amazing to see that the chief in Torbay has
been there for forty years. He has
been there since day one. It was
nice to see the town gave him a real nice present.
He had all kinds of different presents given to everyone else.
It was nice to see the whole spirit that night.
I have to say the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department
takes care of the Town of Torbay, and the Town of Flatrock.
A little while ago they came down and took care of me; I had a little
fire down in my yard. They do a
fantastic job; it is unbelievable.
They are one of the best trained fire departments in the Province.
They have the top-notch equipment.
I have to say I congratulate the Towns of Torbay and Flatrock for
supporting such a great organization.
These are volunteers, Mr. Speaker.
I know in all communities in the Province we have great volunteers, but I
can tell you in my district in Cape St. Francis we have some really, really good
volunteers and people who want to put things back in their community.
In the community of Flatrock we have a group together,
three ladies who take care of the Flatrock Community Centre.
I used to be involved with it for a while.
It is unbelievable – I tell them all the time that in the small community
of Flatrock they have you from birth to death.
Because when you are born they are there to take care of you, and when
you die they are the ones who do all the arrangements down to the church to make
sure everything runs smoothly. That
is what they are all about.
That is the type of volunteers we have here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Every
opportunity I get up here to thank them – and it is not only in those
communities; it is in the communities of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, a
fantastic bunch of people over there that volunteer.
They do a lot with the rowing.
They are all the time involved – if
you talk about Outer Cove, you always talk about a rowing crew.
You would not believe the people who put back in that sport time after
time after time again. Every time
you go down to the Regatta, you will notice that there are a lot of people there
from Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove.
They are all volunteers. They
get up and do a fantastic job.
Mr. Speaker, my time is going down and I just want to
say since 2003, we have come a long way.
I am very proud to stand on this side of the House with this government
and the accomplishments we have made over the last number of years in all
districts in this Province.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak for the second
time to the Budget debate. Before I
get into that, I want to acknowledge my esteemed colleague, the Member for
Virginia Waters, as our Opposition Finance critic and looking forward to working
to working with her, as well as the new Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation, welcome in that role, and I look forward
to working with you.
As the Member for Cape St. Francis had said, talked
about the importance of recreation, I had the opportunity to go to the Jack
Byrne Arena and watch a game there.
I watched the Straits Rifters take home the gold in the midget division C and
bring that banner home; it was quite nice.
Then I also went to Placentia and I watched the Straits
Rifters Bantams be able to take home that gold medal there as well.
I was in, I believe, St. John's West and the St. Anthony Polars, the
Atoms A, took home the gold banner as well.
We certainly have some great athletes in the District of The Straits –
White Bay North and that is just the tip of the iceberg for all the medals, the
gold, silver and bronze that the minor hockey leagues in my district were able
to bring back to the district.
It is great to invest, and invest in recreation and
high-quality recreation facilities.
I am very proud that we were able to see a newly opened facility, the Polar
Centre, in the District of St. Anthony; and that is quite exciting because it is
exceptional to see, to have that high-quality centre.
We have seen a new school open in St. Anthony, yet we
have not seen the minister come up to officially open that school, and it has
been open for months. I have had the
ability to tour the facility. It is
a great asset to the community.
People are very, very pleased with that.
I hope the new Minister of Education – and I invite him to come up, and
hopefully he will tour that facility.
I hope he is also going to reinstate the public library
in St. Lunaire-Griquet, which the former minister said would not close.
Well, where is that library today?
It is temporarily closed and listed on the Web site as temporarily
closed. The former Minister of
Education assured me this public library will not close, and the minister said
many times before: No public library in the Province will close.
Well, the one in St. Lunaire-Griquet has closed – it is closed.
It is temporarily closed.
That is months now. We are five
months in and the library is closed.
When is the Minister of Education going to reopen that public library?
They are doing it at a cost savings of just $5,000 – $5,000.
We have seen government spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars on doing a review, doing another review, and giving $20 million back in
bonds to a company in Humber Valley Paving, rather than keep a public library
open with the public dollars we have in our Budget, taking books away from those
who need it most, young children and people in communities who do not have
access. It is incredible – it is
incredible, Mr. Speaker – that we would see this from this government, that they
would take away books and close down public libraries.
It is just unacceptable.
Another thing we need to look at, Mr. Speaker, is that
the minister had talked about the investments previously in broadband.
We need to do that. We have
not seen the real, creative solutions that need to be implemented so that we can
get global, universal broadband wireless coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I welcome the new Minister of IBRD, the former Minister of Health and
Community Services, to this role, a role she has had in the past as well.
There are easy, simple solutions as I said for the
community of Pines Cove, which has a multi-million dollar project going on in
their backyard where you are drilling the subsea cable.
Nalcor is spending hundreds of thousands, millions, of dollars.
They paid out $3 million to fishers who are going to be impacted
financially for laying that cable crossing there.
These are things that are happening in the community of Pines Cove that
does not have broadband Internet.
Why are we allowing such large-scale developments
happen where we are not looking after the people who are attached, close, and
adjacent to resources? A simple
change of switching the telephone exchange from 456 to 475 at a low cost and
running those cables can allow them to have broadband Internet, a simple
solution. I have raised it before.
I have raised it with the past minister.
I have raised it with other ministers that this needs to be done.
The community of Pines Cove should have broadband Internet.
There are other communities, as well.
There are other solutions and other proposals how we can get good,
ubiquitous coverage. It is not just
broadband. Some of it could be done
with cellular technologies and some of it can be done with wireless, but we have
to bring down the caps and we have to make sure it is fair.
I have applied, myself, for intervener
status and I have been there as part of the CRTC investigation when we look at
the wireless industry and how Internet is provided via wireless.
The government is not listed there.
Other governments are.
Why is this government dropping the ball so many times
when it comes to advancing our telecommunications industry?
They are just not there. They
are dropping the ball on so many things, and broadband Internet is one of those.
They should have been an intervener with the CRTC status and the
investigation they are doing. I will
get the information; this government will not.
We are not seeing any creative solutions when it comes
to looking at how we deal with public transportation in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I have been ridiculed in
this House of Assembly by members opposite many times before for talking about
how rural areas need public transportation for seniors.
How can we look at implementing in our regional service centres that have
hospitals, that have banking, and that have groceries and retail outlets so that
we can look at implementing a scheduled, small-scale transportation where they
can access the services they need and so we can keep people, seniors, in their
homes longer and in their communities?
We have seen a very simplistic pilot project that was implemented that is
not reaching the broader base. These
are in what I would say are larger suburban areas in the Province, and we need
to look at smaller-scale solutions so that we can create stability in our rural
communities.
If we look at what the member opposite had just talked
about when we look at road infrastructure, road infrastructure is key.
I know that. In my district I
have several hundred kilometres of roads.
I have Route 430, Route 432, Route 433, Route 434, Route 435, Route 436,
Route 437, Route 438, as well as Goose Cove Road and many secondary roads that
are in communities that are the responsibility of Transportation and Works or
Municipal Affairs through town councils that are there.
I want to really throw a bouquet to the Department of
Transportation and Works staff. They
really did a phenomenal job there over Easter weekend when the road washed out
and when the culvert gave way. No
one got hurt, no one got injured, and resources were deployed.
There was a quick response.
That action was taken and they worked through the weekend, put in a temporary
fix, and then worked for a longer-term solution in that area.
That is the key. Those type
of things need to be done.
In emergency situations like that, where we see those
repairs, that should come from a different fund. We need to look at making sure
those types of emergency repairs do not take away from the general maintenance
and repairs that need to be done. We
need to make sure when we remove culverts and things like that, that we do put
back the larger culverts to be more emergency prepared.
That is something that did happen in this situation.
I have had good communication with the Department of Transportation and
Works and that is very, very positive, I have to say, in that situation.
I have a lot of problems and a lot of issues, like a
lot of other members when it comes to the road infrastructure.
I have presented many petitions in the House of Assembly, especially
looking at Conche road being a gravel road and the economy they have.
We have so many areas where we need to see investments made in road
infrastructure. We need to take the
politics out of road paving and we need to look at a multi-year plan, a
multi-year budget, to deal with these efforts.
We need to look at dealing with the priority areas and we need to make
sure that primary routes, like Route 430, are taken care of.
That is where transportation that is flowing north, that is flowing into
Labrador through the ferry, that is going to St. Anthony, and that is going to
other areas on the peninsula using Route 430.
That road cannot be in deplorable condition.
As well, we look at areas where we have a UNESCO
heritage site going to Route 436.
There are a few kilometres there that need work and you have an economy that is
built around small independent business that make their living through a
by-product of tourism and this site that brings tens of thousands of tourists
each year. Also, cruise ships come
and visit. There have been
investments, significant investments, made by the people in small business.
These are the people who are taking the risks.
They are creating the jobs, they are creating employment, and they are
building a stable economy in our rural communities.
We need to be working with them as Members of the House of Assembly to
find solutions so they can continue to add to the revenue base, so we can make
sure we put back into services and programs in this Province, and so we are not
seeing things continuously erode.
There have to be strategic investments certainly made.
I want to say that when I sat in Estimates with the
Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement I was very pleased to
hear him talk about there will be a renewed focus on the social enterprise
because that is something I asked for that former ministers had just basically
ignored. There was not that appetite
to go down that route to look at the social enterprise in a true, meaningful
way.
If we look at the success of the social enterprise, I
only have to look to St. Anthony Basin Resources Incorporated that has put
almost $16 million back in infrastructure in the local economy through a cold
storage that has been able to attract international shipping, a container port
through Eimskip. That is through
biweekly shipping going directly into Europe.
A second containerized port in Newfoundland and
Labrador is in my district because of a social enterprise that has been very
successful in utilizing a public resource to put those investments back in the
region. They have invested in
tourism assets, in boat building, in trails, in regional infrastructure, in
recreation, and in scholarships and bursaries.
These are the types of things that sustain and build economies.
I look at the Straits-St. Barbe Chronic Care
Corporation that started out and it is a non-profit.
They run the Ivy Durley Place, a personal care home in Newfoundland and
Labrador that started with twenty beds and has now recently expanded.
They have expanded again to thirty-six.
They focus on recreation, they focus on making sure the seniors have a
high quality of life and that they do things around recreation like Cruising the
Coast so that the seniors can visit.
The residents who are there can visit, take in local attractions, play games
along the way, do shopping, and take in entertainment to take them to Corner
Brook and back. They do this
annually.
This is not a typical type of approach that you would
get from any other type of personal care home.
Because of the fact it is a social enterprise, it gives back to those who
utilize the facility and to the workers.
It gives back to the region as a whole.
This has been a huge success.
This is where we need to look when we look at how we
deal with the struggles of adequate housing in Newfoundland and Labrador and
rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We
have to work with the operators; we have to find different solutions to work in
community. Sometimes the business
case is not as simple.
I have brought up in this House many times about
venture capital. Long before this
government ever talked about venture capital when the Immigrant Investor Fund
came up and talking about utilizing that $200 million-something talked about how
we need to utilize a portion of this fund in venture capital as other provinces
are doing to create economic wealth, to create economic jobs, and to advance our
economy, whether it is in the tech sector or whether it is in medical research.
These are opportunities.
Government has chosen not to use that fund that
constantly gets money cycled in and payments cycled out.
It is continuous cash coming in, and if you use cash to go out and then
create some success with it, then the cash will come back, as it has in other
Provinces. This government is set on
using general revenue from the tax base to put out in its programs and in its
lending, rather than utilizing a separate fund and utilizing the public revenue
that comes forward to deal with larger-term capital investment, roads, different
programs, or health care. They use
some of this fund for business lending, which there could be another avenue to
deal with that and make sure the taxpayers are getting a significant return on
investment. It can be a win-win, but
government is not looking at going that route when they could be.
I want to say there are significant Arctic
opportunities, and government announces strategies all the time.
The minister came up in 2011, I believe – maybe it was 2012, but it has
been a while ago – to St. Anthony announcing the Arctic Opportunities
Initiative. Since then, what we have
seen from this opportunities initiative is that we are going to attend
conferences and promote the opportunities there, rather than look at: Where do
we need to make the strategic investments?
What are the capital investments?
How are we going to partner with the feds to make those investments
happen? Nobody has a clear plan or
direction on how we are going to capitalize on the Arctic, whether it is for
Arctic shipping or whether it is Arctic research.
What type of programs can we put forward?
In my district, St. Anthony is poised to benefit from
Arctic opportunities because it has the College of the North Atlantic, because
it has the international shipping, and because it has port development.
What further investments can be made there so business can set up, so we
can expand, and so we can grow the economy on the Great Northern Peninsula?
These are opportunities.
We see a strategy, but then again we do not see the
actions to follow up, and that is a failure of government.
It is a continuous failure and you can speak about it to other strategies
that become announced. People are
getting tired of hearing a strategy without seeing the results at the end of the
day.
One of the things, though, is that our College of the
North Atlantic – I toured it with the Leader of the Official Opposition in St.
Anthony. We got to see a successful
program that has been added, and that is the power line training technician
course, and getting to see people participate and get the hands-on training
where they may be able to get local jobs in the region, provided we are not
continuing to see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro continuously erode services,
erode jobs, and ship them away from our rural areas.
That is what is happening. We
are giving people almost this false hope that jobs will be available, yet
government is paring away and taking away services again and again from our
rural communities.
There are vacancies in places and in departments that
have not been filled that are just there.
They are vacant, so the people are not getting the service, that income
is gone from the community, and that family is gone from the region.
It does have an impact. Those types of decisions which government makes
has impacts; it has impacts on the economy and on the region.
If we are not looking at making the right investments
in people and in our regions, then we are going to continue to see a real
inequity of resources and how regions develop.
If we look at the forest industry, for example, on the Northern Peninsula
East, Roddickton has always been a forestry town.
We have a significant capital asset that has been put in place at Holson
Forest Products in a pellet plant and also in an upgraded sawmill and in a kiln.
It is integrated. There is
harvesting of upwards of 120,000 cubic metres available to sustain that pellet
plant and do 10 million board feet of lumber per year.
You get the value added and all the waste material can go through that
plant.
It should be able to employ, through the contractors,
through the harvesters, through the operations, and through people working at
the pellet plant, indirect and direct jobs of over 150 to 250 people in that
economy. That is quite large when
you are talking about a town of Roddickton-Bide Arm that has about 1,000 people,
quite significant – very, very significant.
It transcends. It is not just
Roddickton-Bide Arm because if you look at when you create stability in
business, then there is spinoff.
There is other business that is created.
When you create instability in economy, and because of
government's inaction, poor planning, and some of the decisions it has made,
then you also see the other side of that.
You see business close and we have seen business close in the Town of
Roddickton. You lose – you lose
significantly.
I do not know if government understands small business
in the way they should because when you create an industry that should be able
to sustain itself, and pellets are demanded all over the world, we should be
able to fulfill that locally. There
was a plan to fulfill that locally.
Government has moved away from that direction, but when you allow an industry to
go on a standstill you also end up losing the institutional knowledge, you lose
the contractors, people sell, and get out of business.
Where is the local value in that – where is the local value?
Time and time again, we see it in our fishery.
Where is the local value? If
you are not allowing the local people to have local jobs and also make those
investments and benefit from the resources that surround them, then government
has missed its job.
One thing I am proud of that is in the Budget is the
cut to the small business tax. It is
something I have been pushing basically since I have been in this House of
Assembly. It is good for small
business; it is good for the region.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for my time here today to speak
to the Budget and point out a lot of failings that this government has in
presenting Budget 2014-2015, and I will have more to say.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JACKMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I do believe I heard the
member who just spoke once say that he lived out of the Province for a while.
After what I just heard, I suggest he leave the Province again – I
suggest he leave the Province again.
If he has no more optimism in the people of the Province than he has just spewed
out in the last twenty minutes, I suggest he get on a plane to take him back to
where he came from before he came back here.
I am not joking about that.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the –
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
A
point of order.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North on a point of order.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
It
is certainly not the people of the Province I have an issue with; it is the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JACKMAN:
Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if the man has the faith in it, but some of the people
who work in our government are our public service.
I have full faith. I just
moved into a new department. My
first meeting with them was on Friday, and if you and that member – he can make
smacks at me as being a member of the Conservative government, but all of these
employees are a part of this government.
They are the ones who work day in and day out.
The group I just saw are a group who is committed to the cause of
children and youth in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to twenty minutes of
bemoaning – bemoaning. Here is one
of the statements I took from what he said: It is so easy; there are so simple
solutions. He has been putting a
spin on St. Lunaire-Griquet for the last year.
He has been saying it is $5,000.
The man knows the difference –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
JACKMAN:
The
man knows the difference in that. It
is not $5,000, Mr. Speaker. To do
what he is asking is more than that, much more than that.
He is spinning it, Mr. Speaker, for his own political purposes.
He talks about the roads.
This member was probably away from the Province and did not drive the
Northern Peninsula before we came in government.
I am not speaking to what the Liberals did or did not do.
I am speaking to the conditions of roads on the Northern Peninsula.
The conditions on the roads, Mr. Speaker – and a lot of my colleagues can
speak to it. That people would not
drive their trailers up over the Northern Peninsula because the roads were in
such deplorable conditions.
I would ask him to speak on the conditions of that
road. That road, I have driven over
it numerous times – one of the best roads in this Province.
Why did we do that? We have a
National Park, we have UNESCO site upon the tip of the Northern Peninsula, a
very valued part of this Province, and we recognized that the roadwork was
needed there, just as we have done down in Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
We have a growing aquaculture industry down there, thus our commitment
and investment in the roads in that particular area.
We know product is shipped in and out of that area, we needed investment
in that area and we did it, because it supports the industry that is down there.
The other thing – this is an indication where this
member's head is, Mr. Speaker. He
said the government is always developing strategies.
I would hope so. If not, what
he is promoting is you fly it by the seat of your pants.
Mr. Speaker, I am just going to name off three that I am very familiar
with: the Early Childhood Learning Strategy, our investment in zero to three,
our investment in full-day Kindergarten, the broadband initiative, the strategy.
Mr. Speaker, the one that I am involved in right now, the child care
strategy.
Through all of these strategies frameworks are
developed, time frames are put in place whereby you aim for it.
This department that I am presently in looked at being in place within
the three to five-year range. Mr.
Speaker, they are in the fourth year.
My initial meeting with them tells me that they are in a very, very good
place when it comes to developing strategies around protecting our children and
our youth.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I hear a member get up
and just preach and tout what he has just done, the doom and gloom of it.
I am going to let this man know that I do indeed have faith in our
teachers. I have faith in our social
workers, those who provide the front-line services to the people on a daily
basis who face the many challenges that they face.
I have faith in our nurses.
I have been in government now going on eleven years and
I have to truly say that I have faith in the public service who works on behalf
of government. He may not and he
must remember that when he criticizes, he also criticizes many of these
individuals who work day in and day out in a belief that they are committed to.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I have been
honoured in my entire career to have worked with are youth and children.
I spent my year previous to this in education.
I was very, very honoured to be able to come in to government after the
last election and get appointed to the Department of Education.
I am going to speak a little bit about that.
I also am quite honoured to be now appointed to the Department of Child,
Youth and Family Services.
In my past portfolio as Minister of Education I am
looking at that we operated with an $860 million budget.
The schools that are being constructed – I said it when I was in that
portfolio; I do not think there is ever a time in government when more schools
were built and more major projects and renovations that have gone on than have
been done in our term as a government.
Some people were tired of hearing me say it when I was
in there – the best student-teacher ratio of all provinces in Canada.
The number of student assistants that went in – and one of my former
colleagues stood up and spoke and talked about what we have done in the
elimination of school fees and free textbooks.
Those of us who are in education know how important that is to the
students and parents who come to school on a regular basis.
In this last Budget to be able to stand up and announce that we are
moving forward with the implementation of full-day Kindergarten in September of
2016.
Mr. Speaker, all of these things in the name of
education have been tremendous, tremendous commitments and announcements.
Whether the member who spoke previously wants to recognize it or not,
they are part of strategies. They
are part of plans. We did not just
decide that in 2006, all right, this year we are going to go free textbooks.
Well, we are not sure what we are going to do next year; we might do
something or we may not. It is all
part of the strategies.
If this gentleman is suggesting we not operate in that
type of framework, I would suggest he is probably venturing the road that he
mentioned. Yes, it is easy.
It is simple. It is not a
solution though and it is not very effective, that is for sure.
It certainly would not be a very effective way to operate, if that is
what he is suggesting, Mr. Speaker.
I now have moved into the Department of Child, Youth
and Family Services. I said to them,
the people I met with over the last number of days, it is a very young
department. Previous, it was an
attachment to the Department of Health.
Files and whatnot get addressed in different manners.
There are many of us who have gotten up in this House
and have spoken about our most important resource.
I can ask anybody here now if they know what I am talking about, our most
valuable and our most important resource, and they will tell you exactly what I
am talking. It is not oil.
It is not fish. It is not the
members opposite, for sure. Mr.
Speaker, it is about our children and our youth.
That is exactly what our most important resources is.
What did we as a government do four or five years ago,
Mr. Speaker? We established the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.
What is that department dedicated to?
It is our youth – it is our youth.
It is our youth that this department deals with.
As I started to say in my lead up, one of the things I
have noticed is that there is an energy within the Department of Child, Youth
and Family Services. The former
minister came over to me and he said: You are going to enjoy this department,
Minister, because they are engaged – they are very much engaged.
Their goal, of course, in the development of a new department is to make
it work. To ensure that the children
and the youth of this Province receive the best possible care that they need and
that they require.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing that and I made a
comment to them that I have made several times.
I have been around some households from time to time and I have heard
this comment: Our children do not know how lucky they are.
Now, I have to be honest with you.
I never use it; I chose not to use it.
My reason being, I do not think children should have to realize how lucky
they are. They should be able to be
born, to grow, and to have a good life.
It is very unfortunate sometimes that there is that
darker side to society and some children find themselves in very difficult,
difficult situations. I did not want
my children to know that they were lucky and I do not want my grandchildren to
know that they are lucky, all I want is that they grow up to be good, sound
individuals who do their part in society to support their fellow human beings.
Through the Department of Child, Youth and Family
Services, Mr. Speaker, that is the goal.
Our goal is to support those children who find themselves in very
difficult situations and to make sure that they receive the best possible care
that we can, with the ultimate goal of having that family unit in place and we
continue to work towards that.
Mr. Speaker, I was impressed; I did not expect the
department to be as big as it was.
There are 800 individuals in the department.
It is funded now to the tune of close on $200 million.
They are four-and-a-half years into it.
When I look at some of the programs that they have undertaken, the recent
media campaign Foster a Future, they showed me the success – I believe they have
come up with ninety-two additional foster homes and they have been able to place
some additional 140 or 145 children in these homes.
It speaks to the people who work in the department.
It speaks to where they want to take an initiative.
Do you know the important part of it?
It speaks to where we, as a government, have made our investment.
We have decided, as a government, that these youth and our children are
our future. They are our future, and
we are investing to make sure that they have that sustainable future, Mr.
Speaker.
As I have said, I have been honoured and it has been a
privilege now to work in two recent departments that deal with children and
youth. Like I said, it has been
somewhere where I have spent my entire career and I am honoured to be there.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how twenty minutes can pass
by and how some member can stand up and rile you up enough to stand up and chat
about that. I do want to mention a
few things about my district.
The District of Burin – Placentia West is a great
district. We are on the boot, as it
says. I know the Member for – he has
tortured me every now and then about my blankies.
He has not done any of it today; I have to commend him for it.
I am hoping he is not going to come on about the boot that I have
mentioned, but we are on the southern part of the Burin Peninsula.
My district runs from Burin down to South East Bight.
There are many rural communities, as many of us in this
House would have. One community,
South East Bight, is serviced by a ferry.
There have been issues. There
have been issues around the ferry; there is no doubt about it.
I want to commend the Minister of Transportation and Works.
He came down with us a couple of months ago and worked on an issue that
the community wanted addressed. He
worked on that one, but there have been some mechanical issues and we are
continuing to work through that. We
will ask the patience of the people who are involved there.
The three particular areas that I am looking at, the
Burin area, one thing that was announced in this year's Budget that people have
long awaited down there – and once we get all of the details out and I am
looking forward to the Minister of Health coming down with me before too long.
Minister King and myself will go over because we share districts.
We are a peninsula and I have said there are 20,000 of us down on the
peninsula, along with the Member for Bellevue.
We have to work as one community down there.
It is no point in two MHAs trying to battle it out and get everything.
We cross-reference so much that we have to share in projects, and I think
it has been successful.
One of the things that is going to happen when the
minister comes down is we will announce the details on a dementia unit that is
going to be down there, the number of rooms, and the service that it will
provide. That will be built around
the Salt Pond area around where the Burin hospital is.
I was very pleased to hear just recently within the
last month or so that there is a rec facility being built right when you are
driving into Marystown. People who
have driven there will remember there was an information chalet there and it was
shaped like a lighthouse. It is
around that particular area that this new rec piece is going to be built.
People have awaited this for a while.
It is something that one individual told me at the meeting from the rec
commission they have been working on for twenty years to get and they finally
have it realized. The details will
certainly become clearer as that project progresses.
The tenders have been called and we should see groundwork starting on
that very soon.
Then if you leave my district for what we would call
down over the road there is a new health clinic being built there.
That health clinic will hopefully be open maybe this coming spring or
fall. The work is progressing rather
well. I am looking forward to going
down this weekend, taking a look at the building, and seeing how far they have
come along with it.
For the member who spoke before me to talk about
serving the needs of some of the seniors in the rural parts of our Province, Mr.
Speaker, I have to commend the communities down there.
They came together and what they did is they closed out some of their
smaller clinics and have a centralized clinic that will provide services such as
blood collection. The seniors in
that particular area now will not have to drive all the way to Burin or drive
down towards Clarenville or something of that nature.
They will now be able to receive that service right in their immediate
area. It is something I know the
people in that area are very pleased with.
A project we also entered in that particular area is
called an ecotourism museum, Mr. Speaker.
It is a facility we funded jointly with ACOA.
It is around a $500,000 project.
Again, it is something that is adding to the rural parts of our Province.
Then we look to what that may be able to draw.
To suggest, as the member did, that we are abandoning
rural Newfoundland – Mr. Speaker, I have to close out with that.
If this is the thought of the member, then I suggest as I started out
with, the plane he rode in on, it might be time to get the ticket and ride out
on it again because he does not have the same faith in this Province that I
have.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move at this time, seconded by the Minister of
Environment and Conservation, that debate do now adjourn on this particular
item.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the debate be now adjourned.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time, I would like to call from the Order
Paper, Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Public Interest
Disclosure, Bill 1.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
Responsible for Public Engagement, and the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs that Bill 1, An Act Respecting Public Interest
Disclosure be now read a second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure
be now read a second time.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting
Public Interest Disclosure.” (Bill
1)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a real pleasure to rise in this House today to
start the debate on the Public Interest Disclosure and Whistle-blower Protection
bill, a new and very significant piece of legislation for this Province.
As you are aware, government announced in the recent Speech from the
Throne that it would be advancing whistle-blower legislation in this session of
the House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, our decision to move this legislation
forward is more evidence of this government fulfilling its Blue Book
commitments. It is also consistent
with government's broader commitment to open government, ethical conduct, and
enhanced integrity within the public sector.
This legislation will fill the gap that currently
exists in this Province with respect to mechanisms that are available to
employees who have knowledge of serious wrongdoing that they wish to disclose,
and legislation which will afford them protection from reprisal when doing so.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that there are
current legislative provisions –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to point out that there are current
legislative provisions that provide whistle-blower protection in this Province.
These include section 425.1 of the Criminal Code, section 49 of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, section 97 of the Environmental Protection
Act, section 89 of the Personal Health Information Act, and of course, Part IV
of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act which
deals with public interest disclosure.
We would all be familiar with that piece of legislation in the House.
However, Mr. Speaker, while these provisions are
essential, they represent a patchwork of protection with obvious gaps which we
are aiming to address. The proposed
legislation will cover these gaps by affording whistle-blower protection to the
employees of the public service and public bodies within Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we have completed a thorough legislative
and jurisdictional review to inform our policy decisions regarding this
legislation, and we have obtained information on the experiences of other
jurisdictions that have implemented whistle-blower legislation.
Based on this research and the subsequent analysis, we have developed a
comprehensive legislative framework which is based on the following four main
pillars.
First, a very critical component of this act is it will
ensure that employees can disclose serious and significant wrongdoing without
fear or threat of reprisal. This is
the fundamental principle of this legislation.
Second, the legislation will allow for an independent
office, the Office of the Citizens' Representative, which will be given power
and authority to provide advice and to receive and investigate allegations of
wrongdoing and publicly report the findings.
Third, Mr. Speaker, there will be anti-reprisal
protections for employees who disclose wrongdoing.
The fourth critical pillar is that the Labour Relations Board will be
empowered to hear complaints and award remedies, including reinstatement for any
reprisals taken against whistle-blowers.
Mr. Speaker, this act will provide for a single,
independent mechanism for the disclosure and investigation of wrongdoings in the
public service in that the Office of the Citizens' Representative will be given
the power and responsibility to accept and investigate disclosures of
wrongdoing. Departments and public
bodies will not be involved. They
will not receive or investigate disclosures under this legislation.
In addition to facilitating and providing an independent process for
disclosure of wrongdoing, the act will protect employees who make disclosures
from reprisal.
Mr. Speaker, the act is not intended to deal with
routine, operational, or human resource issues since there are other mechanisms
available to deal with these types of issues.
It is intended to deal with serious and significant wrongdoing.
Existing policies and protocols will continue to be available for dealing
with routine and operational matters.
Mr. Speaker, wrongdoing is clearly defined in the act.
This definition is very important to the implementation of this
legislation as it provides guidance as to the types of matters that can be
investigated. Our definition of
wrongdoing in this new legislation is consistent with other jurisdictions.
Wrongdoing means an act or omission constituting an offence.
Therefore, if an illegal act is occurring or suspected to be occurring
within the public service, an employee will have the right to disclose that
information for investigation under this legislation.
Wrongdoing also means an act or omission that creates a
substantial and specific danger to life, health, or safety of persons or to the
environment, other than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the
duties or functions of a public servant.
Wrongdoing includes gross mismanagement, inclusive of public funds or
assets. It is also considered a
wrongdoing to knowingly direct or counsel a person to commit any of these acts.
To whom will the act apply?
This legislation will apply to public service employees of government
departments and public bodies such as Crown corporations including Nalcor,
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, our Workplace
Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, the Public Utilities Board, Regional
Health Authorities, the Legal Aid Commission, the College of the North Atlantic,
school boards and school districts, among others.
Mr. Speaker, this act is comprehensive in terms of the
public service in this Province. It
will help protect the integrity of the public service by ensuring that there are
mechanisms in place to appropriately address issues related to serious
wrongdoing.
With respect to disclosure procedures that are outlined
in this bill, if an employee reasonably believes that a wrongdoing was committed
or is about to be committed, that employee may make a disclosure in writing to
the Office of the Citizens' Representative.
This single disclosure process provides for external disclosure to the
Office of the Citizens' Representative.
Other jurisdictions and our own House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act allow for or require internal disclosure to the
head of a government department or another public body in addition to external
disclosure.
While many provisions in this bill mirror those
contained in whistle-blower legislation in other provinces, the one key
exception is the single disclosure route as identified in this bill.
All inquiries, requests for advice, and complaints of wrongdoing would be
disclosed to and investigated by the Office of the Citizens' Representative.
Mr. Speaker, we believe our employees and the integrity
of this process will be significantly enhanced with the process outlined in this
bill. It is obvious that some
employees may be reluctant and uncomfortable with disclosing significant
wrongdoing internally to a supervisor, deputy minister, or a CEO, as would be
the case if we decided to utilize a dual disclosure process.
It is possible that employees would refrain from making
a disclosure due to discomfort, concern about confidentiality, or fear or a
threat of reprisal if their own department was involved in the investigation.
Through this bill that obstacle has been removed.
We want to facilitate disclosures of legitimate wrongdoing in a safe
environment. That is the core and
fundamental premise of this bill.
We have also learned from our counterparts in other
jurisdictions that allow for internal disclosures that a significant amount of
time and financial resources are required to administer internal disclosure
processes. Time, for instance, to
prepare policies dealing with the receipt and investigation of disclosures
within individual government departments and entities, to ensure that these
policies are consistent across all departments and public bodies, to consult
with unions, and to conduct ongoing training to all of those employees in each
department and public body who are tasked with receiving and investigating
allegations of disclosure.
Also, by having a single, independent office deal with
all inquiries, disclosures and investigations, that will allow for expertise to
be built. In turn, that will enhance
the process and the outcomes of it over time.
For all
of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has
decided to opt for the single disclosure process.
A single, independent, external office that receives inquiries and
conducts investigations, as outlined in this bill, will strengthen the comfort
level and contribute to the enhanced confidentiality for employees who make or
consider making a disclosure.
If there
is wrongdoing within the public service and our employees have awareness of it,
we want it exposed and we want it investigated, and we also want our valuable
employees protected in that process.
We are putting forth a bill that supports employees to make legitimate
disclosures of wrongdoing in the public service and ensures their protection
from reprisal. There are several
specific sections of the bill that provide guidance in the making of these
disclosures.
Mr.
Speaker, the definition of wrongdoing, as I stated previously, is very important
and must be considered in the making of a disclosure.
An employee may disclose information related to a wrongdoing, despite the
fact that another act or regulation may prohibit or restrict the release of that
information, with the exception of information that would disclose the
deliberations of Cabinet or a Cabinet committee and information that is
protected due to solicitor-client privilege.
These two types of records are protected in common law and legislative
provisions, and widely protected by governments.
These records are also protected in whistle-blower legislation in all
other jurisdictions in the country, as well as by the federal government.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to touch on the role of the Office of the Citizens'
Representative. Members of the
public service can request advice from the Office of the Citizens'
Representative in deciding whether or not to come forward with a disclosure of
wrongdoing. The Office of the
Citizens' Representative will be responsible for investigating disclosures
received under the act.
The
purpose of an investigation by the Citizens' Representative is to bring the
matter to the attention of the head of the department or public body and to
recommend corrective measures, unless of course, Mr. Speaker, that person is
implicated in the wrongdoing. The
investigation in that case, the minister would be the correct person.
These investigations will be conducted as informally and as expeditiously
as possible.
There
are circumstances where the Citizens' Representative is not required to
investigate. This includes
situations where he or she determines that the matter would be more
appropriately dealt with through another procedure or act where he or she deems
that the disclosure is frivolous, vexatious, or not made in good faith.
The
Citizens' Representative may refer a matter to the Auditor General if he or she
thinks it is more appropriately investigated under the Auditor General Act.
He or she may also refer a matter back to a department or a public body
if it is more appropriately resolved internally.
The
Citizens' Representative is required: to prepare an annual report and to table
it in this House outlining the number of inquiries received under this act; the
number of disclosures; and the number acted upon; and the number not acted upon;
the number of investigations undertaken; the number of recommendations made; and
whether departments and public bodies have complied with the recommendations;
whether there are any systemic problems that contribute to the issues; and any
recommendations for improvement that should be considered.
Mr.
Speaker, the Citizens' Representative will also have authority to publish
special reports where he or she deems it to be in the public interest and
consistent with the scope of his or her functions and duties outlined in this
act. This includes the publishing of
a report related to an investigation of wrongdoing under this act.
Mr.
Speaker, I would now like to focus on a critical component of this bill,
protecting our employees from reprisal.
As exemplified in the title, Public Interest Disclosure and
Whistle-blower Protection Act, whistle-blower protection is clearly a
significant aspect of this legislation.
It states that no reprisal shall be taken against an employee who has in
good faith sought advice about making a disclosure, made a disclosure, or
co-operated with an investigation under this act.
A
reprisal includes action such as disciplinary measures, demotion, or termination
of employment, an action that results in an adverse effect on working
conditions, or a threat to take any of these actions.
An employee who feels they have suffered reprisals as a result of making
a disclosure in good faith will have recourse to the Labour Relations Board.
A person who takes a reprisal against an employee or directs that one be
taken is subject to appropriate disciplinary action, including a fine of up to
$10,000, termination, and other penalties that are provided by law.
The
Labour Relations Board has powers required to deal with these complaints under
the Labour Relations Act, including undertaking investigations, holding
hearings, and gathering evidence.
Mr. Speaker, if the board determines that another avenue is available for
dealing with the complaint, the board may defer consideration of the complaint
until the outcome of another proceeding.
Where the board finds reprisal was made contrary to this act, the board
may make various orders including reinstatement, a complainant to return to
work, pay compensation, pay costs, cease activity regarding the reprisal, or
otherwise rectify the situation.
Mr.
Speaker, another provision that I wish to highlight deals with offences under
this act. A person who makes a false
or misleading statement, willfully obstructs the Office of the Citizens'
Representative, or destroys, falsifies, or conceals a document is guilty of an
offence and subject to a fine of not more than $10,000.
While I
focused on the provisions that allow employees to make disclosures about
wrongdoings in the public service and the protections that will be afforded to
those, it is also important for public service employees to know about their
responsibilities under this act.
Employees are required to make disclosures in good faith.
If an employee makes a disclosure of wrongdoing, where the disclosure is
frivolous, factitious, or in bad faith, that employee will be subject to
appropriate disciplinary action which may include termination of employment
and/or other penalties that are provided by law.
It is vital that employees become aware and knowledgeable of the entire
act, its intent, its purpose, and their roles and responsibilities.
Mr.
Speaker, I have highlighted the key aspects of this new legislation and I would
like to indicate as well that my office, the Office of Public Engagement, will
hold administrative responsibility for this act and any subsequent orders or
regulations that come under it. We
will work closely with the Office of the Citizens' Representative to ensure that
awareness sessions and informational materials are made available to all
employees of the public service who are covered by this act.
Mr.
Speaker, I am hoping there will be support in this House for this bill given
that many hon. members on both sides have been advocating for this legislation
for some time.
I will
conclude my remarks at this time in this debate.
I really look forward to closing second reading at the appropriate time.
I feel this is an important piece of legislation and a positive step
forward, not only for our public service but for all of the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time, I will move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation,
with leave of the House that we take a supper break and return at 7:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved by the Government
House Leader and seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation that
we take leave and return at 7:00 o'clock.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Contra minded?
Carried.
The
House stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.
The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Wiseman):
We are now debating Bill 1.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I recollect, I actually adjourned debate to take a break.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Oh,
you did? I am sorry.
MR.
KING:
I
probably did not need to, but I did.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR.
KING:
Just to follow correct procedure at this time I would like to call from the
Order Paper, Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Public
Interest Disclosure, Bill 1.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 1, Order 3, An Act
Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.
This act, when we look at it, is providing a mechanism
to disclose information and to allow an investigation for wrongdoings in or
relating to public service that an employee, who would be a public servant,
believes may be unlawful, dangerous to the public, or injurious to the public
interest. This is something that is
commonly referred to as whistleblower legislation.
A whistleblower is someone who exposes any type of
misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization.
This piece of legislation that we are debating here this evening in
particular includes just public employees.
It is not inclusive; it does not include the employees of Memorial
University.
Unlike some other jurisdictions and some other areas
across the United States, for example – the United States has whistleblower
legislation as well as Canada does, but individually the majority of States have
whistleblower legislation. In it,
some of them protect both private and public employees and they –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
– also protect all general employees who would be workers in general.
When we look at this legislation, in a period where openness,
transparency and accountability should be a hallmark of any government, having
strong whistleblower legislation can be very critical in determining and
ensuring that the public interest is protected.
In order to do that, the employee must make sure that their interest is
protected as well, that they are not going to face reprisal.
That was talked about by the minister, in his response, as he introduced
the bill and also when it comes to the news conference that was held earlier
today which I attended.
This legislation though, just to be clear, only
protects a public employee who goes to the Office of the Citizens'
Representative. That is what I
gauged from the briefing that I received, is that a public employee has to go to
the Office of the Citizens' Representative because this legislation as put
forward does not look a dual approach, which would have an internal and an
independent office, like all other jurisdictions, the other six jurisdictions
and the federal jurisdiction of Canada; this is the only piece of legislation
put forward that only has one.
If, for example, there was something that an employee
saw, there would be no protection, based on what the people in the briefing
said. If they went to the manager or
to someone within the department and disclosed some sort of illegal activity
that may happen, then they would not have protection.
They can only get protection if they go to the Citizens' Rep and make
that call, make that contact, and they have to put it in writing.
That is looking at a broad overview of what this piece
of legislation is and what it will do, but what I want to talk about right now
is that this is something that the people of the Province, I guess, have been
promised by this government for a very, very, very long time.
It is something that we have seen other jurisdictions do and implement,
while the people of the Province, during a campaign promise, it was put there in
an election promise in 2007 in the Tory Blue Book, just three words.
It said that the government will develop whistleblower legislation.
That was something all the way back in 2007.
We look at fast forwarding now; we are in 2014.
People have been waiting a very long time for whistleblower legislation.
Whistleblower legislation is long overdue; it was long
overdue then. You only have to look
at situations where you have seen time and time again where people who work in
the public service, public employees, whether they be nurses, whether they be
teachers, whether they be direct employees of the core civil service, when we
look at the programs that are offered, when we look at the curriculum in schools
as the Minister of Education had talked about, if we look at the math program
that is implemented, if we look at nursing regulations, these types of things
are critical to look at the employees being the experts, the experts of these
programs and the experts in administering.
If they are questioned and they are not able to have
that ability – if they have information and they feel that there would be
actions taken against them for sharing that information of potential wrongdoing,
then there could be recourse. That
is why maybe in situations we have not seen people speak out about any potential
wrongdoings and things that may be deemed illegal because of fear, and that is
something that could be very real when you look at government services and how
they deliver them.
Like I say, this legislation extends to public bodies,
it talks about school boards, and it would extend to school board employees –
would that extend to the teachers?
They are the ones who have their eyes and ears on the ground when you look at
school closures, when you look at staff reductions, when you look at curriculum
changes, when you look at the needs that are there when it comes to special
education, these types of things, so that these people would be able to speak
out on the legislation.
Sometimes we see that it is put forward – and the
editor of The Telegram,
Russell Wangersky, had talked about it and said, through a bulletin,
that it is just not advisable for people to speak out.
They are being told not to speak out on these particular issues.
We
see in a culture sometimes of government that people are not able to speak out
and share the information that could see the improvements that are needed.
If you really want to fix a problem, you have to let
people who know the issues really speak up.
Let those experts – do not discipline.
That is something that needs to happen.
We do not want to see gag orders on people, Mr. Speaker.
That is why Newfoundland and Labrador whistleblower legislation is very
important.
If we look at information that was put forward, the
former Premier has said they were going to introduce whistleblower legislation.
If we look at the Department of Justice in 2008, in September, I have
documentation from the CBC that said, from a spokesperson with the department,
“…government has not conducted consultations on this matter and as this
legislation affects the public service for Newfoundland and Labrador,
consultations will target the public service”.
At the time, former Justice Minister Kennedy said,
“…that those consultations were holding up the development and implementation of
the law.” This is back in 2008, the
progress, that it was the consultations that did not happen during that time
because they did not begin on the bill.
This was something that was asked.
Then on a campaign stop in Carbonear on October 6
during a campaign, the Leader of the PC Party said, “…government would implement
whistleblower laws in the first session of the legislature after the election.
We'll get that on at the very earliest opportunity”.
There was no reason then why this could not have been put on the agenda.
Then we go into June 1, 2009, still no sign of the
promised whistleblower legislation back in 2007.
In 2007, we have to remember there was a review conducted by Justice
Derek Green. They recommended this
law under the public service so they could “without fear of reprisal [could]
disclose others' improper or unethical behaviour.”
This is something that was reported by the CBC.
This is very important that we look at an election
promise; a commitment was not followed through.
The session passed and no whistleblower legislation.
The reason for it at the time was: Well, there were a lot of requests
under the Access to Information law.
This is something that was covered under Bill 29.
We see in Bill 29, with the amendments that came forward, they wanted to
make sure that they had the time.
We go forward now to December 9, 2010.
“Newfoundland and Labrador's justice minister says Whistleblower
legislation – which former Premier…” – that is two Premiers ago, beyond the
current one – “promised to create in 2008 – won't be introduced this year.”
The former Justice Minister, who is the Member for
Placentia – St. Mary's, had said, “This is a significant piece of legislation.”
– when pressed by the then former Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
Green recommended the law.
This was something that should have been done.
We have seen other things. We
have seen the House and accountability piece of legislation come forward.
Why did it take such a long time to get to this piece of whistleblower
legislation? They reiterated the
promise. It was said that we are
going to do it, we are going to do it right.
This was back in 2010.
Then we go to November 26, 2011.
What is the status? What is
the status of the whistleblower legislation?
The former Minister of Justice then at the time said, “It won't be
enacted until we're perfectly comfortable”.
They want to have the best piece of legislation.
We have heard that before, that this government wants to put forward the
best piece of legislation in the House of Assembly.
We have seen it. We have seen
those statements made in other pieces of legislation that have come forward.
We want to make sure the bill put before us is indeed
the strongest piece of legislation, and as an Opposition we will certainly have
lots of questions as we debate this bill on the floor of the House of Assembly.
There have been repeated calls by other people, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, the president has been
calling for whistleblower legislation to protect the interests of the people
they represent.
Then we go to May 17, 2012.
Newfoundland and Labrador whistleblower law is still silent five years
later. They are going to continue to
monitor. We heard the minister talk
about, how during this time, they monitored other pieces of legislation.
There are all kinds of coverage already in other
jurisdictions, the minister said at that time.
On that date in the media, with the CBC, the minister deflected then
about the election promise and providing that information.
He only committed to say that we are going to monitor the situation.
In the meantime, in February 2012, we saw the City of
St. John's look at passing a bylaw aimed at introducing whistleblowers.
Then you continue to see forward calls.
On November 26, 2013, after six years, government
promised to introduce whistleblower legislation.
It was a recommendation of the Green report.
That is something the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Member for
Humber Valley, pressed in the House around getting this legislation to protect
whistleblowers. That was something
that was put forward.
The current minister at the time, the Justice Minister,
said he does not know when the bill will be tabled but it will not happen during
the current sitting of the House.
That was in November of 2013. The
House was sitting at the time – that it would not happen during that time.
So we move forward, it is a long time since the
legislation has been promised, but we did see it in the Speech from the Throne.
We got the text of Bill 1, the bill that we are talking about today.
In it is something that is promoting transparency and accountability as
part and parcel, I guess, through the Office of Public Engagement, this open
government initiative.
If we go back, and I just want to make this path clear,
this was something the PC party promised in 2007 in the general election.
In the 2008 Throne Speech the Lieutenant Governor at the time said, “My
Government will introduce whistleblower legislation this year after appropriate
consultation has taken place.” That
did not happen. We do not even know
what consultation had taken place.
The minister, in introducing the bill, did not talk
about any of the public consultation that had taken place or provided that
detail to the House, nor was there discussion in the briefing of public
consultation that had taken place around this.
I will say that the party had dropped this campaign promise when it was
re-elected in 2011. It was not
there. We have seen other ministers
say that it was not going to happen.
In fact, last fall, the former Minister of Justice said
this was not going to happen. It was
something quite clear, unequivocally said in response in this House of Assembly
that this legislation was not going to happen.
The minister said, “I have no intentions of tabling all-out
whistle-blower legislation in this House of Assembly this term.” Then the
minister rescinded. It is quite
clear that we see the whistleblower legislation here in the House of Assembly.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been hearing a
lot from this government. They want
to have security, they want to have the insurance that this piece of legislation
is strong, that it protects them and their rights.
The public servants deserve to have that right.
When we look at the legislation itself and when we look
at the popularity of whistleblower legislation, we have seen that province after
province after province has introduced whistleblower legislation.
We want to make sure that as the responsibilities of government, arms of
government, Crown corporations, and the public bodies that it represents, that
the public can be sure that alleged wrongdoings of government are not to be
punished.
If we look at some situations that have happened, you
cannot always follow that there will not be reprisal.
All the legislation talks about is that there will not be reprisal.
I am just going to state a case here of when the Premier of Manitoba took
over office, there was a memo that was sent to all provincial government
departments, Crown corporations and agencies.
This was something that called for an open, transparent, and very
accountable Administration.
Like I said, it is something that should be a hallmark
of any government. Those promising
and noble words have proven many times that the actions of the government and
agencies, of the employees there, were not always protected.
I am going to give an example when Manitoba Hydro took its own risk
management consultant, who was a whistleblower, to court.
They took the whistleblower to court on the ratepayers' dollar to
basically make that person quiet, as a gag order.
There was a real chill of action and libel and we have seen this happen,
not in really getting the answers, the openness and the transparency.
There are other examples where a former Cabinet
minister misled the Legislature, leaving the deputy minister to basically be
held responsible, twisting for months in a situation where there was inaccurate
and misleading statements being made by a minister, a former Minister of the
Crown, and the action was not taken and the whistleblower was not being
protected. The former Finance
Minister in this ordeal, and the minister became responsible for hydro, claimed
in the article published in a newspaper that hydro rates had fallen over twenty
years, but nothing could be further from the truth in that example.
There was an error in the statement.
In those situations that we see there was court action
taken that impacted a whistleblower.
We want to make sure that when we look at legislation that we are putting
forward in the House of Assembly that, indeed, our very own public servants can
feel comfortable in going to the Citizens' Representative and making sure that
when they state their case and their information, that they are not being
dragged off to court and having all kinds of other implications that would come
from it.
I would like to look at a section of the bill – and I
will have time, I guess, in Committee to quote further on some of the questions
here, but I will give the minister an opportunity to hear the concern and some
of the things from the briefing when it comes to a public body, under the
definitions, and what a public body means.
It explicitly states, “a school board or school
district constituted or established under the Schools Act, 1997…”.
We have to go further and look at does that include all of the staff and
employees, teachers in that public body, as well as looking at the RHA, the
regional health authorities. They
said they were included. It is not
explicitly stated here that I see in section (h) under a public body.
Those clarifications need to be made because we have seen cases where
this type of activity has brought to light – we have had past scandals happen in
health care. We want to make sure
that we are protecting the public interest.
Just under the public body and what it means, I am
wondering if this legislation extends to municipalities and those staff that
would be under the Municipalities Act and the cities acts, because that has
happened in other jurisdictions that it has extended to the municipal level of
government as well.
When we look at the concept of this piece of
legislation and how Newfoundland and Labrador is going exclusively the route of
having one independent body as the only option you want to ask the question, as
I made upfront, why are we going that route when every other province and the
federal government has looked at the dual option where there could be an
internal dispute, or resolution, or mechanism to look at bringing this – and not
all public servants would maybe have that option to be able to deal with the
matter internally but there could be rules written in the regulations that they
could look at an internal process if that is applicable, but if not the external
independent body is an option, and that would be through the Citizens'
Representative.
If we look at the process, now we have to look at – if I know there is some form of wrongdoing happening, there is nowhere internally in a department I can go to try and find that improvement. I have to go, if I am a public employee, to make a call or visit the Citizens' Representative, get advice, which is optional. I have to sign to agree so that an investigation would happen and then an investigation will have to take place.
I am thinking of the timelines of when all this would
be happening. Meanwhile, there could
be activities that are happening in the public sector that is an illegal
activity, or some sort of wrongful misdoing, or something that is harmful to the
public interest. Once they receive
it, and if they deal with it and it does not get referred out to some other body
through the Labour Relations Board or some other act – and they deal with it
themselves, the Citizens' Rep, they have to conduct the investigation – then the
matter does not become a public document before this House until it becomes an
annual report. In that annual report
it would get tabled in this very House.
If the House is not sitting then it would get tabled within fifteen days
of the next sitting of the House.
We have had history here, especially under this current
government that sittings of the House sometimes do not extend fifteen days.
Does that get deferred to another sitting?
Sometimes there is not a fall sitting of the House.
That is something this government has done on a couple of occasions.
We want to make sure this information from the time
that it was filed and the time that it becomes a public matter in terms of
proactive disclosure, because an Open Government Initiative – and when we look
at transparency, to really have transparency and proactive disclosure it has to
be done in a timely and efficient manner.
If we see with this approach that from the time a complaint was filed it
could take a significantly long time – there are no clear deadlines in the
legislation that is put forward.
It is very open-ended as to how long something could
continuously happen. That can create
problems when we look at this piece of legislation.
Some measures may have to be looked at to strengthen the legislation to
ensure that things are dealt with and that we see proactive disclosure is
happening in a timely manner. If
not, then the damage is already done.
How do you take the appropriate and corrective action to deal with it?
That is something we need to look at.
There is no limitation when it comes to the timing of
the investigation but there are limitations in the bill itself.
I just look at the very last section, the last clause there, clause 30 on
commencement. It says, “This Act
comes into force on July 1, 2014.”
With that, we do not see – and the minister has confirmed there will be no
opportunity for any activity that has happened retroactively to that date.
There is no time.
The period before July 1, something that happened on
June 30, or something that happened on June 30 of last year, or a month or two
prior, is something that is not possible for the public sector employee to raise
that complaint and have that protection.
There are other avenues, obviously, for information to be disclosed but
that protection may not, and is not, available to them; whether an employee opts
to go to the media or opts to use some other course of action to release
information that could be potentially harmful to government and to the public
and the public interest overall.
When we look at the fact there is no time to look back
on potential wrongdoings, that is concerning.
It is basically something this current government has waited and waited
to put forward, this piece of legislation, and they are not willing to go back,
whether it be a year, whether it be two years.
Obviously, there is a time period where an investigation would be very
difficult after so much time has lapsed, because you may have employee turnover,
somebody may have passed away. It
may be difficult to get information.
There are all kinds of things when you look at, and
that compromise the integrity of an investigation.
We acknowledge and we want to state, it would be very reasonable to look
at a shorter span of time reflecting back so that this legislation could be
something that would be looked at in a retroactive manner.
When we look at the timelines of this piece of
legislation that is put before the House right now, we see there is a very
narrow time frame for the legislation to be debated, for it to get through the
whole process to receive Royal Assent.
To also look at the regulations that would have to be written and the
whole process of providing that education piece to the public sector to ensure
they are aware of all of their rights and the confines of what the legislation
can provide them and how they can be protected or how they are not protected,
because having that piece is certainly very important.
We have seen in other jurisdictions that have
implemented such legislation – for example, Alberta, their legislation was put
forward in November, 2012 and then the regulations came forward on May 15,
several months later. Then it
finally came into force on June 1, 2013, several months later.
We are seeing somewhat of an expedited process, and I am not necessarily
saying that is a bad thing, but we want to make sure everybody has the adequate
time and the information around this so that we are getting the best piece of
legislation going forward, because that is certainly key.
I want to take some time to talk about some of the
specific pieces and how the complaints are dealt with, from what I see, in this
particular piece of legislation.
This was introduced as having four pillars.
One of the things I want to talk about that needs further clarification
is the fact that, will Cabinet documents remain protected?
It is talked about that Cabinet documents will remain protected under
that purview of the Cabinet confidentiality piece, and there is another clause.
It goes further than that.
We have seen other legislation that allows other pieces
that advises a Cabinet document.
Does that become part of that chain, where if there is something that is harmful
then it just goes through that process and it is protected and gives government
a way to basically not have a full investigation on something that could be very
harmful to the public? We might see
where somebody who is part of that process would not be able to disclose
information or documents and reveal that type of deliberation because it informs
(inaudible). We may end up seeing in
the process, if it is not done correctly, where employees will be making contact
to receive advice from the Citizens' Representative on the matter of which the
Citizens' Representative cannot investigate.
We look at tying up the resources then of the Citizens'
Representative. We do not want to be
tying up all the resources of the Citizens' Representative.
The Citizens' Representative, as we are told, is currently not getting
additional resources with the implementation of this act, despite the increased
workload that will come with that.
Looking at whistleblower legislation it is not
something new that the Citizens' Representative has done.
In fact in 2009, the Citizens' Representative reviewed the matter on
whistleblower legislation. The
primary work of the Citizens' Representative is to accept complaints from
citizens who feel they were treated unfairly with respect to how they have
contact with government offices and agencies.
They will mediate a complaint.
They only have the ability to file the report and make
a recommendation. The recommendation
is not enforceable actually, the same way where we see some of this information
in this piece of legislation where the Citizens' Representative will do the
investigation and make a recommendation.
There will be a report filed.
In several cases then, if it has to be referred out to
another body, that is when somebody's privacy and protection from disclosure
could be revealed, and at that point then, once that person's identity is made
public, that could end up causing unnecessary reprisal that may happen through
another form. That has happened.
The United States has some of the strongest forms of
whistleblower legislation. They also
permit it to allow jury trials for somebody who feels they have a legitimate
complaint. When we look at this
process and how the Citizens' Representative will be operating, we have to look
at this and say what this means to the enforceability and what could happen.
In other jurisdictions where I have done some research,
if somebody's identity becomes revealed then they may face reprisal through
additional audits, they may see where licensing is being held back or revoked.
They are being penalized and we do not want to see that happen.
That is not the intent of this legislation.
We want to make sure that the public servants who are in it are clear of
what the legislation is actually saying.
That is something that is important.
In it we do not see anything about private sector employees.
It is not there. The UK does
cover that. That is something we do
not see in this particular piece of legislation.
When we look at the Office of the Citizens'
Representative, the complaints must be made in writing.
I asked the question, what if the Citizens' Representative hears
something based on the advice that is completely illegal or could be very
problematic that the Citizens' Representative knows is unjust.
The person decides not to pursue it for whatever reason, they do not sign
the form, and then it does not go anywhere.
Should that onus be on the Citizens' Representative if
there is some form of illegal activity or potential criminal activity and it be
referred out to the appropriate authorities?
Then we get into a case of making sure process is followed.
It talks about – and we have seen it before in other
bills – a request that is frivolous or vexatious.
I guess the implementation of having something in writing gives the onus
back on the individual, on the public servant that what they are saying is
accurate to the best of their knowledge.
If it is not, then in the legislation there is some potential where they
could face a fine. That is what is
put forward there.
Under section 4 it states that, “This Act applies to
the following wrongdoings in or relating to the public service” and there are
several things listed there. Under
the final section it says, “This Act applied only in respect of wrongdoings that
occur after the coming into force of this Act.”
As I have said, it will not go back.
It includes anything that has happened.
It basically gives government an out.
It gives the heads of public bodies and others the protection – all
public servants the protection that anything that has happened in the past – it
just does not apply to any type of ability under this act for them to raise that
concern, try and correct an error or an omission that is a potential wrongdoing
that may have happened. It is just
giving an amnesty, basically, that level of protection.
That is quite high.
The Citizens' Representative, under section 13, “The
purpose of an investigation by the citizens' representative into a disclosure of
wrongdoing is to bring the wrongdoing to the attention of the chief executive of
the appropriate department or public body and to recommend the corrective
measures that should be taken, when appropriate.”
Like I said, it is to make a recommendation.
We need to see legislation that has a lot more bite to
it. There is a lot of bark here but
where is the bite? There needs to be
teeth to legislation to make sure the adequate protections are put in place so
that a whistleblower who puts forward information is duly protected.
Section 15 talks about when investigations are not
required and the Citizens' Representative can refer out cases.
We have seen federally where cases have been referred out.
They have been referred out in many situations.
If we look at reasons why they have either been referred out federally or
there have been rejections, there are several scenarios and criteria.
A bulk of that, almost 25 per cent of it, was dealt with by another body,
and some did not meet the criteria.
We are seeing, from a federal level, that there has not been a lot of uptake
when it comes to enforcing this piece of legislation, beyond the fact of the
Integrity Commissioner being dismissed basically with a golden handshake while
under review of the Auditor General, federally, and no action taken because that
person had left office. There were
wrongdoing findings in 2011 and 2012 since that time, but the inquiries were
1,365, so the statistics are quite low.
I wanted for a second to also talk about a situation
where we have seen how information has been completely protected.
It has been protected because the current Citizens' Rep has limitations.
We have seen this just in a complaint situation where a ruling denied the
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary information from the Citizens' Representative's
files. Their documents were
protected from criminal alleged information that the RNC was investigating a
matter of possible offenses of fraud and breach of a public officer of the Crown
and filed with the Citizens' Representative for information.
The provincial court said that information should be
made available. So, the Citizens'
Representative used the power to go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador. The Supreme Court said
that the provincial court decision was to be not upheld and that the legislation
allowed the privilege of the Citizens' Representative to be absolute.
That situation protected the information and it outweighed any other
considerations in such matter.
In that situation, the Citizens' Representative Act
allows for information that the RNC, the police, were looking at investigating a
criminal matter and could not access the information because of the powers of
the Citizens' Representative. If
this is indeed the case and the intent of where this whistleblower legislation
can go, being that this office is placed in the Citizens' Representative, and
there are sections of the Citizens' Representative Act and the powers associated
with it; then information that is brought forward by somebody making a
complaint, if files and information are obtained, they could be kept and kept
with the Citizens' Representative and not necessarily be released, even if there
is some type of alleged criminal activity as has been the case where it has
happened previously, not with the whistleblower legislation but in the act
itself.
Whistleblower legislation should be there to protect
the public servant, but it should also make information readily available.
If there is wrongdoing done, that it can be referred out to the body
appropriate to deal with it, whether it be the authorities, whether it be the
Auditor General, or whether it be some other body and that information be
available.
In a situation where the RNC wanted information from
the Citizens' Rep, they could not get it.
The Citizens' Representative went to the Supreme Court and used the power
of the act to withhold that information.
In situations like that, will we see that with this whistleblower
legislation enacted?
That can be a real concern if you want to see what
level of justice will be taken. Will
there be sanctions? We have seen
where there have been situations in other jurisdictions where there have been a
lot of complaints received, investigations begun, investigations completed,
findings for reprisal, referrals either made to a tribunal; but we have not seen
where there has been reprisal, where there has been remedies for whistleblowers
and sanctions, if necessary, taken.
There has not been that there.
That can be a problem when we look at will people take
this piece of legislation and say if the actions are not going to be taken, if
it is not going to get results, if the bill does not have the teeth to get the
results and protect the information, why would I go through that process.
Why would I go through that process if I am not going to be absolutely
assured that I am protected, that my identity is not going to be?
We were told that there are situations that if this matter goes to a
particular board or if it has to go through a court process that the protection,
the identity, may not be.
There are situations where there are small government
departments in the reporting mechanisms, even today.
The Citizens' Representative said we are going to work at the mechanics
as to how we do the current activity report, the digest that comes forward
annually. The last one that is put
forward is for the thirty-first of 2013.
There is already a year that has passed by.
So if somebody makes that complaint and makes that agreement, then it can
take a very long time before that information becomes public – but, in what form
is it going to be public, and how are people going to be ensured?
Because they are not protected internally; they are not protected.
That could lead to potential harassment.
It can lead to all kinds of other things that have been seen in other
jurisdictions.
Having the one individual process, I am going to need a
further explanation on why there is just the one process and not a dual process.
A dual process may look at providing, in certain situations, that option
where things can be dealt with in a more expeditious manner, it can provide for
protection, it can provide for the efficiency of government moving forward, and
also the protection that the employee who is blowing the whistle has their job,
that the protection of the job is there.
If it is dealt with internally and there is a still an issue, they still
have the option then of looking at the Citizens' Representative and their
office. They have that option.
Or they could look at that option right from the beginning to the
Citizens' Representative. This is a
situation that some of the other jurisdictions have.
When we look at the Citizens' Representative back in
section 15, why they would not conduct an investigation, it says “...so much
time has elapsed between the date when the subject matter of the disclosure
arose and the date when the disclosure was made that investigating it would not
serve a useful purpose”.
The legislation is not clear.
Legislation should be as clear as possible, without being ambiguous.
We want it to be very clear.
It is not saying a specific time.
That it is basically up to the discretion of the Citizens' Representative.
Although an independent body under the House of Assembly, shouldn't there
be a clear timeline as to what is too long to look into?
Obviously government, in preparing this legislation, said anything before
July 1, 2014, is too long because we do not want to look back.
We do not want to look back at anything that has happened prior to.
When we look at some matters, will there be consistency?
Will, for a particular matter, something be five days too much time, a
month too much time? Depending on
the degree, is there some sort of test that is put forward?
Is it straight across the board?
Shouldn't there be a time that is put forward?
These are types of things I am looking at that should be there, I would
think.
The Citizens' Representative believes that the public
body has not appropriately followed up with or has the recommendations, or did
not co-operate in the Citizens' Representative's investigation under the act,
the Citizens' Representative may make a report on the matter.
They are looking at in the case of the public body, the board of
directors and the minister responsible; and in the case of the department, the
minister responsible. It is about:
may make a report. It does not
require. The legislation should be
explicit and make that.
We want to make sure that in situations where there is
true negligence that somebody is being held accountable for the gross
mismanagement as defined and as stated in the legislation.
We want to have some assurances.
Whistleblower legislation can be very good legislation that is necessary
when you look at how to protect the public servants on a go-forward basis and
ensure that.
We have seen in this very House a scandal that happened
that rocked the House of Assembly.
That led to a full, thorough review by the Auditor General and by Justice Green
to do that thorough review, and go through that process.
There was a court process as well.
It led to an act of which members of this very House of Assembly are held
to abide by. It also included the
whistleblower legislation.
This piece of legislation has been long overdue.
It has been long overdue because it was promised a long time ago by this
government. Based on what I see
right now and as moving forward, I will certainly have many more questions for
the Minister Responsible for Public Engagement, how the rollout is going to
happen, and how we can make sure that the legislation itself is not just putting
out very broad statements, that it actually has some clear definitions, some
clear, definitive timelines in how we are able to move that piece forward.
That is something that is really important when we look at the
whistleblower legislation that we are debating before the House of Assembly.
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I think I will take my seat
and allow somebody else to speak to this piece of legislation.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
VERGE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a pleasure for me to stand in my place
this evening representing the great people of the Lewisporte District and to
speak to Bill 1, what has come to be known as whistleblower legislation.
This is a new piece of legislation.
We have often seen bills brought before the House that are amendments to
acts that are already in place and pieces of legislation that are in place, but,
of course, this is a whole new piece of legislation.
It is a fairly extensive piece of legislation.
What I want to do in my twenty minutes allocated is to speak to a
specific part of the legislation, as time would not permit me to speak to all
parts of it.
The Member for The Straits – White Bay North, being the
critic of course for the department that is responsible for this legislation and
being the first speaker to speak to it, under the standing rules he gets sixty
minutes to speak. The rest of us
will get twenty minutes, other than the Leader of the Official Opposition, who
will also get sixty minutes to speak.
I have twenty minutes, and I want to take probably five
minutes or so at the beginning to talk about some of the things the Member for
The Straits – White Bay North raised.
It is my understanding of the piece of legislation – and, of course, if I
say anything that is not 100 per cent correct, I am sure the minister
responsible when he addresses will set the record straight.
First of all, in the first twenty minutes of the sixty,
the Member for The Straits – White Bay North did not address the piece of
legislation at all. He talked about
the timelines and the chronology that was in place from the time when our party
had first said that we would bring in whistleblower legislation up until it is
now there. I recognize that, yes, it
has taken some time. I am not sure
it would have taken him twenty minutes to make that point, but he took twenty
minutes to talk about that. I
understand that this is a whole new piece of legislation, and as such there
needed to be a lot of study, a lot of research, and a lot of jurisdictional
analysis done to find out best practices so that when we bring in the
legislation, we would have the benefit of learning what has happened in other
jurisdictions.
The member questioned the definition of public body in
the legislation and specifically talked about school boards and whether this
legislation extended to teachers and all the staff.
Again, it is my understanding from questions I asked in the briefings
that we had – and I want to thank the minister, his staff, the Department of
Municipal Affairs, Public Engagement, and also from Justice for the briefing –
that teachers and all school staff, including principals and school board staff,
are included.
As well, the member talked about the need for action to
be done in a timely manner. I would
refer him to section 14 of the piece of legislation, which addresses that.
Section 14 says, “The citizens' representative is responsible for
investigating disclosures that he or she receives under this Act.”
It says, “An investigation shall be conducted as informally and
expeditiously as possible.”
There is no exact timeline laid out there, but we have
to allow time for a proper investigation to take place.
A lot of these things I expect, in practice, would result in an informal
investigation, which can be done very quickly. However, in cases where a more
thorough investigation needs to take place, then we have to allow time for the
proper procedures to take place.
Another point the Member for The Straits – White Bay
North raised is about clause 30 and his concern about the fact that this
legislation will take effect as of July 1, but there is no retroactivity.
Again, it is my understanding that in general legislation it is forward
thinking. Legislation comes into
place and whatever procedures would be covered under that legislation is from
that day forward. To say we are
going to bring in legislation which would be retroactive, one could ask the
question, if you were to do that, how far back would you go?
What would be reasonably expected?
If we said three months, probably the Opposition would
say we need six months. If we said
six months, they might say you need a year.
If they said a year, maybe they would say we should go back five.
I do not think that is a very logical or sensible approach.
When the legislation is enacted as of July 1, it is given Royal Assent,
and from that day forward we are covered under the legislation.
One other point he made was he said the Citizens'
Representative is not given any additional resources.
I asked this question in the briefing actually and we talked about it.
Again, it is my understanding that the Citizens' Representative has been
talked to about this. He said that
at this point he is not asking for any additional resources.
He wants to see the way things unfold.
If there are a lot of demands on his time, then I think the proper
procedure for him, if he is looking for additional resources, would be to make
that request through the Management Commission which would make a decision.
Those are just a few of the things the member brought forward that I
address. I hope, Minister, that I
have said it all accurately.
I want to talk specifically about one section of the
legislation, and that is the four pillars.
There are several pieces to this, but I want to talk just about the four
pillars. Mr. Speaker, the goal of
this legislation is to prevent wrongdoing in the public service, bringing
attention to serious and significant matters that are illegal and, or
inappropriate in accordance with the bill.
We are talking about serious stuff here, not just
menial issues. The provision is here
to allow people who see serious and illegal matters taking place to be able to
report them without fear of reprisal.
By moving this bill forward, we are acknowledging that such serious
wrongdoing can occur, and we are providing a mechanism for dealing with it so
that we can protect the integrity of the public service.
To ensure this protection, the legislation does outline four key elements
or four pillars.
First, the bill ensures that employees can disclose
serious and significant wrongdoing without fear of threat or reprisal; the
second pillar, the legislation will allow for an independent office that will be
given power and authority to receive and investigate allegations of wrongdoing
and to publicly report the findings; thirdly, there will be anti-reprisal
protections for employees who disclose wrongdoings; and finally, the fourth
pillar, the Labour Relations Board will hear complaints and award remedies,
including reinstatement, for reprisals against whistleblowers.
I would like to take each of these, Mr. Speaker, in the ten or eleven
minutes I have left and to put a little bit more meat on them.
First, it is critical that employees of government
departments and public bodies be confident they can come forward when they
witness serious wrongdoing, and that they feel assured they can do this
confidentially without worrying about losing their job, without worrying about
getting demoted, or without worrying about any other consequences that are of a
negative nature.
We must not allow criminal acts or other acts that
jeopardize the public to go unnoticed and unreported.
No one is in a better place to ensure this type of behaviour is stopped
than the thousands of public service employees who work daily to ensure that the
public services are delivered efficiently on behalf of the residents of this
Province. It is at the grassroots.
These are the people who know.
These are the people who we want to be given the ability to tell us what
sort of serious wrongdoing is going on and for them to be protected in doing so.
The legislation will ensure individuals who come
forward with information in good faith will be protected.
Mr. Speaker, if an employee has concerns about serious wrongdoing within
the public service, such as a criminal activity or gross mismanagement of public
funds and assets, the employee will be able to disclose that information to the
Office of the Citizens' Representative.
It is also important to note that employees can seek advice from the
Citizens' Representative if they are trying to determine whether or not to
disclose something they know to be wrong.
They can go to the Citizens' Rep to do it, and if they are unsure they
can go and get some advice.
The legislation is not meant to deal with routine human
resource complaints or concerns about how departments do their business.
The Member for The Straits – White Bay North raised that.
It is not meant to deal with human resource complaints or policy
development. There are other means
for employees of departments and public bodies to come forward with these
concerns, including formalized union management processes and human resources
policies. Unions have collective
agreements and they have grievance procedures.
There is already a litany of procedures laid out to deal with human
resource issues.
The second pillar is the appointment of the independent
body to oversee the investigation of wrongdoing.
This legislation proposes a single disclosure process through the Office
of the Citizens' Representative. The
Member for The Straits – White Bay North has raised concerns about there being a
single disclosure process. It is my
understanding that in other jurisdictions, as he has said, there is a dual route
to report. It is also my
understanding that in doing the cross-jurisdictional analysis and the study
about what has happened in other jurisdictions across Canada, the advice we got
is that a dual route can provide less protection for a whistleblower than the
single route.
Again, I asked this question in the briefing.
The example that was given was supposing there was a dual route in which
a whistleblower could bring a complaint, let's say, to a deputy minister or go
the external route to the Citizens' Representative.
It was felt in the information and the experience that was garnered from
looking across at other provinces, in cases like that – for example, there is a
deputy minister and his or her office is there, and a normal traffic flow goes
into and out of that office. It is
usually regular people who go in and out.
An employee wants to raise a concern and wants to bring
about a whistleblower, so they walk into the deputy minister's office, somebody
who probably has never been there for a year, two years, or probably never.
People see that person go in and come out, and a while later there is an
investigation going on. It threatens
the confidentiality of the employee.
By going with the single route, completely external to
the Citizens' Rep, it was felt to actually give the legislation more teeth
rather than less teeth. Mr. Speaker,
a single disclosure process will also help protect the identity of those who
come forward by limiting who they disclose to.
Dual-disclosure processes put a significant burden on public bodies, as
well, to do investigations of complaints and also open up potential
whistleblowers to greater opportunities for potential reprisals.
This could mean the employees would be less likely to disclose wrongdoing
when they have to report to the department.
Having a single disclosure process to an independent body strengthens the
protection of confidentiality for the whistleblower and increases the likelihood
that an employee will follow through with making a disclosure.
In all cases, Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, members
of the public service can request advice from the Office of the Citizens' Rep
without deciding whether to come forward as a whistleblower.
The Office of the Citizens' Rep will be responsible for investigating
disclosures received under the act.
As I noted earlier, these investigations will be done as expeditiously as
possible. The Office of the
Citizens' Rep will bring the matter to the attention of the head of the
government department and recommend corrective measures.
The Office of the Citizens' Rep will prepare an annual
report for this House outlining investigations undertaken and the results of
these investigations. The Citizens'
Rep can decide not to pursue an investigation where it is deemed not to be in
good faith, frivolous or vexatious, or where there is another process to remedy
the situation. The Citizens' Rep can
decide the integrity and the sincerity of the complaint that is being brought
forward, and if in the Citizens' Rep's mind it is menial and not a serious
wrongdoing, then he – or she, maybe someday – can decide whether or not to do
the investigation.
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Citizens' Rep is the
best choice for the role of independent body to receive and investigate
disclosures. They are already doing
this through legislation, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and
Administration Act, and they are well trained and can ensure the act is
interpreted appropriately. The
office is well positioned to afford confidence to employees, that they are
objective, impartial, and will treat disclosures with the highest level of
confidence.
The third pillar of the legislation is the assurance of
anti-reprisal protection for employees who disclose wrongdoing.
This legislation makes it an offence to take a reprisal against an
employee or to direct that one be taken because the employee has, in good faith,
either sought the advice from the Citizens' Rep, has made a disclosure, or
co-operated with an investigation.
Furthermore, anyone found to be taking a reprisal on a
disclosing employee is subject to disciplinary action.
It can include a fine of up to $10,000, termination, or other penalties
under the law. There are protections
there to make sure that people who bring issues forward do not suffer any ill
consequence because of it.
The fourth and final pillar solidifying the structure
of this legislation lays out a process for how complaints will be heard and what
remedies will be available to those who may face reprisals, because it is not a
perfect world. Maybe somebody may
find a way to, in fact, bring some ill will against somebody who has brought
forth an issue. In that case, the
employee has a right to take their concern to the Labour Relations Board, and
the Labour Relations Board will hear it and make the determination.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is set in a firm
foundation with independent bodies in power to investigate wrongdoing, reverse
and rectify reprisals, if they occur, against whistleblowers.
The legislation is designed to encourage employees to come forward
without fear of wrongdoing, without fear that they may see serious wrongdoing
within the public service. The
legislation sets out a process designed to give employees protection.
It is a good piece of legislation; I believe it is, Mr.
Speaker. It falls in line with our
whole way of trying to connect with the grassroots more, of our whole open
government initiative. I look
forward to further debate on it, and I look forward to its passage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very happy to stand and speak to Bill 1, An Act
Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.
I am saying finally, Mr. Speaker – finally.
This has been promised by this government for seven years, and I cannot
help but wonder if maybe they had the seven-year itch or something, they finally
got to scratch it, and now we are seeing some results here.
This was a promise that was made by this government and
they have taken seven years. Mr.
Speaker, they made that promise seven years ago and then they also promised it
in their Blue Book. What they could
have done is they could have been a leader.
They could have been a leader in this field because there was that
opportunity, but no, they could not get out of their own way.
What did they do? They waited
until other provinces had done that work.
Why is that, Mr. Speaker?
Why can we not be leaders?
Why can this government not be a leader?
We have the talent in our Province.
We have the expertise. We
have fine folks, absolutely fine employees in the Department of Justice who were
eager to get on with this.
I can remember, Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2012 when
I introduced a petition asking for whistleblower legislation, a petition asking
this government to honour its promises, but the Minister of Justice said it is
complicated and tedious. Imagine
that this government said it was too complicated and too tedious to do.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, they have found their way after
seven years, after other provinces have paved the way.
I find that is really disappointing, but I am thankful they are finally
doing the work they should have been doing in this area because we know
whistleblower protection is so important.
It is about protecting our own employees and it is also about protecting
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We need that right now, particularly, Mr. Speaker, when
we look at the huge resource development projects that are going on in our
Province, Muskrat Falls, where millions and millions of dollars are spent every
day, millions and millions of dollars belonging to the people of the Province.
We need whistleblower protection now more than we ever did, and it is
about time.
It is disappointing that this government took so long.
They have missed many opportunities.
Who knows what we may have found out by now in those seven years?
If they had acted efficiently and swiftly with leadership, who knows what
kinds of things we could have avoided?
We will not know because it is not retroactive.
At least going forward we as a community and as a society can be more
confident because we will have legislation that will protect and allow for
whistleblowing.
Whistleblowing is about how we administer our
resources, how we take care of our people, how we work together.
That is what it is about. It
is a positive thing, and one that is needed.
We have had workers living in fear when they know that they should
disclose, because they had no protection.
There is a little bit of protection in some different areas but, for the
most part, our workers do not have protection for disclosure.
The whistleblowing protection legislation is also about respect for our
workers. This is a respectful thing
to do and it is about respect for the people of Newfoundland.
It is about honouring a commitment that this government
made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – seven years later.
This is a progressive move.
This commitment came about because the leader of our party, the Leader of the
NDP, in a debate, challenged the incoming Premier, pushing for whistleblowing
legislation. He said he would do it
and he said he would do it within a year.
That was in 2007, Mr. Speaker.
Here we are in 2014. It came
from an initiative of our leader pushing the then leader of the government
saying, in a general election, this is what we needed and he said yes, he would
do it.
This is a progressive move, Mr. Speaker.
To not introduce whistleblower legislation at this point is indefensible
in a modern democracy. I would like
to say that it is indefensible that it has not come before these seven years.
We hopefully are a modern democracy.
We know that we have a lot of democratic deficits in this House – a lot
of democratic deficits. For
instance, when we look at the issue of all-party standing committees, finally we
have one on the fishery. That is a
good thing, and we can see that it is working.
It is about time that we have more.
We have the ability to be a modern democracy, to not be as indefensible.
Finally, this government can no longer drag its heels
on this. Again, they gave up the
opportunity to be a leader. They
waited and they waited and they waited, but now we are in a huge rush, which is
kind of interesting because they have had seven years – and we got this
legislation yesterday and we got part of our briefing last night.
Here we are, less than twenty-four hours, later debating a very important
piece of legislation. Just imagine –
this reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of a number of things that the government does.
They take a long time, they drag their heels, then all of a sudden
everything is a crisis and it has to happen right away.
I find that very interesting, Mr. Speaker.
Our leader is presently with the all-party standing
committee on the fishery, and it is great that she can participate in that.
I am happy that we finally have this stand-alone whistleblower protection
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS
ROGERS:
I
am very happy that we finally have this stand-alone whistleblower protection
legislation coming before the House, for all public employees in this Province.
This is going to cover all public employees; public employees who need to
speak out about wrongdoing in the civil service but are afraid for their jobs.
It is a good thing. Slow, but
finally, it is a good thing.
Up to this point, we have only had whistleblower
protection for some public servants.
There are sections in the Environmental Protection Act, the Occupational Health
and Safety Act, the Personal Health Information Act, and in the Labour Standards
Act that protects employees who need to disclose information about wrongdoings.
In 2007, the House of Assembly employees were protected
through the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.
That was recommended by Justice Green in 2006.
It is interesting that it takes real pushing for this government to do
what it really should be doing. It
does not seem to take leadership; it has to be pushed.
It is like moving a huge mountain.
Justice Green said at the time that if we had had
whistleblower protection earlier, it might have prevented some of the financial
wrongdoing in the House of Assembly spending scandal.
It might have some to light sooner.
That is a lesson for us all, that we have lost those seven years.
We did not need to lose those seven years.
If the legislation had come sooner, perhaps there were other things that
could have been prevented.
In 2006, Justice Green also called for whistleblower
legislation for all public servants.
He was not just talking about House of Assembly employees; he was talking about
all public servants. Mr. Speaker,
that, in fact, was eight years ago.
Ironically, if we had had the legislation, the ER-PR
testing mistakes in Eastern Health and the ensuing cover-ups – because we know
there were cover-ups – would have come to light earlier as well.
Mr. Speaker, I know how important that was because my ER-PR tests were
wrong. I was one of the victims of
that mistake.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the first article came out
in The Independent, October 5, 2005
identifying that there were problems.
Then the Cameron inquiry started in November 2007, and her report came
out in March of 2009.
Would the inquiry have gone differently?
Would things have spun out differently?
Would there have been a possibility of perhaps a little less damage?
Perhaps. In fact, the Task
Force on Adverse Events called for an amendment to the Regional Health
Authorities Act to give legal protection to employees who report accidents and
adverse events. It said no one
should be punished or otherwise disadvantaged for complying with the requirement
to report an occurrence.
In our history now, how well we know how important this
is, particularly around our health issues.
We know this; it was a dark time in our history, in the history of our
health care, the whole ER-PR problem.
We know that perhaps lives were lost sooner than they had to be.
It was a very, very difficult time.
We know that whistleblower protection is about
protecting staff. It is about
ensuring that everybody can work in a safe environment.
That people can work with the resources that they need in order to be
able to do their job well, in order to be able to do their job properly, in
order to be able to do their job safely.
It is also about then servicing the people of the Province in a safe
manner.
In 2007, again, our party began calling for
whistleblower legislation. Our NDP
leader raised the issue to the 2007 general election during the leaders' debate,
and the former Premier promised to develop legislation in reaction to her
comments. It was a great moment.
We all felt really hopeful, because know how important this kind of
legislation is.
The Premier at that time said he had no problem with
rapid, rapid implementation. Boy, if
this is rapid, we are all in trouble, Mr. Speaker.
He said he was very strongly in favour of it.
He promised to deal with it in the first session of the House of Assembly
after the 2007 election. It took
seven years, but we finally have a legislative policy and procedure for
disclosure and protection for all employees of government departments, public
corporations – because it is very important to include public corporations,
because we know how important they all are – school boards, and the public
college system.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy that something we have pushed
for, for seven years, is finally being done.
Whistleblower protection is good for public employees and it is good for
the Province. This will provide a
safe and a moderated avenue for public employees to disclose wrongdoing in the
public service. Wrongdoing is
clearly defined - that is good - and there are protections to make sure there is
no abuse in this. When they see a
legal offence or something that creates danger to life, health or safety, or
when they see gross mismanagement they can visit the Citizens' Representative
and obtain advice and maybe go on with a complaint.
It is an independent body, and I applaud the government for choosing to
design the legislation this way.
I remember one of the times when I stood up in the
House, Mr. Speaker, presenting the petition that I started presenting on April
30, 2012, I remember standing up and saying I have every faith and confidence
that the employees in the Department of Justice will be able to come up with a
very thorough, comprehensive, workable, easily defined, whistleblower
legislation to present to this House, and they have.
Mr. Speaker, they have come up with a very good piece
of legislation. We still have some
questions. We have some questions
and we look forward to debating some of those questions and getting some answers
to some of the questions we have but we were confident that the employees, the
fantastic employees in the Department of Justice would be able to come up with a
good piece of legislation.
Again, by going to the Office of the Citizens'
Representative it means that employees do not have to first go to an official in
their department or agency. This
external disclosure process should encourage people to come forward who may be
wary of disclosing internally.
Because we all know what can happen in a workplace if an employee goes to a
manager or to someone and then there is a closed door meeting, suspicions arise.
Particularly in any kind of workplace where there are suspicions of
wrongdoing or suspicions of something that is not safe, that something is off.
When there are closed door meetings like that it is really not safe for
the employee. I applaud the fact
that this is going outside.
Also, we know the Office of the Citizens'
Representative has been doing fantastic work over the years.
That they are creditable, they are professional, and they are experts in
their area. So we are very happy
that, in fact, that will be the locus of the work for this particular piece of
legislation. They can clearly
identify wrongdoing and their job then will be to bring attention to the deputy
minister or the CEO of a public body and make recommendations on how to avoid
wrongdoing in the future.
We have great confidence in the Office of the Citizens'
Representative. Over time it will be
interesting to see what kind of systemic flaws in government procedures that
will be caught. We look forward to
the fact that this will ensure safety for employees and for the citizens.
We are also pleased there is protection from reprisal
for employees who report. It also
clearly defined what would be a result of a disclosure if someone were the
victim of reprisal.
One of the areas I am still not exactly sure how it
will play out is the whole issue of Cabinet deliberation and Cabinet documents.
We know that Bill 29 still has a far-reaching effect; that hand from Bill
29 still reaches far into the whole area of Cabinet confidentiality, Cabinet
documents. My concern, and I think
the concern of our caucus, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what will happen.
We know that Bill 29 weakened the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Because before the implementation of Bill 29, the Commissioner was able
to review documents that were considered to come under Cabinet confidentiality
and he could decide whether or not that was the case.
Bill 29 removed that authority from him.
We do not know yet, Mr. Speaker, in fact, whether the
Office of the Citizens' Rep will have the authority when Cabinet says these are
Cabinet documents, whether they are former documents or advisory documents – we
do not know yet, clearly, whether the Office of the Citizens' Rep will have the
authority that the Information and Privacy Commissioner had prior to Bill 29,
whether or not the Office of the Citizens' Rep will be able to make
determination of whether or not in fact a document does come under Cabinet
confidentiality, whether it is a Cabinet document.
That is very important because we still see a negative
effect, the democratic deficit that we are living with as a result of Bill 29.
That is a very important issue that I look forward to seeing explored
further in debate when we have a chance to stand and ask questions specifically.
Again, because that office was weakened, let's see what is going to
happen, whether or not the Office of the Citizens' Rep will be able to have an
effect on that.
The other issue we will have to look at is the whole
issue of the resources that may be needed by the Office of the Citizens'
Representative. We know this will be
a very important piece of legislation and that the Office of the Citizens' Rep
has done a lot of work, not only in responding to complaints but also what they
do is a lot of outreach in the community.
They do a lot of public education about their role in terms of what their
traditional role has been for the Office of the Citizens' Representative.
One would hope they would have the resources to be able
to manage this particular piece of legislation, manage it well, and that they
will also be able to do outreach into the public service to ensure that people
feel safe, that they understand how the legislation works, that they feel the
Office of the Citizens' Representative is working in their best interest, that
it is working on their behalf and they are accessible.
We have to make sure, and I hope this government will really consult with
the Office of the Citizens' Representative, not just foist something on them but
really consult with them and work hand in hand with them so they in fact can do
the best work that they can possibly do.
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind the hon. member her time is up.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I look forward to asking more of the questions.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak this
evening in this debate on Bill 1. I
also appreciated the discussions with the officials yesterday in the briefing.
Bill 1, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure, also known as the
whistleblower act, is about to facilitate legitimate disclosure in a safe and
consistent environment.
I have a few introductory comments.
I am going to speak mainly on two issues in this bill but first I feel I
do have to react for a moment to a comment from the previous speaker.
Yesterday in our discussion we talked about the whistleblower
legislation, the public disclosure bill, and it is another tool in the toolbox
of open government, as a reference to it.
If you listen to the previous speaker, the immediate previous speaker to
me, you would think that this government, all of the public servants, everyone
inside has a hand in the cookie jar.
There is gross mismanagement all over the place.
There seems to be a complete lack of public respect in the public service
and distrust from this.
So the Member for St. John's Centre, I do not know if
it is her view or the Third Party's view, but I feel that the idea of
retroactivity in an act such as this, not a go-forward act, would be almost like
a witch hunt, a looking for guilt, or a reference that somewhere in our
departments there is total gross mismanagement.
Whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, would only be
enacted in a very, very minute number of cases.
It would be a rare event that someone would go through this procedure.
I trust and this government trusts and feels that the faith that we have
in the civil service in this Province, and the people who work in the public
bodies, do not need that amount of distrust thrown at them through this
legislation.
I would like to get into my comments now, Mr. Speaker.
This is an act that has three important words inside the first page of
the document, in the Explanatory Notes – three very good, active words.
It is going to be part of disclosing, investigating, and protecting.
These are the three important words that are important to this
legislation. Also, the reports or
the disclosure must be of a serious or significant event, or about serious and
significant mismanagement. It is not
your frivolous or vexatious type of comments that would get a report or would
indeed need to be investigated.
One other comment I would like to pass before I get
into my discussion, I want to go back to sort of answer or comment on a comment
made by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
I think the Member for Lewisporte alluded to it.
He talked about the single disclosure – that there is a single
representative for the disclosure, not a dual process.
Employees may not always be comfortable – I just want to reiterate that –
reporting to someone internally in an office; but also, if in many offices we
have to have someone who can accept complaints and reports, then that means an
awful lot of people have to be trained, have to offer the consistency.
By having the single mechanism for reporting, that gives that consistency
of constant application to all of the reports that are made.
That should be a common denominator.
The two main areas I want to talk about in my response
to this legislation tonight is the Office of the Citizens' Representative and
its responsibilities in this legislation, and I also want to talk about the
Labour Relations Board and its responsibilities and roles in this legislation.
The Office of the Citizens' Rep is contained in
sections 14 to 20, mainly. In this
bill, significant authority and responsibility is going to be laid in these two
independent offices: the Office of the Citizens' Representative, and the Labour
Relations Board. This is going to
translate into some key accountability for each of these offices.
We have the faith and the trust that these two offices contain the skills
and the abilities to effectively implement this legislation.
The Office of the Citizens' Representative is well positioned to provide
advice, to accept the disclosures, and to investigate the wrongdoings within the
public service, as we are looking at and outlining in this bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the officials yesterday, when
we asked a question said – and this really stuck to me, and I like to use
analogies – the Office of the Citizens' Representative is going to act as a
sifter. Now, my first impression of
a sifter is going to my grandmother watching her bake bread and she was sifting
the flour. I would help her bake the
bread and I would crank the sifter and the flour would go down through.
That is a very poignant metaphor when the office is a sifter, because it
is going to filter the complaints.
It is going to refine the complaints.
It is going to take the complaints and see if they really have validity.
This sifter is going to decide the legitimacy of the complaints that is
laid before it.
This office already provides a Province-wide
Ombudsman-type service on behalf of the citizens of the Province.
It has been around since 2002.
It is an independent office of this House.
That is very important. It is
an independent office of this House.
The primary work of this Citizens' Representative is to accept complaints from
citizens who feel they have been treated unfairly with respect to their contact
with government offices and agencies.
The primary work of that Citizens' Representative – I want to say it
again – is to accept complaints from the citizens who feel they have been
treated unfairly with respect to their contact with government offices and
agencies.
The Citizens' Representative, his staff or her staff,
whatever the case may be, it may change, mediates citizens' complaints and where
informal mediation is not possible, the office can undertake an impartial and
unbiased investigation. Unlike the
rest of Canada, right now we are the seventh jurisdiction to implement this type
of legislation, this act will provide the Office of the Citizens' Representative
to act as the single independent body which will accept disclosures and
investigate these wrongdoings in the public service.
Now, it is all of the public service, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to sort of go aside from my notes again for a moment because
yesterday when we were talking to the officials, they referenced one part of
what I would consider a public body that is not included in this legislation.
I made some notes on my paper yesterday.
They referred to Memorial University that is not considered a public body
for this legislation because Memorial University has the autonomy and has its
own policies. They have a protected
disclosure policy at Memorial University now.
They may be included in this legislation later but, right now, their
legislation just does not cover their employees; it covers the whole academic
community. It is not just the public
employees who are there; the whole academic community is included.
So, I thought that was important to add to that.
The office will be given the power and the
responsibility to conduct its work consistent with the powers and authorities
contained in its jurisdictional legislation now, the Citizens' Representative
Act. The office is currently
responsible for a role similar to that in this proposed legislation, and it is
well positioned to take on this much broader role that we are asking it to take
now. The Citizens' Rep and the staff
in that office have been in contact with all these other jurisdictions now that
have implemented the whistleblower legislation, and through professional
development, in-service for the public employees, we feel assured that they are
on top of the best trends and they have the best practices from right across the
country. They now have more tools in
their toolbox for this legislation.
They are well-positioned to carry out this and other related work in the best
interests of the public and related to the public interest disclosures of the
House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, under this bill that is before us today
there is a sequence of three activities that will take place.
Under this bill any public service employee can make a public interest
disclosure directly to the Office of the Citizens' Rep.
That is the first step. The
second sequential step here as well is that the office will then advise the
employees of their rights and responsibilities under the legislation.
The Citizens' Rep would have to let that employee know their rights and
responsibilities. The third step is
the employee can then decide whether to make a disclosure of wrongdoing in
writing to the office, or they will understand they probably have been sifted
out and they do not really have a complaint.
The Office of the Citizens' Representative will carry
out investigations to matters related to allegations contained in the
disclosure. As our minister said
earlier, and I think it was also highlighted by the Member for Lewisporte, the
disclosure shall be conducted as informally and expeditiously as possible.
The timeliness is not the important thing; the important thing is we get
it right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSS:
The
office's investigators will ensure that the right to procedural fairness of all
persons involved in an investigation is respected, including the person making
the disclosure, including the witnesses, including the person whom the
disclosure was made about, and any other person alleged to be responsible for
wrongdoings. All of these people do
have and deserve certain protections from this legislation.
The Office of the Citizens' Rep will make every effort to ensure disclosures are made confidentially, and wherever practical, individual disclosures will be dealt with in ways not to disclose the identity of the person making the disclosure. Another feature important to this is that the Office of the Citizens' Rep is not required to investigate a disclosure, and may stop an investigation where the office deems in their opinion that the disclosure reveals allegations that are frivolous or vexatious, and disclosure has not been made in good faith. We remember the two words which are very important that must be included as well; any of these actions have to be serious and significant, not trivial and minor things.
If the Citizens' Rep is in conflict or related to
someone who the report is about, then the employee or the person disclosing may
report to the minister's office. The
Citizens' Rep will also have the authority to publish special reports.
This is another question that came from the member opposite and I will
see if I can refer back very quickly.
I jotted down a couple of things that I could remember from there when
she was talking about this and about the reporting and the responsibilities.
There is an annual report.
There can be a special report. There
is certainly loads of authority in the Office of the Citizens' Rep to decide and
determine when issues need to be investigated.
In conclusion of this part of my talk discussing the
Citizens' Rep's responsibility, the role, the responsibility, and the authority
assigned to the Office of the Citizens' Representative is clear, and so too is
the public accountability that will be demonstrated by the reporting
requirements. I maintain and we
believe we have achieved a balance for all parties subject to the provisions of
this bill.
In concluding my comments on the Citizens' Rep, I think
it is only fair – I read in a CBC article today a comment from the Citizens' Rep
talking about today. He said, “'I
think it's a good day for the public service.
This legislation represents, really, the best model in the country in
terms of prosecuting or investigating complaints of wrongdoing,' said Fleming”,
the Citizens' Representative in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSS:
I
could not have said it better myself.
Now I move on to sections 22 to 24 in the remaining
four minutes or so I have left. I
want to talk about the role and the authority of the Labour Relations Board as
it is contemplated in this bill. The
board is the entity which will consider complaints from employees who believe
they have suffered reprisals related to making a disclosure for participating in
an investigation, and to award remedies where there is a finding that the action
was taken against an employee.
This Labour Relations Board provides an independent and
impartial administrative tribunal process.
It is very important that all these areas are covered because due process
is put in place which is set-up to support and facilitate self-representation.
Someone can go and represent themselves on this.
This is not a tribunal where you have to hire a lawyer to go represent
you. It is designed; it is supposed
to be easy. It is created such that
it can be done by someone who would like to represent themselves.
The board is also made up of business and employee
representatives with significant experience in labour relations matters.
The board process is also designed to deal with all types of complains
that will be filed by employees as it relates to anti-reprisal protection.
Mr. Speaker, this bill states that no reprisal shall be
taken against an employee who has, in good faith, sought advice about making a
disclosure, made a disclosure, or co-operated with an investigation under this
act. These three activities, someone
could seek advice about making a disclosure, could have made a disclosure, or
co-operated with someone else and they shall find no fear of reprisal.
What does reprisal mean?
It is understood to include any disciplinary measures, Mr. Speaker;
demotion, termination of employment.
It also includes any action that adversely affects the working conditions or the
threat to take such actions upon someone.
It is not just the actions themselves, but if that person feels
threatened that action can be taken against them, that seems to be a reprisal.
Mr. Speaker, an employee who feels that he or she has
suffered reprisals from making a disclosure will have recourse to this board by
filing a written complaint. The
board will review the allegations.
It has the power to investigate them.
If it is determined reprisal action was taken, the board can order action
to be taken to reverse any impacts of these reprisals.
Our minister refereed to this, as well.
A person who takes a reprisal against an employee or directs that one
should be taken is subject to appropriate disciplinary action as well, including
a fine of up to $10,000, termination, or other penalties provided under the law.
The Labour Relations Board has powers, too, Mr.
Speaker, required to deal with the complaints under the Labour Relations Act.
Earlier, I referenced the act that governed the Citizens' Representative;
this Labour Relations Board is also governed by an act.
There is other legislation that is in there already.
Some of these were probably what we referred to earlier when there were
certain protections already built into some legislations previously enacted.
Mr. Speaker, I have about a minute left.
A very important provision of this bill is the section
which states: if another avenue is available for dealing with a complaint, the
board may consider that avenue and take that action.
This is relevant, for instance, for unionized employees who may proceed
to take action under their collective agreement and also take sort of a joint
complaint to the Labour Relations Board.
Then they may put on hold the action they have taken with the Labour
Relations Board until their collective agreement action has concluded.
Where the board finds a reprisal was made contrary to
this act, the board may make various orders including: reinstatement; the
complainant return to work; pay compensation; pay cost; action that would cause
the reprisal activity to cease, or any other order that would rectify the
situation.
Mr. Speaker, the independence of the Office of the
Citizens' Rep and the Labour Relations Board from the day-to-day operations of
the decision-making process of government will ensure employees will feel
empowered and safe to act when they see serious wrongdoing, and prevent the
silence that may go on for a long time.
The hope is, as I have stated in the beginning, Mr.
Speaker, we are taking the time to put this act in to make it right but we are
hoping to never have to implement it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure we will get the support we need for this great legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR.
J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.
It is a well-intentioned but relatively empty document.
This document is coming seven years after the promise was made.
For seven years the people have waited and waited, and for seven years
government has promised and re-promised whistleblower legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the biblical story of
Jacob who worked for his father-in-law for seven years to get the wife that he
loved. He married her with a veil,
only to find it was the older sister and not the one he wanted.
That is exactly the way I feel about this piece of whistleblower
legislation. It is what people
wanted, it is what government promised, but it is not what they delivered.
Now is an opportunity for us to lift the veil so people can see.
While the bill may be well-intentioned, it has numerous gross
deficiencies.
If we start right after section 3, it says, “The
purpose of this Act is to facilitate the disclosure and investigation of
significant and serious matters in or relating to the public service that an
employee believes may be unlawful, dangerous to the public or injurious to the
public interest, and to protect persons who make those disclosures.”
I ask: Why is it at that point that the employee must
go to the Citizens' Rep? Why can't
the employee simply go to the supervisor and say: Hey, boss, manager, deputy
minister, or whatever, there is a problem going on here?
We have a problem, for example, with – it might be somebody who is
overseeing the Hope Brook mine and tailings.
It might be somebody who is overseeing Muskrat Falls and overruns.
It might be somebody who is overseeing maybe paving contracts in
Labrador. It could be someone who is
overseeing anything, yet the protection is not provided for that person to be
able to go to their immediate superior, one up the chain, or two up the chain.
In fact, the person then, if they see a wrongdoing, has
to stop and think: I cannot tell the boss, I am not protected; I cannot tell the
boss's boss, I am not protected; I really cannot make a disclosure to anybody
except the Citizens' Rep. I wonder
if this is something the Citizens' Rep will take an interest in.
Well, I am working in St. Anthony or maybe I am working
in Port aux Basques or Goose Bay, and I guess one of these days I might get into
St. John's or maybe the Citizens' Rep will come out around here, or maybe I will
make a call. I am going to sit down
and have one of these appointments with the Citizens' Rep, which is a good idea,
to find out something that I talk about.
Why, Mr. Speaker, is it there is no protection extended
for that employee to be able to speak to anybody but the Citizens' Rep?
That seems to me to be a fairly significant flaw.
It is not found in most of the other whistleblower legislation around
North America.
In some North American jurisdictions it is extended to
private employers as well as public employers, but I am content at this point
that it is the public employer. If
it is the public interest that is to be protected, then it is the public
interest that should be protected.
It is provided less protection by the whistleblower having to check with the
Citizens' Rep and try to find out if it is something the Citizens' Rep would be
interested in pursuing.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why does this
legislation not provide protection for somebody who wants to file a complaint
within the department or within the division?
If they see somebody who is skimming funds from some of the government
accounts they are dealing with, if they see somebody who is taking government
equipment and selling it, if they see somebody who is storing equipment free of
charge in the airplane hangar in Gander, why is it they have to wait until the
Citizens' Rep is available to discuss this issue with them?
Why are we creating so much extra work for the
Citizens' Rep at public expense, unnecessary duplication in my view, if the
opportunity was there for the employee to be protected by making disclosures at,
or near, or in the workplace? That
is the first significant deficiency.
If this was to be a three-legged stool then it has one leg gone right there.
That will make it unstable and not a valuable piece of legislation, a
necessary piece of legislation, and the important piece of legislation that the
government promised, and promised again, and finally has provided us with a very
weak example.
The next area of significant deficiency in this bill,
Mr. Speaker, is found in the next section 4.(2).
It says, “This Act applies only in respect of wrongdoings that occur
after the coming into force of this Act.”
Government members have referred to not wanting the bill to be
retroactive. In fact, they are
confusing retroactivity with ‘retrospectivity'.
Shortly, I will refer to a paper that was delivered to the Pension
Lawyers Association, I think in South Africa in 2007, explaining the difference
between retroactive and retrospective legislation.
Clearly, it could be retrospective without being retroactive.
In fact, when I refer to this section 4.(2), this is
the clause that provides an amnesty for government and friends.
It is the government and friends amnesty clause because it does not
provide any protection for anybody until July 1, 2014 or forward.
Most importantly, it does not cover anybody filing a complaint or any
actions that took place before 2014.
Somebody could be committing all sorts of wrongdoing today.
They do not have to worry about it.
By way of an example, Mr. Speaker, let's say in 2012
the Department of Transportation and Works – or Works, Services and
Transportation, or maybe it is the department of highways for all I know.
Let's say they let a contract in 2012 to pave maybe sixty or eighty
kilometres of highway in Labrador.
Let's say the contract was bid on by a number of bidders.
The company that actually was awarded the contract – I suppose the lowest
bidder, although not necessarily so – was a friend of government.
This contract was supposed to be completed by the
following year, by the summer of 2013.
I believe we have an example like that we can look to very shortly.
Let's say that contract was supposed to be finished by 2013 and the
friends of government who have the contract got into financial difficulty on a
contract that was supposed to be completed by July or August, 2013.
Let's say the contract contained many clauses, including a force majeure
clause, and even a fire clause which said that if any of these foreseen or
unforeseen events intervened – and if that contract were to say that in case of
one of these events the remedy available to the contractor is to provide a
written notice within fourteen days to tell the government we have a problem
performing on the contract and we are seeking relief.
If the relief that was set forth in the contract was that the timing of
the contract would be stayed, postponed, or delayed for the length of time that
the forest fire took, let's say the forest fire was only for two or three weeks
and after two or three weeks the contract could resume, then that would mean the
contract should be finished by September 2013.
If the company got into financial difficulty and six
months later not having paid numerous sub-suppliers, subcontractors, and the
people who supply good and services into that contract – and if the job was
covered by a bond, or two bonds, maybe three bonds, but let's say two bonds, and
the purpose of the bond was to ensure payment for people and, or to ensure that
the contract was finished. Let's say
somebody working for the Department of Transportation and Works, or any other
person felt there was wrongdoing happening in that situation and the contractor
was not properly performing.
Let's say we went forward into January of this year,
February of this year, March of this year, April of this year, and at some point
the Department of Transportation and Works said, that is okay guys, we don't
mind. Let's not put anything in
writing, but we do not mind that you didn't bother to perform the contract.
We are going to load what is left over in this contract into another
contract so we can say that it was a big emergency in Goose Bay, we had a short
window, and we had to perform really quickly.
We can get you out of this mess you have gotten yourselves into, even
though you were supposed to have the contract finished by last summer, well
within the construction season.
Let's say, Mr. Speaker, somebody knew all of these
details and on July 2 went to the Citizens' Rep and said, Mr. Fleming, do I have
a story for you. Mr. Fleming is
going to say, well, I hope it happened within the last twenty-four hours because
you are not covered for anything prior to the last twenty-four hours.
What do you mean you are not covered for anything that happened?
The act says that this act applies only in respect of
wrongdoings that occurred after the coming into force of the act and the act
came into force yesterday. Obviously
all of this stuff that you know about the cost to taxpayers, tens of millions of
dollars, we can have a coffee, you can have a chat about it, and you can sort of
vent a little bit, but you have no recourse.
By the way, if you squawk to anybody at all you are going to be fired
because you are not covered by the act anyway.
The wrongdoing happened too soon, too early.
They beat you, they got away scot-free.
If the government understood the difference between –
and maybe they do understand the difference – retroactivity and retrospectivity,
they would say that this act comes into effect on July 1, good enough.
They would also say that it covers wrongdoing that happened any time two
years prior. They would include a
limitation period which would say the Citizen's Representative can pursue these
matters as long as they are no more than two years old.
There would probably be some sort of an amendment in that section that
would say the act only applies to wrongdoing that occurred after July 1, 2012.
Mr. Speaker, all wrongdoing that took place within two
years before the act coming into effect would be covered and the whistleblower
would be covered because the revelation was not made until July 1 or July 2, the
day after the act came into effect.
It would make perfect sense; home free for the whistleblower, home free for the
taxpayers, and the bad guys get told about.
The whistleblower legislation works.
Mr. Speaker, either there is a serious flaw in the
drafting or maybe the common dictionary interpretation of retroactivity versus
retrospectivity the government has not paid any attention to, and listening to
government members and even the minister say we cannot make it retroactive.
You could not make it retroactive because you cannot cover something that
the wrongdoer told the Citizen's Rep about two years ago because the act was not
even passed.
In this case I am going to direct the minister, in case
he would like to make an amendment to his own bill.
We certainly do not want him to withdraw it because having gotten them
moving forward a little bit on whistleblower legislation, seven years later,
heaven forbid if they stop.
In a paper to the Pension Lawyers Association delivered
in 2007 the presenter discussed the difference between retrospective and
retroactive. He refers to the logic
of the distinction between the two terms: retroactive legislation would mean you
did something before and it was not against the law, and that would be a bad
thing because people should know what the law is; but retrospective means we can
look back, see what you did, and we can provide protection for the whistleblower
today for something they told us about that you did six months ago, a year ago,
or maybe up to a couple of years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I would not recommend that we go back more
than a couple of years because this Province has a pretty good Limitations Act.
A Limitations Act that was passed before this government came into power.
A two-year limitation period has been applied to many civil matters.
I would recommend or suggest to government they
consider ‘retrospectivity' as opposed to retroactivity and change or add a
clause under section 4, which says, although it comes into effect July 1, 2014,
it covers disclosures made for events that happened any time in the two years
prior; and further that it contains a two-year limitation period so that in
2016, if somebody wants to come forward, now they can look back and the
Citizens' Representative can examine something that happened two years before or
one year before. That would be a
more effective act.
Providing the definitions, this presenter referred to
numerous court cases. They appear to
be South African court cases, but South Africa observes the rule of law.
Sometimes I wonder if our Legislature does, but certainly our nation is
supposed to. Although we have a
Prime Minister who does not seem to want to observe rule of law because having
lost five references to the Supreme Court of Canada in a couple of years, now he
is mad at the chief justice for trying to help him out.
Mr. Speaker, a retroactive statute operates as a prior
time to when it was enacted. It
operates backwards. We are not
saying have it operate backwards; we are saying have it operate retrospective,
which means it operates for the future only, but it imposes new results in
respect of a past event, being the wrongdoing.
It looks backwards and it attaches new consequences for the future to an
event that took place before the statute was enacted.
It changes the law from what it would otherwise be in respect of a prior
event.
Mr. Speaker, in the case of the National Director of
Public Prosecutions and Carolus and others in 2000, that was the ruling of the
court and that seemed to be a perfectly solid ruling.
It would be very helpful if the minister would direct, maybe, the
Solicitor General's office or the Department of Justice and ask them to have a
look at maybe drafting a revision or a friendly amendment on the government's
own part to fix up this part of the legislation so it actually works, and it
would actually work for anybody who was a whistleblower who wanted to complain
of anything that happened in the last two years.
That would mean if something was covered up in paving contracts, if
something was covered up in maybe something like Muskrat Falls, if something was
covered up in oil spills, if something was covered up in defective bridges, if
something was covered up in sea lice for salmon or chemicals being used in the
ocean, anything in the prior two years would be disclosable, and the
whistleblower would be protected.
Anybody who has not been diligent enough in child
protection, the whistleblower could say to the Citizens' Representative: Mr.
Fleming, this has been going on for the last year or two and I was afraid to
come forward because I had no protection.
Now, I have the protection of the whistleblower act.
Instead of him saying: Well, let's go have a coffee and talk about it.
Now you have two choices. You
can put them on notice, but you cannot do anything about it because it has
already happened, and the act has some shortcomings.
The shortcomings are that I cannot look at anything prior to July 1,
2014.
In fact, this part of the act seems crafted to protect
this government from its own employees.
From speaking to a number of employees in the Department of Justice more
recently, I can easily attest to the fact that there is a culture of fear in a
lot of our excellent public employees working for this government.
I have made telephone calls and spoken to people in the legal community
working for the government, only to receive a telephone call within less than an
hour from the Director of Public Prosecutions saying do not talk to the
prosecutors – some who I have known for ten years – do not have a discussion
with him, come to me if you have any questions, and preferably put your
questions in writing. I am here to
help you.
Then when I asked the same Director of Public
Prosecutions today about a section under the handbook for public prosecutions in
the Province, something that this government produced and he directed me to a
particular clause in that handbook, he did not know what I was talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with people who work in
dealing and helping with victims of crime and who say to me: Well, first of all,
you will not tell anybody you were talking to me, will you?
I said: Absolutely not. We
get private information. This person
working with victims of crime says: I have no protection and if they find out
that you were even here talking to me, I might get fired.
So, I understand that the legislation seeks to do this,
but the legislation leaves a gaping hole.
What the gaping hole does is it protects this government from any
disclosures of any wrongdoing that is ongoing, past, or current, or future to
June 30, 2014. In fact, this
government is completely protected from any whistleblowers if they pass this
legislation; however, if they were to make it retrospective and maybe gather up
the last two years back to 2012, then this government itself would basically be
saying to the public: We have nothing to hide.
We are going to be subject to this legislation.
We are going to make this retrospective for at least two years and if
people have complaints about us, take them to the Citizens' Representative,
please, because we are an open and accountable government today, instead of
having this clause which shuts off any complaints until July 1, 2014.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER (Verge):
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a privilege and an honour for me to get
up tonight and speak to this very important bill, which we have all been
anxiously looking forward to in the House for quite some time, and certainly
quite a pleasure for us to bring it forward today.
One thing that we have taken the time to do with this bill is ensure that
we are bringing forward the best piece of legislation possible for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
This legislation represents a great step forward
towards increased openness and transparency in government by ensuring that those
who work in the public service can freely report legitimate wrongdoing or gross
mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars, misuse of government assets, or other types
of serious and significant wrongdoing that could occur, and an employee can feel
free to make these types of referrals under the act without fear of reprisal.
Mr. Speaker, when I talk tonight on the bill, I want to
focus on looking at other jurisdictions and how our act applies in respect to
those other jurisdictions; but first, I would like to speak a little bit to what
the member opposite just spoke about in terms of the date when the legislation
comes into effect.
Typically, more legislation is forward facing.
It is not very often you see retroactive legislation, as such.
It almost always moves on a go-forward basis, Mr. Speaker.
In terms of the aspects and content of our bill, I would venture to say
that the team of lawyers that we have working for us in the Department of
Justice and throughout various departments, the staff who have worked on this
bill, I believe, have fabulous expertise.
I am a little bit shocked at some of the criticisms that were made
against some of the experts that have gone into this, because I truly believe
that our staff have prepared the best type of legislation possible and are very,
very good lawyers. That is, I guess,
why they are actually practicing law.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
highlight the experience of other jurisdictions in Canada and how this
legislation compares. Newfoundland
and Labrador will be the seventh province to introduce whistleblower protection
legislation, as currently Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, and Alberta, as well as the Government of Canada have such
legislation in place. This bill
largely echoes many of the major provisions found in the legislation of other
provinces, but we believe it has improved on a very important aspect of this
type of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in consulting with our provincial
colleagues across the country, we have determined that Newfoundland and
Labrador's whistleblower legislation will be differentiated from all other
provinces by the existence of a single-disclosure route.
The use of such a method means that all complaints of wrongdoing are
solely reported to, and investigated by, the Citizens' Representative.
This difference, Mr. Speaker, is significant for a
number of reasons. Our provincial
colleagues advise us that the commonly used dual-disclosure route has presented
two key challenges as they try to implement this legislation.
First, dual-disclosure routes require the investment of a significant
amount of time and financial resources, particularly with regard to ensuring
consistency across all departments and public bodies, and the provision of
ongoing training to employees tasked with receiving and investigating
disclosures. Secondly, public
service employees may be unwilling or hesitant to disclose information regarding
wrongdoing to a supervisor or chief executive with assurance of protection.
I guess, Mr. Speaker, to use an example of that – and I
do believe the member opposite who spoke earlier did speak to this, the Member
for St. John's Centre. If you are an
employee and you are not typically going to the deputy minister's office on a
daily basis, or a weekly basis, or even a monthly basis, then all of a sudden
you show up at the deputy minister's office or the assistant deputy minister's
office, go in, have a closed-door meeting, it does start some suspicions amongst
your co-workers.
It may, in a lot of cases, prevent someone from
actually going forward with something they are concerned about.
This gives the employee protection of total confidentiality.
They go directly to the Citizens' Representative without having any
worries of anyone seeing them or having anything to say about what they are
disclosing. It is a very important
fact, Mr. Speaker.
The other issue, of course, being that in the Office of
the Citizens' Rep our staff are very well trained.
Throughout departments, I guess you do see a fair bit of turnover
sometimes in departments. By having
the Citizens' Representative, you will have experts dealing with this act on a
daily basis and, of course, it will be much more cost effective for the Province
as well.
Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has decided to use a single disclosure
route to the independent Citizens' Representative so that employees in the
public may freely – and I cannot emphasize enough the word freely – report
legitimate concerns of wrongdoing in keeping with this act without fear of
reprisal and receive clear and consistent guidance when they do so.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Citizens' Representative and the employees
of that office are already well trained in such matters and, as I said earlier,
it significantly reduces the financial burden on the Province with respect to
training.
With regard to the definition of wrongdoing, the
legislation is the same as that of all other jurisdictions in Canada.
Within the proposed bill, a wrongdoing is considered to include any act
or omission that is considered an offence under provincial or federal law
regulations, any act or omission that creates a danger to the life, health or
safety of a person, or to the health and safety of the environment that may be
considered outside of dangerous characteristic of their job, gross
mismanagement, particularly of taxpayers' dollars and/or public assets, and
advising someone to commit a wrongdoing as outlined in the act.
Mr. Speaker, the types of discipline to be administered
to an employee who has committed a wrongdoing as outlined in this bill is
similar to that of most other provinces in Canada that have this type of
legislation. An employee who is
found to have committed a wrongdoing is subject to disciplinary action, such as
the termination of employment, as well as any additional legal punishments.
Again, with respect to what is required when a person
makes a disclosure under this legislation; the content of that disclosure is
similar across jurisdictions in that the disclosure must be in writing, it must
include a description of the wrongdoing, it must include the name of the person
alleged to have committed or about to commit the wrongdoing, reinforce the date
when it occurred, and indicate whether the information was previously disclosed
and a response received. So, Mr.
Speaker, that outlines what the disclosure must entail.
Another important feature of the bill is that it not
only authorizes the Citizens' Representative to provide advice, to accept
disclosures, and to conduct investigations, but it also allows him or her to
facilitate resolution of matters informally.
Mr. Speaker, this is another aspect of the legislation where we are
aligned with other jurisdictions. We
feel it is very important to allow for informal resolution mechanisms while at
the same time ensuring that the formal procedures exist.
By allowing this flexibility, the Citizens' Representative can make the
determination as to how best to proceed in these matters.
With regard to the definition of reprisal, Mr. Speaker,
the legislation also mirrors what is found in other provinces.
Within the proposed bill a reprisal means that one or more of the
following actions have been taken against an employee, either because they have
sought advice about making a disclosure, made a disclosure, or co-operated in an
investigation regarding a disclosure.
A reprisal can include a disciplinary measure, a
demotion, termination of employment; a measure that adversely affects the
employee's working conditions, or a threat to take any of the above measures.
So even a threat to do either of those things I listed would constitute a
reprisal. A person who has been
found to have taken reprisal action against an employee is subject to
disciplinary action, such as the termination of employment, as well as any
additional legal punishment. This is
also similar to that of other provinces in Canada that have this type of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note too, this
legislation works in tandem with all of the other acts.
Certainly, if there is some wrongdoing and it falls under the Criminal
Code, the Criminal Code Act also comes into force.
The Labour Standards Act comes into force.
The Office of the Citizens' Representative will determine which act any
complaints that come forward fall under.
Of course, it will be dealt with accordingly as spelled out in that
specific act.
Mr. Speaker, provinces with this type of legislation
use various entities to consider complaints related to reprisals.
This proposed bill would designate and empower the Labour Relations Board
as the entity to handle such complaints in this Province.
Some provinces, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, investigate reprisal
complaints similarly to disclosures.
However, in Newfoundland and Labrador the Labour Relations Board possesses
numerous tools to rectify complaints and therefore is the most appropriate means
for dealing with reprisal complaints.
Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted just a few of the main
components of the bill so as to demonstrate that we are not only building upon
that which has been established in other provinces, but we are also being
innovative in our single disclosure process.
We believe we have proposed a strong legislative framework for public
interest disclosure and whistleblower protection for the employees within the
public service of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here in the
House to speak to this bill and to support this bill when we get to the vote
stage. This act, I believe,
contributes to increased accountability and integrity within the public service
at very minimal cost and ensures that the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador continues to work towards being more open and more transparent.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of
legislation for our Province and our public service.
I, for one, will be very happy to rise in support of this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take pleasure in rising in my place here this evening
to talk about the whistleblower legislation.
It is a happy day for us, I think for everybody in the House that finally
this piece of legislation has come out.
It was promised back in 2007.
I think it was a request from our party to the government of the day that they
would bring in this type of legislation.
We look at it as being a – so far what we are seeing anyway, and it
remains to be tested of course when the legislation comes into effect, whether
it is going to be good or bad or what resources are going to be needed.
I say to the minister now, this piece of legislation
may be so successful to the point that he may need more financial resources,
more investigations, that he may need help in his department.
So I am hoping that government is going to be pouring a few more dollars
into the Office of the Citizens' Representative to meet that challenge, if that
challenge happens. That may be a
management question indeed; but, like I said, if there is only going to be one
person investigating, we do not know exactly how many people are going to be
stepping forward. I just wanted to
bring up that point. We will
probably chat about that in Committee when it comes up.
Mr. Speaker, just to start off and to address some of
the points that have been made about – section 4 I think was brought up earlier.
One of the things that I looked at when I was going through the
legislation myself, section 4 states, “This Act applies to the following
wrongdoings in or relating to the public service”.
It talks about the implementation date of July 1.
When I went further over in the legislation, it was in
section 15.(1)(c) that more or less answered the question about time.
Because I do not think – my personal feeling is anyway – when you are
talking about a statute of limitations, you are talking a statute of limitations
on what? You could be talking a
statute of limitations on an ongoing theft, for example, that could be happening
in a department that we do not know about.
It is under section 15.(1)(c) where I think that is
addressed. Let me read the heading,
“The citizens' representative is not required to investigate” – keep in mind
they say not here – “a disclosure and the citizens' representative may cease an
investigation if he or she is of the opinion that…” – and here is what it says
in section (c), “so much time has elapsed between the date when the subject
matter of the disclosure arose and the date when the disclosure was made that
investigating it would not serve a useful purpose”.
There is kind of a timeline here, in my mind anyway, that is being set
here that it does not include just everything that happens from July 1 or
anything; it could be things that are ongoing and happening within a department
too. So I think that was probably
answered, to myself anyway, when I read that particular piece.
There are a couple of other times where the Citizens'
Representative would not be required to investigate.
I will not get into them right now, but that particular section there
kind of answered a question that I had in my mind about the time component here.
Mr. Speaker, again, like I said we are glad that this
piece of legislation has finally come forward to the House; it has been a long
time coming. Like I said, that
promise was made pretty much back in 2007 at the behest of government, and we
know the government is trying other things to try to open things up a bit.
We know that the Open Government Initiative, for example, is now going
and they have a new Office of Public Engagement that has started up.
Hopefully, we will see more coming out with that in the future.
They have come out with a new protocol, for example,
for the oversight of Nalcor. We are
hoping that is going to be effective as well.
As well right now, we have an ongoing review of the ATIPP legislation,
and of course that was all brought about by the fiasco, I guess you could call
it, behind Bill 29 and the faults that we found in that – and we talked about
that for a long time.
The government have said that they have spent many a
year at this, and they certainly have.
I have to say that back in 2007 we can go back to the Minister of
Justice, for example, of the day, they had been saying that they had been making
time to do their work and do it right, and that they were looking at other
provinces to see how their legislation was working.
They have done whistleblower legislation as well in little bits and
pieces. They have progressed in some
departments. I have a list of some
of those pieces of legislation too that they came out with, and how they do it.
The Environmental Protection Act, for example,
voluntary reporting under section 10; we have the Labour Standards Act, which
talks about discrimination under section 78; we have the Occupational Health And
Safety Act, the changes that were made there under section 49, the allegations
of discrimination under section 51 of the same act.
We also have probably one of the most important ones
that government came out with, one of the changes, was the Personal Health
Information Act, the non-retaliation section under section 89, where is says, “A
person shall not dismiss, suspend, discipline, demote, harass or otherwise
disadvantage or penalize an individual where (a) the individual, acting in good
faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has disclosed to the commissioner
that another person has contravened or is about to contravene a provision of
this Act or the regulations”. It
goes on; I will not list off the other sections of it, but there are four
particular sections of the act here and I will just mention one of them.
Government has done this in bits and pieces.
They were all good changes.
They were forward thinking and, of course, this act, the section in this that
was kind of important is that this act here is going to circumvent all those and
include all those, I guess you could say, for all intents and purposes.
If there is anything in these sections that is missing, this is going to
be the piece that is going to cover it.
That is my understanding of it.
If there is anything that cannot be done under one of the other sections
of the act – I am just trying to quickly look for the section here now after
reading it a bit earlier. I cannot
find that section. If I find it, I
will come back to it again.
Again, this act is going to circumvent all those and
probably, I guess, for all intents and purposes you can call this an umbrella,
an umbrella to the other acts that we have out there.
I think in that particular end of things it looks pretty good; but like I
said, we will go to Committee later on this week or whenever the government is
expected to bring it back in and we will ask those questions of the minister in
question and see if we cannot get some answers.
If we find any problems then, we will find them then.
The real sad part about this, Mr. Speaker, is that we
can go by the Manitoba example on this.
This piece of legislation has come forward with about seven years,
according to government, of research when we could have had it gone through a
standing committee of this House of Assembly and this piece of legislation could
have gone through years ago. We
could have gone out, done the groundwork, found out about the various pieces of
legislation out there around the country and probably come up with the same
example, for example, from Manitoba or Saskatchewan.
A failure of having standing committees to look at
pieces of legislation rings true with this piece of legislation and the time
frame that it took for this piece of legislation to actually enter into the
floor of the House of Assembly and be discussed by us as Members of the House of
Assembly. A lot of people have
suffered, you could say, in the long term of that.
Unlike our process here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
Manitoba brought their legislation in, in 2007; but previous to that, like I
said, the draft whistleblower legislation went before a provincial legislative
committee so witnesses could discuss the issues.
We would have been able to call in witnesses on that and be able to
discuss this bill. I say that it is
kind of sad that we did not do that.
We would have been able to do a lot of things in the process by having to meet
this challenge upfront as the House of Assembly, discuss it on the floor, call
in witnesses; and again, it just shows that if you do not have standing
committees that are ongoing, taking pieces of legislation, or taking the ideas
that people have out there and talking about them as a group because we are all
in this together, and here is where it shows itself, right here.
It showed itself with Manitoba; they have done that.
In March, the Auditor General of Manitoba was concerned
that civil servants were not blowing the whistle on ethics violations.
They did have some problems with it.
Less than one-third of Manitoba's civil servants felt that they were
protected from punishment for reporting an ethical concern, and only half of
those, personally aware of one, chose to report it to the province's Auditor
General. That is what he said.
Some people were not even aware that the legislation was in place to
grant themselves some sort of protection if they went to actually report under
their own legislation.
The knowledge factor in getting the facts out about
what this piece of legislation is going to be able to do, and the powers that –
I guess, we will use the employee as an example – an employee would have for
their own protection at the same time, some of them did not even know that it
was there. They did not know it was
there.
We are going to have to get out there and tell our
civil servants at the same time that this piece of legislation is there and we
are going to have to run an educational class, if you will, an educational
program of some kind to make sure that everybody knows what are their powers
under this particular piece of legislation and what protections that they will
have, more importantly, under this particular piece of legislation.
In Manitoba, they took an audit of 5,000 employees.
They found that 94 per cent of the workers believe ethics and integrity
are critical issues, but only half felt that violators would face appropriate
consequences. While they were
instilled with some faith in the legislation, they did not believe that there
was actually going to be follow-through to actually make either a conviction or
to right the wrongdoing.
Fifty-five per cent did not believe the theft from the
department would be discovered. Some
of these are statistics that are there that would government would need to pay
attention to while this legislation rolls itself out.
The auditor also found the whistleblower protection legislation was
underused, perhaps because 72 per cent did not know who the designated officer
for such disclosures were, or was in this particular case.
If you are going to have a reporting mechanism at least
everybody knows here – and that is why I say that this particular component is
good – that it is going to be the Citizens' Representative who is going to be
responding to these complaints, that we know of.
Again, like I said, if there are going to any number of calls, he may
very well be overwhelmed with some of them, so it is a concern.
While nearly one-third were personally aware of fraud
or misconduct, only 53 per cent of them actually reported it.
Of those who reported, 29 per cent claimed they experienced retaliation
for doing so. I think we can do
better with that number. I think we
can lower that number to zero with the proper work on it.
The auditor also noted that the Province lacks an
anonymous reporting system. Now,
while I think anonymous would be one question that would need to be answered, of
course, we know that the Citizens' Representative in this piece of legislation –
I think the person has to disclose who they are to the Citizens' Representative.
So, there are still some questions here.
It seems that in our legislation confidentiality is
built into it as far as it can, being short of a criminal matter.
A Manitoba government statement said it would be reviewing their current
conflict of interest policy, as well as reviewing whistleblower policies and
legislation to enhance employees' ability to report wrongdoing without fear of
reprisal. If you want somebody to
report, there is always going to be that fear of reprisal I think.
We have to make sure that is strong, that there is not going to be any
fear of reprisal. Like I said, we
could be dealing with anything here on a timeline that can go a long time back
and finally end up being reported.
That person is going to need protection.
The final point is how our government is going to do
workplace education on this issue.
What are they going to do about making the whistleblower legislation actually
work for public employees here? We
are just hoping that they are going to be motivated enough to make it work.
I think there is some hope here that government has it in the right mind
to do it. We know, certainly, it is
well past time that it is done.
We have the examples of what happened in Manitoba.
The statistics are there to speak to it, that there were problems with
it. They went and put it through the
Committee phase and discussed it around – called witnesses before the Committee
and had input, and they still had issues with it.
So I do not think you are going to get 100 per cent perfect legislation
until you actually work the legislation and develop regulations around it.
Mr. Speaker, those are a few of my thoughts on it.
Again, we will rise in the House later on to talk in Committee about this
and ask questions of the minister then.
I want to thank you for your time and hopefully we will
be able to rise again on the issue.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I recognize the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I just listened to the previous speaker, and he talked
about Manitoba's legislation. The
only thing I heard on the other side of the House tonight is they are
complaining about the length of time it took to bring in this legislation.
He just spoke about Manitoba and what they went
through. When they brought in their
legislation they did not have it done properly.
There were all of these defects and there were all of these problems that
they had. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have
all the confidence in the world in the people in the Department of Justice and
the lawyers with government who have looked at this and have gone to other
jurisdictions right across Canada, and, indeed, right around the world to look
at the type of legislation we are bringing, and what we need to bring in.
When you look at this piece of legislation – I listened
tonight to the members opposite me, I think they all agree that it is a great
piece of legislation. Grant it,
seven years seems like a long time, but I would say whatever you are doing, if
you do it right in the first place then it is well worth bringing in the
legislation. If it does take time to
do it – but make sure you bring it in properly when you do.
Mr. Speaker, he also alluded to different committees of
government. I had the opportunity in
the last number of years to work on Public Accounts, and we do what you ask for.
In Public Accounts we call in different organizations.
The Auditor General does his report.
We go through the Report of the Auditor General.
So it is basically the same thing.
We do a standing committee.
To say there is no committee in government, it is just not true.
You are represented on the Public Accounts, so you know that, and you
know the good work we do. When we
call in different people that the Auditor General has a problem with, we do that
on a regular basis. Last year I
think we had six different hearings, and the year before I think it was seven.
This year we are already going to set up some more.
It is a joint committee with all members and all parties involved.
Mr. Speaker, whistleblower legislation in general terms
is aimed to increase the integrity and the accountability of government.
There is a general concept and national and international best practice
principles which provides guidance to jurisdictions all over the world.
It is important that we listen to what happened all over the world, and
that is what we have done. We went
out to other jurisdictions and we listened to the problems they had and we are
looking at the best practices our government can do to make sure that this
whistleblower legislation works for everybody.
I am pleased to be here today to demonstrate how this proposed bill is
consistent and it is best practices.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the purpose and intent of
the bill is to be consistent with the best established principles of
whistleblower legislation, in that it facilitates disclosure of wrongdoing and
outlines a clear process for disclosures, investigations, recommendations and
actions. Most importantly, it
ensures that the employee who makes the public disclosure is protected against
any reprisal action. That is the
basis of the whole piece of legislation.
The problem with any whistleblower legislation is that
people do not feel confident in the legislation and they will not come forward
to make their disclosures or make their complaints.
In fact, the title of the bill itself represents the objectives, which
refers to not only the public interest of disclosure but also whistleblower
protection.
Mr. Speaker, other guiding principles of strong
whistleblower legislation is that it should specify the types of wrongdoing
covered, including a significant wrongdoing interaction within government, and
the best public interest of the public and government itself.
The definition of wrongdoing should include any illegal crime, a breach
of law, corruption, breach of trust, a misappropriation of public funds or
property, a failure to perform a duty that could result in unacceptable risk to
public health, public safety, or the environment.
Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly outlines the types of
wrongdoing covered under the legislation.
Employees can really make the determination.
It could be suspicious; they could have a suspicion there is something
going to happen. It could be
evidence covering certain behaviours as to whether the concerns fit within the
definition of wrongdoing.
Another principle of strong whistleblower legislation
is reporting wrongdoing should not be difficult.
It should allow disclosure of suspicions as well.
Strong whistleblower legislation allows for easy reporting.
The law should allow whistleblowers to decline participation in suspected
wrongdoing without sanctions or penalty results.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill does.
The definition of wrongdoing includes illegal activity
under the Newfoundland and Labrador and Canadian law, as well as gross
mismanagement of public funds and public assets.
Again, this specifies very strong legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Another key principle to solid whistleblower
legislation is it should clearly state there will be no harassment of any kind
toward any employee who seeks advice – who not only discloses, but seeks advice
to say, listen, I am not sure if it is proper to whistleblower legislation.
There is no reprisal to that person, or to the person who actually makes
the disclosure.
It ensures that any employee who feels he is being
harassed, disciplined, or negatively impacted in any way for seeking advice
regarding reporting of wrongdoing or having assisted in investigation of
wrongdoing, he has a resource. The
Labour Relations Board has the power to act decisively against anyone
instigating or threatening reprisal of any kind, or counselling another to take
reprisal action against an employee.
Mr. Speaker, the government will not tolerate any
harassment to those making a disclosure in the public interest, and have
empowered the Labour Relations Board to ensure that reprisal action is dealt
with. The Labour Relations Board is
also empowered to order retribution to employees found to have been affected by
reprisal actions as a result of disclosure under the act.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board is an independent
judicial body that mitigates a variety of employment and labour relations
matters. The board has been vested
with the powers to make decisive decisions under the law.
Mr. Speaker, decisions of the board are enforceable as judgements or
orders of the court.
Mr. Speaker, utilizing the Labour Relations
Board is a very important part and piece of this legislation because what it
does, it is an independent body. In
other jurisdictions right across Canada, they use internal people who come in
and decide whether the person is after getting harassed, or disciplined, or
something like this. The independent
body is very important. They have
the power to summons witnesses, to hear evidence, and undertake a full
investigation on matters referred to it.
Mr. Speaker, the power ensures that the board
has the authority necessary to make decisive investigation reprisals.
The board is made up of employers, it is made up of employee
representatives, an independent Chair, two Vice-Chairs, and is well positioned
to act independent – a fair-minded enforcement agency related to reprisals,
threats of reprisals or the intervention against those who are simply supporting
the investigation of wrongdoing.
Under the proposed legislation there is a
punishment, a fine up to $10,000.
Judgement can be to those committing reprisals and can be enforced by law.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is compensative piece of legislation aimed to
protecting employees making disclosures and enforcing penalties for those who
have taken reprisal actions against employers who come forth with wrongdoing.
This bill is designed to protect the confidence of the employee, that
they can come forward and report wrongful doing and thereby ensure that the
integrity of the public service is protected.
Mr. Speaker, the protection is similar to those
in other jurisdictions in Canada as it is universally recognized that such
protection is an integral aspect of whistleblower legislation.
The provisions for reprisal and enforcement of those under the Labour
Relations Board are critical to this bill.
This will ensure employees are not fearful for disclosing illegal acts
and gross mismanagement of public funds and assets.
This disclosure will made them believe, so there will be will no backlash
towards them.
Mr. Speaker, while jurisdictions in Canada
investigate – like I said earlier – reprisals and they do it in an internal way,
the Labour Relations Board investigates reprisal complaints and under this act
has ensured that complainants will be handled appropriately, an independent body
to empower and make sure that their issues are answered.
Employees under good faith report wrongful doing and come forward
understanding that they will be listened to and the action that they have taken
will be protected against any reprisals.
The board may permit complainants to return to his or
her duties, reinstate the complainant, and pay for damage if the complainant
feels that trust cannot be restored.
Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board also proposes the authority to order
persons to do certain things or to restrain from doing certain things in order
to remedy issues.
As such an act, employees feel secure to acknowledge
their disclosure for wrongdoing, feel free that reprisals and that their access
will have no actions against them.
Mr. Speaker, the development of this legislation has taken into consideration
best practices, key principles, and experience from other jurisdictions from all
over Canada. We believe that a
comprehensive framework will deal with the disclosures of wrongdoing and
whistleblower protection.
Mr. Speaker, this act is very important to our
employees. It is very important that
they feel that they have the right to go and make their complaint and make sure
that they are not harassed or disciplined in any way for making a complaint,
which they feel is in the best interest of our government and feel that the
safety of individuals and safety of our environment is properly in place.
I am going to be supporting this piece of legislation.
I think it is a great piece of legislation.
Not only do I think it, the Member for Bonavista North said today that
the Citizens' Representative, Barry Fleming, calls this a good day for the
public service.
Mr. Speaker, I call this a good piece of legislation
for the public service. I think that
the majority of the public servants are very pleased today that this is brought
in. It will make our government more
open and accountable, and that is what we are doing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I recognize the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to stand here this evening in the House of
Assembly and speak to Bill 1, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.
This is a bill that has been long awaited, long promised, and we are so
happy to see it here on the floor.
The first thing I would like to say is that much
appreciation should go out to the Department of Justice officials who took the
time to brief us. They sat with us
actually last night. Those people
took their time to sit down, after hours, to go through this, so for that I am
very appreciative. They work long
days and for them to sit with us and go through it, to make sure we had the
opportunity, because the fact is it is very hard – we have a great
responsibility placed on us when we debate this legislation, and we want to make
sure that we feel we have enough time to read it over, to have a chance to
research, to have a chance to review it.
So, in this case, they were available yesterday afternoon.
Some of us could not make it because the House of Assembly was about to
start and we had to get ready, so they came back last night.
So, to those officials who are out there, I say thank you very much.
Going to the bill, again, this is something that has
had a bit of a history. It was
something that was promised in 2007.
It is like a lot of things promised in 20017, great promises, did not see
anything on it, but glad to see it now.
We have always wondered what took so long, because it is not a case of
having to reinvent the wheel here.
This was not a piece of legislation that this government had to draft up and
come up with on its own. This did
exist in multiple other jurisdictions across the country, so we did have the
benefit of being able to look at other jurisdictions to see what they did, how
they were working, and then make ours happen.
In this case, it took seven years for that to happen.
Again, as the phrase goes, though: better late than never.
I think I am going to echo the comments of my
colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, when he states that the legislation is well
intentioned, but weak. That is
precisely what this is. This
legislation is a good start, but we do have some issues with it, and we are
going to lay those issues out. It is
one thing to talk about our problems with legislation, but we are also going to
propose solutions to that. I think
my colleagues have laid out a number of their concerns and will continue to do
so as second reading continues, and then especially as we proceed into the
Committee stage of this piece of legislation.
So again, we have the bill itself – it is not a huge,
huge piece of legislation, but there is a fair bit to it.
What I think I might do is just start to go through it and pick out some
of the different points that – again, I may have some questions on it, and what
I might even do this evening is I will put questions out.
I know the minister and his staff are listening to what we have to say.
There are staff out there who are hearing what we have to say.
When the minister has to speak again, he will put forward those answers
to the questions that we have. I
will put them out there now. I know
he is not going to answer them tonight.
That is fine. I know he will
get an opportunity to do so later.
He closes the debate, and he has the Committee, so we have plenty of time.
Again, when you look at this, we all know what the
whistleblower legislation is supposed to do.
It is supposed to provide protection to those who are bringing forward
wrongdoing that is going on.
We look at section 4, which talks about the types of
wrongdoing. You have (a) which is
“an act or omission constituting an offence under an Act of the Legislature or
the Parliament of Canada, or a regulation made under an Act; (b) an act or
omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or
safety of persons…”.
They actually made a note last night of pointing out
that this was not something that was covered in the House of Assembly
Accountability and Integrity Act.
This is something they wanted to make sure was here.
Section (c) is interesting, “gross mismanagement,
including of public funds or a public asset”.
I think that is important. It
is going to tie into something that I am going to bring up after which is the
date that this piece of legislation is going to come into force, which is July
1. We have some issues with that as
well, Mr. Speaker.
Also, (d) “knowingly directing or counselling a person
to commit a wrongdoing described in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).”
It lays out very clearly the wrongdoings.
We know this applies to the public service.
We know there are omissions, one being Memorial University.
The reason being that they have their own.
It goes into sections 5, 6, and 7.
We talk about discipline for wrongdoing, request for advice, and
disclosure by employee. Some of
these seem well intentioned. I have
no reason to think they are not useful; one being the request for advice.
You can request advice from the Citizens' Representative.
It has been mentioned here on numerous occasions this
evening about the Citizens' Representative being the main person involved in
this piece of legislation because this is who all of the complaints go to.
I am assuming the first thing we are going to see after July is probably
an increase in the resources that have to go to the Citizens' office if they are
going to handle these type of matters.
I guess we can look forward to that.
We can only look back at this after a period of time, a
year or two years. I know there is a
report. It is going to be
interesting to see how many complaints do come forward, how many are
investigated. We cannot figure that
out now obviously, but we can look forward to seeing what does it catch and who
comes forward. Hopefully, there is
none.
That is the whole point here.
It is a piece of legislation that you do not want to have to use.
We do not want to see anybody blowing the whistle because we do not want
there to be any reason for the whistle to be blown.
That is the whole point here, but we have it in place.
We talked about content of disclosure.
The big thing to me is the anonymity that is required.
A person obviously has to put their name on it and the Citizens'
Representative will know of it but the people above, the people they fear will
not have access to that name. That
is obviously important, because one of the reasons people do not go out there is
they have fear of reprisal. Even if
they feel they are making a complaint, there are other ways that people can get
back at them. We have seen that
before. It has happened.
A couple of things, I have a few notes.
I will just go to the side here for a second.
One of the issues I have when we get into this is section 15.
Section 15 talks about when an investigation is not required.
I am going forward a bit because I only have twelve minutes left.
What it says here is that, “The citizens'
representative is not required to investigate a disclosure…if he or she is of
the opinion that” – and there are a bunch of things here – it would be better
dealt with by somebody else or a procedure under a different act, that is fine;
“the disclosure is frivolous or vexatious”.
Whenever I hear those terms I think of another debate we had on another
occasion. Whenever I hear frivolous
and vexatious, those terms are burned into my brain from another debate because
we know how many frivolous and vexatious requests came in at that time.
There were so many, hundreds and thousands.
Now, here is where I think we have one issue, and that
is in section 15.(1)(c), “so much time has elapsed between the date when the
subject matter of the disclosure arose and the date when the disclosure was made
that investigating it would not serve a useful purpose”.
That right there is a prime example of the law being ambiguous and vague.
That is the problem I have here, it says so much time.
How much is so much time?
What is the measure that we use?
There are other pieces of legislation.
There are statutes of limitations.
If you take a civil action, we know you have two years from the date the
injury is discovered in which to make your claim.
Anybody who has ever been involved in a personal injury claim or a civil
claim, of which many people have, the lawyers tell you that you have two years
and that is strict. You know you
have to operate within that two-year time period.
There is no wondering, was it enough time?
Was it too much time? Should
we have a year? Should we have six
months? Should it be three years?
It is two years. There are no
ifs, ands or buts.
The good news is in that case it goes from the date the
injury is discovered. Because in
many of these cases you have the tort or the wrongdoing, but you may not know
you have suffered injury which is the cause of the damages.
You might not know that for six months.
Well, that should not be your fault.
The wrongdoing was done by someone else.
There are limitations.
There is two years, there is six years, there is ten years, but in this
piece it is vague. We do not know
how much time. We have to hope it is
within there, and I have an issue with that.
Why would be write a piece of legislation and have it so that it can be
interpreted in any number of different ways depending on the day?
I do not see the need for that.
I think that should be changed there.
I think if we can have limitation periods on virtually everything else,
why can't we have it on this? We
need to have some kind of certainty here.
I think that is an issue.
Again, I am sure the minister will explain that when he
gets an opportunity. Why won't we
get that? We asked the individuals
who briefed us last night. I was not
quite satisfied with that. I think
when you are writing legislation you have to write it with some certainty.
There is certainly none here.
We continue on here.
One of the other things that I do have an issue with is when you get to
section 19. I guess what happens
here is that we have already talked about the single and dual disclosure here,
and we have, in this case, single which I believe is different from the other
provinces.
I note the Attorney General stood up in May, 2012, upon
questioning by us, and said: Well, the reason there was no whistleblowing then
is that there were lots of problems with all the other provinces, all their laws
had problems. I never heard what
those problems were. Maybe that is
something we can ask upon in the Committee stage.
I would like to know: What were the problems that were identified there
and how do we fix them? I think that
is a relevant question.
We know that in this case you cannot keep it internal.
You have to go outside to the Citizens' Representative.
The Citizens' Representative investigates it.
The Citizens' Representative makes a decision, informs the proper people,
and makes recommendations. This is
one of the problems that – again, this is a piece of legislation that has little
in the way of teeth, very little.
Section 19.(1) “When making recommendations, the
citizens' representative may request the appropriate department or public body
to notify him or her, within a specified time, of the steps it has taken or
proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations.”
A person blows the whistle, gives notice of something
like gross mismanagement of government funds or serious wrongdoing, they bring
this up. They go to the citizens'
rep, the citizens' rep does an investigation, the citizens' rep goes to the
department and says, here is what happened and here is what I recommend you do.
Then, he may request that the department come back and say this is what
we did.
We did this in Bill 29 too, may versus shall.
I think in this case you could easily make a claim here that it should
be: shall request the appropriate department to provide the steps that they have
taken to address this problem. Why
would you maybe ask them? If this
person took the time to go through this, that department better answer – no
questions; come back and tell us what you did.
The second part here is: within a specified time, of
the steps it has taken or proposes to take.
So, again, if you make this complaint, the Citizens' Representative says
here is what you should do and you might go back within a period of time and the
department could say to you we actually have not done anything yet.
What are you going to do about it?
Nothing. This is a problem
when we have these ways of getting around the wrongdoing.
Where the citizens' representative believes that the
department has not appropriately followed up on his recommendations, or did not
co-operate in the citizens' representative's investigation, they can make a
report on the matter in the case of a department, to the minister responsible;
or in the case of a public body, to the board of directors and the minister
responsible.”
I go to the department and I say your department has an
issue. Your department has an issue
and this is what your department shall do.
The department does not do anything.
So what you are going to do later is go back to that department and go to
the minister and say that your own department did not do this.
It is absurd.
How are we going to get anything done here when they
know that there is no fear of having to comply or take action that is necessary
here? There is lot of wiggle room is
what I am saying here – lots of wiggle room.
Depending on who you are dealing with, you could get a department that
says: What are you going to do?
Force me to do something. How do we
force them? We can have a sternly
worded report. Let's hope that it is
very stern.
I guess what I am getting at, without being facetious
here, is that the departments have to realize that if they do not play ball – or
a public body – that there are going to be repercussions.
This person takes the time to make this report of wrongdoing, we find out
there is wrongdoing, and nothing is done about it.
That is going to be an issue.
I am going to continue on here.
The last section of this piece of legislation, section 30, says, “This
Act comes into force on July 1, 2014.”
Again, I have an issue – and I think the Member for St. Barbe alluded to
this earlier. God forbid that there
is gross mismanagement of government funds today.
You are not going to be able to do anything about it, because it is
before July 1. I hope there is no
gross mismanagement of funds going on right now.
I hope there is nothing.
Somebody in those departments would not have an opportunity to say anything,
because they would have a fear of reprisal and that would not be addressed
because this law is no good until July 1.
Why can't we go back? What is
stopping us from having a retroactive piece of legislation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, we can go back.
I must have got a rise, Mr. Speaker, because they are
all standing up now. If they want to
stand up and speak about it – if the Member for, say, Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune
wants to stand up and give me her thoughts on retroactivity, I would love to
hear them; and you should, because it is an important topic.
What I am putting forward here is a serious, serious piece.
Anyway, I put that out there and if they want to talk
about it – and again, if it is not in their script, I am sorry.
I am talking about July 1, 2014.
So anything that happens up until then, there is nothing we can do.
So what I am saying to you: Why can't you go back a year?
Why can't you go back two years?
If you want to go back ten years, that is fine too; but here is the other
problem. Going back to section 15,
section 15 says that there is no time period.
The Citizens' Rep can make a decision.
There is no actual time period.
It says, “(c) so much time has elapsed between the date when the subject
matter of the disclosure arose…”. So
what I am saying is that I do not see why you could not go backwards here.
Again, I still think you should have some kind of definitive timeline
here on when you can make the complaint or not.
You should have some definitive time.
So, I put that out there.
I hear lots of commentary from the other side.
I hope they all stand up and speak to this.
They should, because again, it is a piece of legislation that is well
intentioned. They obviously had lots
of time to plan it, because it was seven years in the works.
We are putting forward some complaints – not complaints.
Actually, that is the wrong word, sorry; I take that back.
We are putting forward some suggestions – constructive suggestions.
I hope that they will listen to our constructive suggestions, and they
have an opportunity to respond to them and tell me how wrong I am.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
(Inaudible).
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tell me how wrong I am. I say to the
Member for Harbour Main, tell me how wrong I am.
They have nothing to say. So
again, there it is. I am standing up
and putting it on the record; I invite them to do the same.
I look forward to continuing this discussion in
Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and
Conservation, that we adjourn debate on this particular bill.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that debate be adjourned.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the patience of all members in the House,
sitting in the first night sitting of this session of the House.
At this point in time, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment
and Conservation, that we do now adjourn the House.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that the House be now adjourned.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m.
tomorrow, Wednesday, being Private Members' Day.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.