November 7, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 15
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
In the
Speaker's gallery today I would like to welcome Harold and Evelyn Carberry,
visiting today for a Member's statement.
Also in
the Speaker's gallery I would like to recognize former MHA, MP and Cabinet
minister, John Efford, and his wife, Madonna Efford. They are also joining us
this afternoon for a Member's statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the public gallery today I
welcome Gail Thorne from the Stand for Hannah Foundation, as well as Sarah
Pittman and Frankie Ralph.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I would also like to rule on
a point of order raised by the Member for Lake Melville yesterday regarding the
reference, by name, during Oral Questions by the Member for Terra Nova to a
member of the general public and to another person, not by name, but easily
identified by the information given.
The
parliamentary authority, Bosc and Gagnon, states the following regarding
reference to members of the public: “Members are discouraged from referring by
name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy
parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national
interest calls for this. The Speaker has ruled that Members have a
responsibility to protect the innocent not only from outright slander, but from
any slur directly or indirectly implied, and has suggested that Members avoid as
much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable
to reply in their own defence.”
In a
ruling delivered on May 3 of 2017, our own Speaker ruled as follows: “… where
facts and comments respecting a named individual who is a member of the general
public … are clearly already in the public domain, a Member may comment upon
those issues in this House.
“However, a Member will not be able to stand in this Chamber and make personal,
defamatory or derogatory comments about a member of the public ... where those
comments originate with that Member and not by a member of the public ....”
“Members
in this House have the protection of parliamentary privilege and a freedom of
speech during debate …. Individuals who are not Members of the Legislature have
no such protection and it is therefore unfair to make unsubstantiated
allegations or comments during debate under the protection of the House when the
person about whom those comments are made did not themselves initiate the
remarks and do not have the protection of the House or a defence against the
unfounded allegations.”
On March
20, 2019, the Speaker ruled similarly as follows: “I do want to just read a
little reminder to all Members of this House, and this is regarding reference by
name to members of the public.
“Members
are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of
Parliament and do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary
circumstances when the national interest calls for this…. The Speaker has ruled
that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from
outright slander but also from any slur directly or indirectly implied. It's
suggested that Members avoid, as much as possible, mentioning by name people
from outside the House who are unable to reply in their own defence.”
It is
the Chair's opinion that the comments made by the Member for Terra Nova
yesterday were inappropriate for the reasons given in the Bosc and Gagnon
commentary and by my predecessors in the Chair, and I now ask the Member for
Terra Nova to withdraw his comments.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
I withdraw my comments.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today we have Members' statements from the Member for the District of Conception
Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Bonavista, the Member for the District of
Cape St. Francis, the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for Harbour Grace -
Port de Grave.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell
Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Every community has a resident who is a unique
character, an individual who is appreciated for their contributions to those
they have touched. Portugal Cove-St. Philip's had such an individual. I speak of
the late Hubert Driscoll.
This past Sunday, I had the honour to speak to a large
number of Hubert's family and friends who gathered to celebrate his life at the
Legion in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. Herbert was a lifetime member of the Royal
Canadian Legion, the Lions Club and a number of other organizations in the
community. His love of volunteering with disabled athletes and travelling to
competitions across this country speaks to his character to ensure all citizens
are included in activities that enrich their lives.
Herbert's real talent was that he could enter a room of
people and no matter the situation, have the room completely relaxed and in high
spirits with a story or a joke. He had what I would label an infectious
personality where once you met him, you would never forget him.
His love for his wife, Monya, his family, the groups he
volunteered with and his community is a testament to his character. Hubert asked
society for very little but appreciated everything he got. Rest in peace, my
friend.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On the heels of a day when we celebrated the community
sector, it gives me great pleasure to celebrate Harold Carberry, a former trade
school instructor and lifelong resident of Burgoyne's Cove.
Harold's father, Herb Carberry, was a veteran, having
served as a merchant seaman in World War II. About 12 years ago, at first alone
and then with family, Harold reactivated Remembrance Day ceremonies at the
Burgoyne's Cove War Memorial, which was first erected in 1923.
Harold personally restored and tended to the graves of
14 local veterans and has researched the backgrounds and service records of
nearly 50 late local veterans. He has compiled their biographies and collected
memorabilia to create a photographic wall of remembrance in the local community
hall.
A gifted carpenter, he framed the portraits collected
and hand made the flag box and display lectern himself. Harold helped found the
Burgoyne's Cove Veterans' Commemoration Association in 2012, which became
incorporated in 2018 to acquire a plot of land to permanently site a new war
memorial. Their next goal is to commission slabs to commemorate current and
future local veterans.
I ask
the Members of the 49th House of Assembly to join me in issuing a sincere thank
you to Harold Carberry for his outstanding and commendable community service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize Paul Whelan, a revered rink attendant who passed away late
August at the young age of 57. Paul worked for many years at Feildian Gardens,
Prince of Wales and the Jack Byrne Arena. He was a special person in the lives
of generations of skaters, hockey players, coaches and parents who were lucky
enough to spend time in Paul's rinks.
Paul was
a very friendly, encouraging person. He was always respectful of his job, worked
hard and would always go the extra mile to make sure everything was okay at his
rinks for the users. Whether it was a nervous child or an angry parent or a
senior who simply needed guidance to a seat, Paul had the amazing ability to put
people at ease and make their experience at the rink better. It was clear to see
the pride Paul took in his home away from home. He kept he rink spotless and the
dressing rooms well stocked. Many of us in the recreational leagues were very
thankful for his efforts.
Mr.
Speaker, Paul was a true gentleman with a heart of gold. Many people were
touched by his genuine kindness and continue to feel the same loss. I ask all
hon. Members to join with me in offering sincere condolences to Paul's entire
family and his many, many friends.
Thank
you, my friend, for keeping the mountains blue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this House to recognize a very special individual here today. The hon. Ruben
John Efford of Port de Grave first served as the Member of the House of Assembly
for the District of Port de Grave from 1985 to 2001. Mr. Efford served as
Minister of Social Services; Works, Services and Transportation; and Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture. In 2002, Mr. Efford was elected to the House of
Commons as Member for the Avalon riding for two terms, serving as Minister of
Natural Resources as well.
Born in
Port de Grave, the son of a proud fisherman, John's passion and dedication to
community, his province and the fishing industry will forever be a testament to
his life's work.
Last
evening in Port de Grave, an elegant event hosted by the Port de Grave Heritage
Society, and complete with the Shearstown Brass Band, was held in his honour to
recognize the contribution he made to our province and country, all while doing
so with the strong support of his wife, Madonna, and family.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm proud to call him a true leader and friend. I ask that all hon.
Members join me in thanking Mr. Efford for the outstanding contribution he has
made to our province through his political career.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
I rise today in this hon.
House to honour a veteran of the British navy from my district. Born January 20,
1920, Harold Chesley Bull at the age of 19 enlisted in the Royal Navy and served
on a corvette and a minesweeper.
During
this time, he was involved in several tragic accidents. He was attacked by a
barracuda receiving extensive damage to the bones in his leg, which he still
suffers from. After being hospitalized for 40 days, he was stationed in South
Africa on a minesweeper where he witnessed and suffered the loss of his comrades
after their minesweeper was torpedoed.
After
the war, Mr. Bull returned to Eastport. He married and built a life there. He
became the first mayor of Eastport and is still very active in the community. He
is a charter member of the Lions Club and the Royal Canadian Legion. He was
instrumental in the formation of the Eastport Volunteer Fire Department and has
held positions on many community boards.
Mr. Bull
will turn 100 in January. He is not only a national war veteran but continues to
be an inspiration to his community and the province. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran
myself, it gives me great honour to say thank you to Mr. Bull and all veterans
for their service.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an
honour to rise in this hon. House during National Skilled Trades and Technology
Week to congratulate Evan Rideout of St. John's who recently became the first
Canadian competitor in Cloud Computing at WorldSkills 2019 in Kazan, Russia.
Evan
demonstrated commitment and a high work ethic in his particular skill area when
he competed against countries from all over the world. This was a culmination of
dedication and learning a new technology that is very much evolving and just
starting to take off. That learning involved in-house training with CNA Computer
Systems and Networking instructor and Canadian Cloud expert, Richard Spencer, as
well as trips to Ottawa to participate in the Amazon Web Services (AWS) GameDay
competitions – an interactive team-based learning exercise designed to give
players a chance to put their AWS skills to the test in a real-world, gamified,
risk-free environment.
Evan
accepted the challenge and earned the right to go to Russia as a member of Team
Canada by demonstrating a work ethic like no other and an innate ability to
understand and implement Cloud solutions. To do this in such a short amount of
time is commendable.
Evan
represented his province and country exceptionally well as a member of Skills
Canada's Team Canada. His accomplishments are a timely reminder of the very
exciting potential of careers in skilled trades and technology right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I invite all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating
Evan Rideout.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for an advance copy of his statement.
Mr.
Speaker, all the Members of our caucus join the hon. Member in congratulating
Evan Rideout on becoming the first Canadian competitor in Cloud Computing at the
WorldSkills 2019 championships in Kazan, Russia.
Mr.
Speaker, to reach a pinnacle such as Team Canada is certainly indicative of
Evan's work ethic and creativity in the IT industry to produce new custom
solutions to modern problems. As Evan noted himself, I choose to pursue Cloud
Computing because I believe it is the future of the IT industry.
Mr.
Speaker, this is yet another example of our best and brightest competing on the
world stage. Evan joins many other individuals from our public and private
institutes throughout the province in excelling in these international
competitions.
Special
note of recognition to his instructor and coach at the College of the North
Atlantic, Richard Spencer, as well as his father, Daryl, with whom he attributes
his work ethic.
In
closing, I ask hon. Members to join me in congratulating Evan Rideout and
wishing him every success in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I join all hon. Members in
congratulating Evan Rideout in representing the province on the world stage and
showcasing his talents in IT and cloud computing talent. This is yet another
reminder of the importance of continuing to invest in our post-secondary
institutions to strengthen our skills in IT, coding, cloud computing and
research capacities.
I join
with everyone in congratulating Mr. Rideout, his family and his instructors,
because it's very important that we continue this.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to advise that this government has completed all of the
initiatives outlined in its Opioid Action Plan, and that despite this
accomplishment we will continue to work with our partners to address addictions.
It was also my pleasure to share this information with delegates attending a
provincial opioid dependence treatment conference today here in St. John's.
To date,
Mr. Speaker, we have developed a safe prescribing course for prescribers,
implemented a provincial Pharmacy Network and a prescription-drug monitoring
program. We have developed a provincial opioid awareness and education program.
We provide coverage for Suboxone with the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription
Drug Program and we have distributed over 3,000 naloxone kits.
Throughout this process, we have had tremendous success working with
communities, such as Bell Island, to offer opioid dependency treatment services.
We are continuing to build on community-based services and supports throughout
the province so people can receive the care they need and live in recovery,
closer to home.
We know
people living with opioid dependency are experiencing great pain, and so are
their families and our communities. We can no longer treat this problem in a
piecemeal fashion. We need to ensure a harm reduction and person-centred
approach is the foundation to all these services.
Stigma
cannot get in the way of effective treatment, Mr. Speaker, or in the way of
access to programs and services, and our collective efforts to address this
devastating disease.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I rise in this hon.
House to speak about the devastating issue of opioid addictions.
This
crisis has washed over our country and continues to plague our friends, families
and love ones. We need to work together for the betterment of our communities in
an open and transparent way. All of us in this hon. House have a responsibility
to our communities and to the province at large to bring forth the message that
seeking help is not a weakness, but the show of true strength.
I wish
to thank the hundreds of health professionals and volunteers who are leading the
charge in fighting the opioid crisis in our province. The Official Opposition
looks forward to working with those in the health care system for the betterment
of all people.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement and I applaud the ongoing work
of the department. Opioid addiction is a serious problem in this province and
people are struggling with this terrible disease. They need help now.
I agree
with the minister that harm reduction must be a top priority. As he knows, this
province has a province-wide problem affecting every community. I look forward
to learning how many communities are currently receiving these supports and
services and of the rollout for the remainder.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition Leader.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The RNC
is investigating the sudden death of a 33-year-old inmate at Her Majesty's
Penitentiary shortly in afternoon on Wednesday, apparently after an altercation
with guards. I would express my sympathies to all concerned, including the
correctional officers.
Is there
anything more the minister can tell us about the fatality? Could he describe
what investigations are underway?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody
wants to get up here today, Mr. Speaker, and talk about a death at one of our
correctional facilities, but the hon. Member is correct. On November 6 at Her
Majesty's Penitentiary, there was a sudden death of a male inmate.
The
matter, Mr. Speaker, is under investigation by the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary. Out of respect for the family, no further details regarding the
inmate's identity will be released at this time. Correctional officers are
co-operating with the police as they investigate the matter.
In
saying that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to tip my hat to the correctional
officers. I had the opportunity to work with them for many years and they do a
fabulous job in our facilities.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, Marlene Jesso
was called in to do a Deaths in Custody
Review after four deaths in the recent period. She made 17 recommendations
which the government accepted.
Is the
minister confident that all 17 systemic problems Jesso identified have been
rectified or are being rectified in a timely way?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Ms.
Jesso did a report that we received several months ago. The report actually says
to ensure that we have a safe and healthy living and work environment in our
correctional facilities. This is certainly a top priority of this government.
We
acknowledge that there's much work to do and there is a lot of important work
ongoing to address many of the issues identified in the report, Mr. Speaker.
Some of the challenges that we face are even bigger than changing just the
policies, but I'm sure our system will ensure that these policies are followed
as time proceeds.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I don't doubt the minister's
sincerity in being optimistic that the recommendations are being followed.
However, many of the institutional shortcomings surrounding previous deaths
involve communication breakdowns and improper procedures that could not be
blamed on the advanced age of the facility.
Is the
minister going to satisfy himself and the House that protocols and procedures
have been rectified and not breached in any way that placed the deceased
inmate's life in this case in jeopardy, or in a way that compromised the
integrity of the investigation into the death?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
to answer this question on the basis of communications and the issue of mental
and physical health of residents and inmates in correctional facilities. Prior
to Ms. Jesso's report, it had been determined the best way of dealing with this
was for health in correctional facilities to fall under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Health rather than the department of corrections.
Our
departments have been working very closely together. Ms. Jesso's report really
further strengthens the recommendation from
Towards Recovery. This process is well
advanced. I would draw the attention of the Member opposite to the fact that in
Alberta, which led the way in this endeavour, it took a couple of years to do.
We will have this done by the end of the calendar year, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Does either minister from the
government see wisdom in engaging Ms. Jesso to do a follow-up and report whether
she is satisfied with the progress that has been made to address the
recommendations and the systemic problems she identified?
MR. WARR:
I'm sorry; I didn't get the
question, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The question was: Will the
government engage Ms. Jesso to do a follow-up and report on her level of
satisfaction with the progress that has been made to address the recommendations
she made and any systemic problems she uncovered.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
To the hon. Member's
question, I apologize; I didn't hear it in the beginning. I'm sure there will be
a follow-up, Mr. Speaker, from the department to the Member's question.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, I have a
constituent in my district who will be homeless by the end of the month. This is
a senior. He has applied to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation for a
unit but there are no units available. He's been on application to the
corporation since 2014. The senior has also inquired about the availability of
the Rental Supplement Program, but has learned the program is exhausted. The
senior has been advised to go an emergency shelter upon his eviction.
I ask
the minister: How can she justify paying up to $350 per night versus increasing
the rental subsidy program which could only be $800 per month?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member tied a lot of things there together, I think, that's not really tied.
There is no doubt that there's an ongoing wait-list in Housing. There are a lot
of needs out there, not all of them that the Housing staff is able to meet.
What I
can tell you is that people are prioritized up the list. They make an
application and if people are willing to live in a broader area, sometimes that
moves them up, as I talked about yesterday. People in domestic situations are
number one and then there are individuals who are in shelters.
We have
been having good success with moving them out of shelters even though we've only
had the program for 16 months, moving them into more stable environments, moving
them along the continuum, which is the whole reason why this program folded in
under Housing, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Mount Pearl
North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, the staff and
management of NLHC are doing a tremendous job with the resources they have
available, but the reality is we are experiencing a housing crisis partly caused
by the highest rate of insolvency, the highest rate of addiction issues and
family breakup in our history. I have learned there are almost 70 people on this
same list as my constituent with similar circumstances and similar needs.
I ask
the minister: With another almost 70 people entering the emergency shelter
system, will the budget still be 38 per cent lower than last year and why is
there no additional funds allocated to the rent subsidy program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I talked
about, yesterday, some of the complexities. We've certainly put an increased
focus on moving people into non-profits. Sometimes if they need emergency
accommodations, we've certainly been focused on non-profits because that's where
the wraparound supports are for these individuals, because we want to work with
them to move them into some of our units. We've had success in that area.
I don't
know the particular situation that the hon. Member is talking about, but I'm
certainly open to having a conversation. If there's someone that has been in the
system a long time and he's concerned about them, my door is always open. He can
come and talk to me and we do what we can to meet the needs, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, for decades
farmers have been able to protect their crops, livelihoods and viability of
family farms through permitted shooting of moose which destroy crops. Through
the minister's own admission, there has never been an incident of concern. Yet,
the minister, by his own hand, amended the permit to no longer shoot moose at
night.
Why were
farmers and the agricultural industry left in the dark and not consulted about
this change, nor informed when it actually came into place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
No, no, no, Mr. Speaker, to
suggest that there has never been an issue of concern. Let's be clear to this
hon. House, all of us: The discharge of high-powered rifles or shotguns with
slugs in the middle of the night should be a matter of concern. The
Wild Life Act specifically prohibits hunting at night. There is
probably a very good reason for that, Mr. Speaker. There is a safety issue that
is always of paramount concern.
So when
I say to the hon. Member that we have to look proactively to consider safety
concerns and the general well-being of all of us around us, then I say to the
hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, he should adopt those same principles.
This was
a change that occurred in 2016. There are provisions that are available to
farmers, including calling conservation officers to be able to deal with issues
at night.
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the minister to
conclude his remarks.
MR. BYRNE:
But farmers still have the
ability to be able to dispatch animals on their farms during the daylight hours,
from sun-up to sunset.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Next question.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
While the minister may
highlight some areas of concern, I'd also like to point out that people hunt
moose day and night, and a bullet goes just as far in the day as it does in the
night.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
The reality is the solution
that the minister has offered to the farmers is not working. Farmers are having
to wait up to two hours for a conservation officer to show up to dispatch a
moose. We have farmers on the brink of insolvency because they've lost their
whole entire crops. Every time a moose puts his head down and takes a bite,
that's $5 off the bottom line of a farm and a farm family.
How can
the minister speak out of both sides of his mouth saying he supports new
entrants, supports the agriculture industry and takes away the very mechanism
they have to defend their livelihoods and their futures?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, some
in this House, somewhere, might appreciate his active defence of poaching.
Dispatching animals, hunting animals at night is a violation of the
Wild Life Act and has been for a very, very long time.
So, I'm
not sure who the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North is referring to, but if he
has any evidence, any information about poachers and poaching activity, which he
seems to be endorsing, he should report it to the authorities. Then again, maybe
this hon. Member is not always on the side of the law himself. I don't know, but
what I can say is that he really needs to be more cautious and careful about
hunting at night.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
MR. SPEAKER:
We'll wait until after
Question Period to deal with the point of order.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, it's quite
evident that some Members of the opposite side do not value the agricultural
production and the initiative that farmers have taken.
Mr.
Speaker, I challenge any one of those Members who are currently heckling me
about this situation to work 16 hours a day for six months of the year then have
to sit all night in the cab of a pickup or patrol their fields to protect their
incomes, protect their families livelihoods. I bet you they have never done
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
Has the minister ever sat in
a truck? Has the minister ever faced a bull moose, chased it out with his bare
hands? Because that's what our farmers are having to do.
I've
become partially aware of a situation where a farmer called the conservation
officer several times. The conservation officers show up, the moose are still
there, they drive the moose away and the moose comes back. Finally, one time he
called the conservation officers, they showed up without a gun, only to leave
the farmer with his own devise –
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the Member to ask his
question.
MR. LESTER:
Give me the same gratitude as
him, Sir. Only to leave the farmer to his own devise to take care of that moose,
while the conservation officers hid in the woods only to come out and arrest
him.
Now, Mr.
Premier, you stood yesterday and said you support agriculture. Do you support
this minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the Member to take his
seat.
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
I do support agriculture and
I do support the minister. I don't support hunting at night. It's illegal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if
the minister can shed some more light on the secret $40-million cannabis deal
with Canopy Growth.
Did the
Liberal Party receive any donations from Canopy Growth 80521 Limited or anyone
else on 7 Plank Road?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand, as I was yesterday, to talk about the important issue of
cannabis in our province. We've been very successful as of now, developing three
projects in this province for the betterment of people in our province.
We've
created 800 jobs when they're at full production, many, many
construction-associated jobs and tax bases for the municipalities that they're
existing in. Alone in St. John's, it's about a million dollars tax revenue
coming from the Canopy Growth facility in East White Hills. It happens to be in
my district.
I'm very
excited about the staff and the amount of people that are going to be hired for
that project and the two others that are on the go. I hope that there are a few
more coming through the pipe in the near future.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, the
Financial Post reported yesterday that there's a massive oversupply
of cannabis in Canada.
Why is
government continuing to hand out lucrative deals to their friends in a market
that may not exist?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon.
Member will talk to his colleague from Stephenville who has a production
facility being built in that community and see if he's in favour of creating
jobs in his community alone. I know that there are at least three cannabis
operations being built in this province. There are an additional several in the
pipeline that will hopefully be coming to fruition in the future.
I
encourage the individuals that have received the briefing to follow what they
were briefed on in the cannabis industry, and if they need another one, please
reach out to the cannabis industry to see if they'll give them one.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
minister quoted 400 jobs and today it is 800, so I'd like to know where those
400 jobs came from.
The
unfortunate part of this is that the people who have these deals, there's no
secondary processing. We probably created 800 jobs but we probably left 2,000 on
the table. Product produced here will be shipped to the Mainland without
value-added processing – fact.
I ask
the minister: Who's benefiting from these deals, except the people who bought
tables at the Premier's dinner?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I don't
understand why they're trying to make a very positive issue like this cannabis
industry that didn't exist a little over a year ago, that we built in this
province as a success. No other province in this country is feeling the success
we are. We actually made money in the cannabis industry last year. We created
employment. We have tax revenue coming in to our municipalities and created a
substantial amount of employment, not just from the construction-related jobs,
not from the production-related jobs, all the spin off employment jobs that are
created as a result of these facilities being built.
I look
forward to a follow-up question on that topic because I can talk about it all
day, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During
the provincial election campaign, TradesNL asked all parties if they would
implement a community benefits agreement policy. The Liberals replied as
stating, and I quote, “as a party we are not opposed to taking a closer look at
moving in this direction.”
I ask
the minister: What work have you done in the last five months to deal with this
issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we're about
developing the economy, making sure there are opportunities for individuals to
participate in that economy. Obviously, we want to create employment for
individuals within our province but you can't dictate that every job has to be
filled by individuals in the province.
Sometimes, I'll use an example, in the tech sector there may not be a person to
fill that job right away. That's why we have the minister of immigration working
so feverishly to try to increase our immigration numbers; like we've had great
success, great opportunity for individuals to work in our province. That's what
we want to create, an opportunity for those individuals to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So I
assume the answer is no, they have not looked at implementing a benefits package
for the province.
I ask
the minister: Will you be implementing a community benefits agreement policy to
ensure that the people of this province benefit from construction and the
development in our province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, thank you for
the question about generating benefits and providing employment to people in our
province.
All you
have to do is go and ask the people in Botwood today who will be working on
their project. Go to Corner Brook and see who is working on that project. See
who will be working on the projects in Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander. These are
provincially-driven projects and employing in our province, Mr. Speaker, 96 per
cent of the employment on all those projects are Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
These are people who are
directly working.
Mr.
Speaker, that is a community-driven benefit right there – 96 per cent of all the
employees working on those projects and others, Mr. Speaker, working from
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
we don't have the answer to my question, but let's go to the 96 per cent.
Can the
Premier tell us here in this House that the 4 per cent of jobs that are not
filled by local people could not be filled by local people?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, when you look at
community benefits, if you're a senior in this province and you've been waiting
for a long-term care facility – because this group over here who had billions of
dollars of money available to them ignored the request. As a matter of fact,
when they talk about community benefits and talk about unionized workers, it was
the previous administration that said we are not even going to use unionized
workers to staff those facilities.
They
made a decision that it would be done privately. That was their decision. That's
what they ran on. We took a position that it would be unionized workers that
would fill the positions in those institutions, Mr. Speaker, and providing
benefits to those seniors.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to talk about the acute care centre in Corner Brook that
was ignored and announced seven, eight, nine times and couldn't get it done.
This administration did it. That is community benefits for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I could
toss these three questions because I have yet to get an answer, but I can go to
this. It's amazing how you have a party with a motto
The Way Forward and they keep talking about the past. Time to move
forward – time to move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, earlier this
week the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development announced a new
Skilled Futures program to foster careers in skilled trades and technology;
however, currently the Bull Arm site lacks a major tenant and there are no major
projects on the horizon. In fact, Trades NL continues to run a public awareness
campaign about the lack of jobs and benefits for Newfoundlanders.
When is
the government going to focus on the desperate state of this economy here and
now, of which they had five years to deal with?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Allow me
to inform the Member of the benefits plans that we do have in this province. All
major natural resource – as a matter of fact, all natural resource projects have
benefits plans. Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous benefits coming from our
natural resources and I can be happy to share that thousands upon thousands upon
thousands of jobs are being created by our oil and gas industry and by our
mining industry. I know my hon. colleague would love to stand up and talk about
the many contributions that the investments in infrastructure are bringing to
this province.
We are
going to continue to ensure the maximum benefits of all projects, especially
around natural resources, and I know there are community benefits about
infrastructure as well. I can assure the people of this province, we are
maximizing every opportunity we have to ensure benefits are coming to the people
of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, the
Kamutik W has been subject to many weather delays directly impacting
freight and passenger service in the communities in my district. Communities
have been omitted due to last-minute ad hoc route changes to their schedule and
this is creating panic; panic not only amongst the citizens in my district, but
panic among the business owners and the Inuit and Innu community governments.
Will
this government admit that the 2019 ferry service has failed my people and
replace this stupid ferry?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
certainly won't be replacing it with something built in Romania. Mr. Speaker,
this season has not been a failure. To date, we've shipped 34 per cent more
freight than we did the last season; 2,712 tones more freight this year than
last year. Just think about that number.
Mr.
Speaker, for the first time ever, we've had over 300 roll-on and roll-off
opportunities with vehicles. The freight that's going north on the ferry is not
even included in the tonnage numbers if you're putting it in the trunk of your
car or in the back of your truck.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality here is there have been some challenges, mainly shore
based. One of the things we'll be doing this coming winter is working with the
company, working with the Innu and working with the Nunatsiavut Government on
ways that we can improve this service going into next year.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Mr. Speaker, budgets are about choices. Government has chosen to hold $111
million in reserve for Equinor while Equinor decides if the Bay du Nord project
is viable.
I ask
the Premier: How does this choice address our immediate needs related to rate
mitigation, homelessness, emergency shelters, mental health, senior care, rural
diversification and development?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member opposite is referring to an equity stake that we have proposed to take in
Equinor should it advance. Mr. Speaker, it is a project that is in our offshore,
as we have other equity stakes in other opportunities within our offshore.
Mr.
Speaker, they are generating tremendous income for this province. I can assure
the Member opposite that we are working through, with Equinor, the arrangements
around that equity investment so that we can ensure that we have a good return –
a very good return – from our offshore assets.
I will
assure the Member opposite those discussions are continuing and that we're
making sure that the project will advance before we invest any money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Labrador
West.
MR. BROWN:
Mr. Speaker, seniors have to
leave my district to avail of assisted living or to reside in a seniors' home.
My district has neither of these vital options for seniors and home care is
virtually non-existent.
I ask
the minister responsible: What is the plan to provide these important services
to the seniors and residents of Labrador West?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We have
commissioned and are in the process of receiving a needs assessment on locations
and numbers for personal care home beds. The Member opposite is correct, the
demographic in his district has changed from people who worked and lived in what
was a mining town and then left, to an area where there is a retirement
community.
The
challenge around the personal care home sector, particularly, is this is a
private business. I would encourage the dialogue that the local municipalities
have already started with private providers to continue until we get the results
of that report, which I'm hoping will be here before the end of the year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in a 2018 ATIPPed application from Northern Harvest, a plan for dealing
with high water temperature and low oxygen levels was blacked out.
I ask
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources: Is this because there was no plan?
Since we certainly didn't see one in the recent fish die-off at their farm.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
appreciate the question. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
is paramount in these decisions. When there is considered harm to third parties,
there can and should be a redaction. This was an instance where there was a
determination there could be potential harm to third parties and so there was a
redaction based on that basis.
However,
what I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that it gives me an excellent platform now,
today, to be able to speak to specific measures to deal with environmental
issues, environmental mitigations. Our new suite of policies, procedures and
licence conditions speak to several specific initiatives which require
prescriptive measures to deal with environmental mitigations and we're very,
very proud of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The only
harm to third parties that I could see were to the fish harvesters, people who
depend on the aquaculture industry and to the wild Atlantic salmon stocks.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister said he takes the words and the knowledge of the
Mi'kmaq seriously, yet in an interview on
Mi'kmaq Matters, the Miawpukek First Nation chief said he only found
out about the die-off in the media three weeks after the minister knew.
So, if
the minister truly values our Mi'kmaq citizens, why didn't he pick up the phone
and tell the chief as soon as he knew?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, that same
interview, Chief Mi'sel Joe said I commend the minister for the work he's done
and acknowledged the government's good, hard work on this.
What I
have found a consistent practice from this hon. Member, which I disagree with,
is that he continues to marginalize. He has never phoned Chief Mi'sel Joe. I
just got off the line with Chief Mi'sel Joe, just about an hour ago. I have had
several conversations with him. What I'll say is that that hon. Member right
there has never, ever picked up the phone to phone him to ask any questions.
I've been down to Conne River, I've been down to the First Nation and spoken to
him several times.
What
I've constantly found from this hon. Member – and it is a pattern of behaviour –
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the Member to direct his comments towards the Chair.
MR. BYRNE:
A pattern of behaviour of
marginalization of Indigenous, and I will speak to that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Question Period has
expired.
MR. J. DINN:
Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
Point of order by the Member
for St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
I think, Mr. Speaker –
actually I know that the hon. Member –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. J. DINN:
Pardon me? I'm talking about
the point of privilege here. I would assume that you have to address all
comments to the Speaker. Would that be correct?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much.
I'd ask
you to remind the hon. Member across to do that.
Secondly, I think it might be worthwhile for the hon. Member to have a refresher
course in the anti-harassment and bullying.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
To that point of order, the
hon. the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I can't find in
the Standing Orders where his point of order is; I know he changed it to a point
of privilege. Again, I don't know where we would find the particular Standing
Order or the particular phrase in order to be able to address his particular
issue.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
To that point of order, the
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, through you, I
would say to the hon. Member he should be very, very mindful of his own conduct,
his past patterns of behaviour of conduct because they are not in keeping with
the spirit of reconciliation with our Indigenous. I have been in his company in
the past where he has marginalized the interests and importance of Indigenous
peoples and nations in our province and it's not acceptable.
MR. SPEAKER:
This is not related to the
point of order that was raised. I'll give the Member a short – if he's speaking
specifically to his point of order.
The
Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
I was speaking on a point of
privilege that if the minister wants to go down that road, he better make sure
he has his facts straight, because I can tell you this right now, that was
totally uncalled for. Anything about my past history with Indigenous or anybody,
as president of the Teachers' Association, was always respectful regardless of
who I was dealing with.
I'd ask
for a retraction of that because it's just unacceptable and unparliamentary.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
While there's no point of
order here, it's a disagreement between two hon. Members, I would take this
opportunity to remind all Members of the House that comments should be directed
towards the Chair. This is the past precedent in our House and all Members
should abide by that. It's designed to depersonalize the questioning and the
answering and I ask all Members to follow that precedent.
Thank
you.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
In accordance with section
19(5)(a) of the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the minutes
of the House of Assembly Management Commission meetings held February 20, March
13 and July 23, 2019.
Also in
accordance with section 18(9) of the House
of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I'm informing
this House that the current Members of the Management Commission are: the
Speaker, the Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, the Minister
of Health and Community Services, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the
Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and
the Clerk.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 15.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There have been
numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term care
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,
whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,
not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's
failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
THEREFORE we
petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes the mandatory
establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in long-term
care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing persons with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions in
order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene
care and all other required care. This law would include the creation of a
specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and intervention as
required to ensure the safety of patients.
Mr. Speaker, I
present this petition again today. I did so pretty much every day during the
last sitting and I will continue to do so on behalf of a group which has been
established called Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights.
Today, we have
signatures here from people in the St. John's and Mount Pearl area, primarily.
As I have said in the past, and will continue to say on their behalf, these are
people, primarily, who would have family members who are in long-term care
facilities.
I absolutely
commend the government for the work they have done in the creation of new
long-term care facilities. They've seen the need and they're reacting to that
need. Nobody is disputing that. This group is not disputing that. What this
group is disputing, though, is that there are many occasions where they have
gone into these facilities where
a loved one has been there, and that loved one has apparently, allegedly,
not been receiving the care they deserve. Not because the staff are not doing
their job, not because the staff don't care or they don't know what they're
doing. None of those things. Far from it, but the issue quite often has been
lack of staffing.
Now,
there may be appropriate staffing on the books, but if you don't replace people
when they call in sick and things like that, then you don't have the appropriate
staffing at all times. Someone should not be going into a facility where they
have a loved one who has Alzheimer's disease or dementia or something, walk in
to the room, lunchtime, to see breakfast on the table that hasn't been eaten
because there was no one there to actually feed that person. Those are the
issues; or, for someone to be strapped into a chair all day or overmedicated. We
know we have issues with overmedication that have been raised, because there's
not the staff to take care of these seniors.
These
are our mothers, our fathers, our grandparents; one day it could be you or I.
It's an important issue. I ask the government to please do everything you can to
ensure we have appropriate staffing at these facilities.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to present a petition on behalf of the communities and
citizens adjacent to the Bull Arm Fabrication site. The background of this
petition is as follows:
WHEREAS
there are no current operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication site; and
WHEREAS
the site is a world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate the local
economy; and
WHEREAS
residents of the area are troubled with the lack of local employment in today's
economy; and
WHEREAS
the operation of this facility would encourage employment for the area and
create economic spinoffs for local businesses; and
WHEREAS
the site is an asset to the province, built to benefit the province, and a
long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and
WHEREAS
the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of the province;
THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull Arm Fabrication site,
petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to expedite the process to get the Bull Arm
Fabrication site back in operation. We request that this process include a
vision for a long-term, viable plan that is beneficial to all residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Furthermore, we request that government place an
emphasis on all supply, maintenance, fabrication and offshore workover for
existing offshore platforms, as well as new construction of any future
platforms, be they GBS or FPSO in nature.
Mr.
Speaker, this is something that while it's in my district, yes, it does speak to
the fact of our economy. We need work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This
is evident. The quality of work by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the
quality of our tradespeople is second to none worldwide.
We have
a world-class facility that's deteriorating. We've already made that capital
investment, Mr. Speaker. Why are we now considering making other capital
investment with other proprietors, instead of getting this site back up and
going and make it a world-class facility again?
There
are many economic spinoffs. Look at all the towns that benefited from it the
last time it was up and running and had more full-time employment. There are
more tax dollars in the coffers for the economic development of our towns that
also need some long overdue infrastructure.
We've
propped up many other jurisdictions in our past, so it's high time we prop up
our own. Let's show that rural Newfoundland is and can be more vibrant on the
world stage.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
pleased to inform the Member opposite, the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue
– I listened very carefully to his remarks – that there is indeed work in Bull
Arm today. There is, for the second time, a thruster swap out that's happening.
This is new for our province, new work. There is another rig brought in to Bull
Arm. This is new work for Bull Arm.
Of
course, we are looking to – and I'll quote his words, Mr. Speaker: a vision for
a long-term viable plan. That's exactly what we've been working on, a reliable
plan for continuous work at Bull Arm. We have gone out for a request for
proposals; we have been reviewing those proposals, speaking to the proponents of
those proposals.
One of
those proponents, Mr. Speaker, is a fabricator who is doing the work on the rig
that I just mentioned. The other is a supply centre, and we're continuing
discussions with that supply centre for further long-term work. I agree with the
Member opposite, we're going to continue to maximize benefits to the people of
the province.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, people on Income
Support in Newfoundland fall way below the national poverty line.
In 2016,
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour changed their policy to specify that in
order to qualify for a bus pass people need to have a minimum of eight specified
medical appointments a month. This creates a barrier for low income and
vulnerable people to obtain basic necessities like food and essential medical
services.
The
requirement of eight doctor's appointments a month ignores the need of those
living with chronic illnesses and disabilities who may not need to see the
doctor, but often have no ability to travel by their own means. This also limits
their ability to socialize.
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows: we, the undersigned,
call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to allow bus passes to all Income Support recipients, all seniors who
receive the Income Support supplement and all low income recipients who are in
receipt of the NLPDP.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at our overburdened health care system, many of these
appointments that are being filled are being filled by people who need to
maintain that quota of eight medical appointments per month in order to maintain
their bus pass. This creates far more financial drain and far more financial
cost to our system than the issuance of a bus pass.
Not only
does the issuance of a bus pass make financial sense when it comes to the
Provincial Treasury, it also makes environmental sense. It's been proven time
and time again that mass transit is far friendly to the environment than
individual taxi or own personal vehicle.
Mr.
Speaker, this is another decision that was made in 2016 to save money and it
hasn't. It has actually cost our system more. I, therefore, support this
petition and I look forward to the reply.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm more
than happy to advise the Member opposite that during election 2019, it was the
Liberal Party that committed to providing bus passes to all people on Income
Support in the St. John's metro area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
That is a commitment that we made in election 2019 that in early 2020 this would
be established and I'm firmly committed, as minister of Income Support, in
making and delivering upon that. That is in my mandate letter from the Premier
of Newfoundland and Labrador as well.
One
thing I'm very proud to report upon is that you look at the vital signs here in
Newfoundland and Labrador that the caseload for Income Support has declined
significantly here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to take
actions so that we can continue to create economic opportunities for people on
Income Support to attach the labour force, to get new skills and add more to the
economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Giving them transportation, via a bus
pass, is a great thing, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This may
sound a little repetitious but this is absolutely important and speaks to my
question earlier in the House. The background to this petition is as follows:
There have been numerous concerned raised by family members of seniors in
long-term care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those
suffering with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating
conditions whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed
regularly, have not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in
their own waste for extended periods of time. We believe this is directly
related to government's failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes
the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents
in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing
persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating
conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries,
proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would include the
creation of a specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and
intervention, as required, to ensure the safety of those patients.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to point out that I have received this petition and I will
continue to pass along every instance of this petition that I get. Today, to
complement the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I have signatures from St.
Stephen's, St. Vincent's, Peter's River, Gander, St. John's, Grand
Falls-Windsor, Clarenville, more from Gander and Marystown. This tells you that
this is a province-wide issue.
I can
talk to this from a very different perspective as well. I was very fortunate to
have a mother who was a nurse and my mother worked in long-term care for an
extended period of time. Now that she has retired, I've had ample opportunity to
sit with many of her friends who are still working in health care. I say: How
are working conditions for you? They say it is very, very hard for them to do
their job, to adequately perform their roles and to care for their patients in
their wings.
The
reason for this they say is largely because there is less staffing and patients
weigh more. They have more disabilities. They have more cognitive impairments.
They have more physical impairments. While we may still have the same number of
patients – although I do not think that is the case – those patients require
more and more care, so maintaining the same levels of staffing that they've had
all along is really counterintuitive. That means that patients are actually
receiving less care when they go into these facilities.
I would
like to continue to press this point. This is absolutely vital. This is hard on
the patients who are delivering the services, as well as the people who are
receiving those services.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
sure if I'm allowed to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. DWYER:
Okay.
I've got
a second petition. It's from another part of my district. The reasons for this
petition are that: Highway 210 is the main road going through the picturesque
community of Swift Current. The Department of Transportation and Works currently
are working on a two-year project on Highway 210 from Garden Cove towards
Piper's Hole. The current tender for the highway work includes Highway 210 only.
The side roads of Swift Current are not included. The side roads of Swift
Current are in deplorable condition. The side roads have not been repaved since
the initial paving in the early 1970s. The side roads, which were used to divert
traffic during the current tendered construction contract, are in worse shape
now due to extensive traffic it endured.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to considering paving/upgrading of the side roads,
including Darby's Cove, Sharpe's Lane, Maple Crescent, Old Church Road, Academy
Hill, Hollett's Point and Shoal Cove Heights in Swift Current to the current
existing road upgrade project as an add-on.
Mr.
Speaker, I have actually talked to the Minister of Transportation and Works on
this, these roads were used as diversions to put in a culvert on the main road
and thus has really deteriorated one of the roads, especially Sharpe's Lane.
What
these people are looking for at this point in time, really, is to help them get
through the winter. They're looking for some Class A and to be graded, but these
are not big one- or two-kilometre roads. We're talking about little crescents
that are adjacent to the main road.
I'll
remind the House that this main road that goes right through Swift Current is
actually Route 210, the Burin Peninsula Highway. So, it does see a lot of
traffic. They're concerned, also, about the speed on that, but that's something
that we can get into a little bit later. I'll bring a petition forward on that
as well.
In the
nighttime, a lot of the equipment belonging to the construction company is
actually being parked on Old Church Road, which houses the post office and the
playground in the middle of the community. When they house that equipment there
at night, obviously, it takes up not only space but it's using those roads and
deteriorating those roads as well.
I have
talked to the minister about it and I'm awaiting a response. This is something
that's going to be done over two construction seasons, so what I'm really
petitioning the minister for is that he would consult with us, as a group, about
what's going to happen in the next season, but get two lanes at least done this
season.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the petition.
Mr.
Speaker, to his remarks about the challenges that the roads have suffered from
the diversions, that's something, certainly, that the department will look into
and will provide some grading this fall to alleviate the immediate concern.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite highlighted the value of Route 210 and this
government certainly sees the value in 210. If you look at the aquaculture
industry, the fluorspar mine in St. Lawrence and the dockyard, the new hub for
aquaculture, the amount of economic activity that's happening right now on the
Burin Peninsula is excellent and it's something that we've recognized.
Back, I
think, under the previous Member, we put forward a business case to Ottawa to
actually do some substantial upgrades to Route 210 in the coming years. I
believe the most recent business case we had approved from Ottawa was somewhere
in the $20-million range, Mr. Speaker, to provide upgrades to this very
important highway in the province, and we will continue to look at this. This is
going to become one of the main trade corridors in our province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, for leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 10, and I further move
that this said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that she shall have leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 10, and that
the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Forestry Act,” carried. (Bill 10)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 9, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 9, and that the said bill be now read a first
time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act,” carried. (Bill 9)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 9)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 9 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province, Bill 13, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the minister shall now have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province, Bill 13, and
that this bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting The
Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province,” carried. (Bill 13)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province.
(Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave
to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14,
and I further move that said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14, and that the said bill be now read a first
time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,” carried. (Bill 14)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 2,
the third reading of Bill 8.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that a bill,
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 8, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Labour Standards Act. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on
the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 3,
second reading of Bill 5.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 5, An Act To
Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and the seconded
that the bill now be read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.” (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in this hon. House to speak to Bill 5, an amendment to the
Highway Traffic Act. I cannot state often enough how important it is
that we keep the dialogue going on road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Since I
became Minister of Service NL, I've had numerous opportunities to stand in this
Chamber to introduce amendments to the act to help increase safety on the
roadways in our province. The Highway
Traffic Act regulates drivers and motor vehicle use on our province's
highways. It is a significant piece of legislation with 215 provisions and a
detailed Schedule; as well as 17 associated sets of regulations. It is important
that we, as a government, regularly review the act to keep current with changes
in safety codes, vehicle design and other highway safety improvements, as well
as responding to driving behaviours.
Every
time I have to consider making changes to strengthen the
Highway Traffic Act, I am reminded of the people I have met and
their stories of pain and loss. I've met with individuals and families who have
had their lives forever changed because of incidents on our highways. It has
certainly affected me in a profound way. I am also reminded of the blatant
disregard for human life that is apparent when people choose to disobey the
rules of the road and make a decision that impacts not only their own lives, but
that of others travelling on our roadways.
Words
cannot express the devastation that families live everyday, and I commend these
individuals in their efforts to spread their road safety message despite their
suffering. In many cases it may have been the unimaginable loss or injury of a
parent, a child, spouse or a sibling. For others it may be a friend, a neighbour
or a colleague.
A number
of individuals, along with groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the
STAND For Hannah foundation, for example, echo the same message that we try to
communicate everyday, take your driving privilege seriously. Their stories and
their faces are what we must keep front and centre every time we make changes to
the act to help increase road safety. It has certainly made the attention our
government has been giving to road safety very personal for me.
Mr.
Speaker, over the past several years the
Highway Traffic Act has been amended to increase the fines for using a
handheld cellular phone while driving a motor vehicle. We have introduced
tougher penalties for impaired drivers in this province, including new rules
that we hope to help steer our young people in the direction of safe and sober
driving habits.
We
increased penalties for a number of offences that were less than $100, in hopes
of deterring a number of behaviours that continue to pose risks on our roadways,
such as driving too slow, driving with an obstructed windshield or illegally
modifying a vehicle.
We also
introduced amendments regarding excessive speeding, street racing, stunting,
move over provisions and created a new offence for driving with due care and
attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons causing bodily
harm or death. Additionally, we increased fines for the already existing offence
of driving without due care and attention and driving without reasonable
consideration for other persons. We made a modification to proof of insurance
requirements, and we introduced a one-metre rule for cyclists and pedestrians.
Despite
our best efforts, Mr. Speaker, there continued to be –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
– many reported incidents of
unsafe driving on our highways.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There's
a little too much noise in the House. I ask Members to keep the conversations
down so we can hear the Member speaking.
Thank
you.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
As my colleagues in the
Departments of Education and Early Childhood Development, Transportation and
Works, Municipal Affairs and Environment will speak to today, these behaviours
are particularly challenging when it comes to trying to protect our children
travelling on school buses or workers on a highway in a construction zone.
Last
year, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation and Works conducted a pilot
project using speed cameras which indicated that 43 per cent of all vehicles
were speeding at least 10 kilometres per hour over the speed limit in
construction zones.
It has
also been well documented that vehicles passing a school bus when its stop arm
and flashing lights are activated is a prevalent problem in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Traffic cameras will provide a solution in this scenario as well, as
they could capture video evidence of vehicles that disregard the safety of our
children and illegally pass the bus.
Last
spring, when I stood in this House to introduce amendments to the
Automobile Insurance Act, I also
committed to develop amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
– to allow for the use of
cameras as another measure to curb dangerous driving habits.
With all
of this in mind, Mr. Speaker, today we are introducing amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act which will allow
for the use of camera technology as another means of enhancing road safety.
These amendments will permit us to move forward to allow the following offences
to be eligible for enforcement by an image capture enforcement system: failing
to stop at a red light, speeding offences on all highways, speeding in
construction zones, speeding in school zones and passing a school bus while
embarking or disembarking children.
The act
will also be amended to allow for registered owners to be charged for those
moving violations in order to facilitate administrating penalties for
infractions. Technology, such as cameras, for example, would only be able to
target vehicles and not drivers, making this change necessary.
Mr.
Speaker, it was also necessary for us to add three new offences to the act
related to image capture systems. These are: prohibiting the obstruction of a
plate to prevent the plate from being captured by an image capture system;
damaging the image capture system; and, altering or removing the image capture
system. These offences have fines ranging from $100 to $400. The City of St.
John's has also expressed its support of deployment of this technology by law
enforcement within city limits.
Mr.
Speaker, we recognize the importance of continuously working toward improving
road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador. The amendments we are debating today
will enable us to move forward by enabling this image capture technology.
I would
like to highlight, Mr. Speaker, that the technology we propose involves only an
image capture of the licence plate of a vehicle. This, of course, is linked to
the system that the provincial government already has in place, namely that of
our Motor Registration Division, which is designed to enable us to manage the
motorized vehicles and the people who drive them on our roadways. However, as
the details of this initiative are developed, a significant part of our due
dialogue will involve working closely with the Information and Privacy
Commissioner as we develop regulations. We have given the commissioner our
commitment that we will do so.
We will
complete privacy impact assessments as the commissioner recommended and will
take all necessary measures to inform the public as the process unfolds. We did
such assessments in the pilots that were conducted in the construction zones.
This demonstrates that the protection of personal information is always at the
forefront of our decision-making process.
Mr.
Speaker, it was our goal to find a solution which best mirrors our government's
road safety objectives. As such, our amendments are modelled on Manitoba's
legislation, given it aligns with our goals, while also providing the
flexibility to adopt new processes and technology. I have also said many times
in this House, Mr. Speaker, that it's important that legislation be clear and
modern, responding to the people it saves.
Aside
from amending the act regarding the use of camera technology, there are
housekeeping amendments which are also necessary. We are consolidating previous
changes regarding increased penalties for select offences to the schedule of the
act for consistency purposes. Additionally, impaired driving sections of the act
needed to be reordered for readability and understanding. For example,
suspensions related to impaired driving will be consolidated by driver type,
such as novice drive or commercial driver.
Mr.
Speaker, as you can see, the amendments put forward today help us continue our
ongoing focus on strengthening road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador. They
are further proof of our government's dedication to making public safety a
priority. These amendments provide us with the ability to now move forward and
develop the necessary regulations that will capture the details for the
implementation of camera technology.
I want
to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the many advocacy groups and
individuals, enforcement agencies and all stakeholders for their willingness to
continuously work with us in our efforts to improve road safety in this
province. Some of these individuals and groups have joined us in the gallery
today. Through the changes we have introduced here today, along with other
changes we have made in recent years to the act, our objective is always to help
the people of our province develop safe and sober driving habits.
I
respectfully move these amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act to ensure continued support of road safety for everyone
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Good day, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to take this time here just to thank the minister and her briefing committee
that did a great job yesterday when we were over – I think it was yesterday or
the day before. They did a great job in giving some information, so I appreciate
that.
It's my
first time up here speaking on a bill and to look at the
Highway Traffic Act, it was a pretty big bill. Speaking to a former
critic here, he said you start there with the baptism certificate and then you
end with a death certificate and everything in between, between marriage
licences, driver's licences and everything like that. It's a pretty broad
department and I could see a lot of amendments being made.
First of
all, we will certainly go along with the safety part. That is something that
we're definitely interested in. We agree totally that safety is first and
foremost and it's something that, when we're looking at this, we believe in for
sure.
Some of
the stuff that we looked at was just organizing paperwork and putting fines in
different orders. That's just housekeeping, so that seemed to be not too bad,
but the one that really caught our eye would be the imaging and how the cameras
would work or whatever you're going to call them, whether they're cameras or
radars or whatever there may be. It's just interesting that we look at those and
see how that's going to play out.
I did
have an experience when I was in Portugal only a couple weeks ago. We were
driving for, I'm going to say, three days, going back and forth to a condo. We
were just driving along and a red light would come on, on the road, no
intersections, no nothing and they're all roundabouts.
It took
us three days, we were there and couldn't figure out what's happening. What was
happening was when you're driving you're going the speed, some technology in the
road was picking up you're going too fast, the red light would come on, you'd
stop and it would slow everything down. Ten seconds later, the light went off
and you'd just drove your business. I thought it was pretty interesting, and it
took us three days to figure it out. We didn't know what was going on, no train
tracks, no nothing, and no crosswalks so it took us, like I said, three days to
figure it out and it was pretty interesting.
I think
that's something, going forward – they have more roundabouts than we do and
they're probably the ones to initiate that. They're bigger than what we have
obviously, but they moved traffic. They do slow down when they come into it, so
in those areas they move the traffic but they do slow it down. So, safety-wise
it's pretty good, except for when you get in one with six lanes, that can be
pretty harrowing if you're not used to it. That was pretty difficult to get
through.
Also
there was some pitfalls – when you were saying about the survey on the road when
they were doing the construction zones, the number was pretty high; it was 43
per cent. That's pretty eye-opening that 43 per cent of the people driving
through construction zones are 10 kilometres an hour over. We're after doing a
lot of education on that. People somehow are not listening to it or taking heed
to it, and it's interesting that's where that number was.
Where
they machines that they're using, what they were using is probably some
questions that need to be asked, but it was pretty eye-opening to see that 43
per cent of the people were going over that. That's something that certainly
needs to be looked at and more questions need to be asked in that regard.
Some of
the other stuff that we were talking about was the department officials noted
there were a variety of such systems that were used across Canada and across the
world in using these systems. Some places had them; some places had taken them
out. Which is the right one? Which system is best to use? So, a lot of work
needs to go into that and a lot of information. We certainly need to look at
that.
Government has also chosen to give Cabinet authority to make the decisions on
the bulk of the detail regarding the image capturing enforcement system through
regulations. So that's where we have to be careful, where the regulations are.
Where you're going to put them, is one thing, if they're going to be at
intersections. Are they going to be in rural communities? Are they going to be
on highways? Are they just going on intersections here in the city? Are they
just taking plates? Are they taking them through the windshield? I guess, those
are some of the regulations that you look at.
Sometimes with bikes you have smaller licence plates. I know the rule there is
that the owner of the vehicle will get the fine. So if I'm driving your vehicle,
Mr. Speaker, then do I get the fine or do you get the fine? Are you going to
come after me? Those are some of the questions that we need to ask. How are they
going to be calibrated? What system is it? Is it radar? What technology is it
going to be? So there is a lot of stuff there that we really do need to add
questions to and to ask questions.
According to the officials, the official equipment piece to the legislation
change has not been decided and regulations will have to be developed regarding
that. That's very important that we get that right and get it proper and,
obviously, get that in the proper places. So it's very important that way.
Also, I
had some briefing notes myself there. No definition is set in regard to the
regulations of the system. Installing them, the one thing with vehicles itself
and coming from a vehicle industry, if it's going to be taken through the front
window, if you start doing that, if that's the way it's going to be or it's
going to be a licence plate, it's coming through the front window, do you look
at how the drivers are tinting their glass? Can you see the driver, if that's
going to go that way or is it going to be the licence plate? Right now, it seems
like the licence plate but will it come in through. That's something that
they'll have to explore as well.
I'll do
my best to get most of these questions out there. Hopefully, we will be able to
move on and get some of these questions answered.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is
absolutely a pleasure to stand today and speak to this bill, An Act to Amend the
Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the advocates,
some of the people in the gallery today, who have put so much time and effort
into highway safety over the last number of years. It's truly heartwarming to
think that they've taken their loss and their sacrifice and actually helped
others.
As well,
from the Transportation and Works side, the Heavy Civil Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador have been strong advocates in the Department of
Transportation and Works for improvements of safety for their workers, Mr.
Speaker. I can speak first-hand, as the Minister of Transportation and Works,
when it comes to what our own employees in our depots around the province go
through year after year when it comes to safety issues.
I had
the opportunity this summer, along with the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety, to be on the West Coast and actually drop in to the depot in Doyles.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a number of years back, the Doyles depot lost one of
our employees to a needless accident on the highway of speeding in a
construction zone. That's not acceptable in today's age. The amendments that
we're looking at today about image capturing systems will certainly help
increase highway safety on our roads throughout the province.
Our
department, Mr. Speaker, does a substantial amount of work on the highways
throughout the years. This year alone some $130 million worth of money, of
investment, was made on the roads throughout our province. Since we formed
government, we've invested over $700 million in road construction in our
province. Just last year, we were able to secure a new investment agreement with
the federal government to address some of the local roads issues, some of the
more northern and rural roads in our province as well.
One of
the pillars of our Roads Plan has always been early tendering, Mr. Speaker. I
bring this into the discussion this afternoon to talk about the amount of
investment that we're making, the number of lane kilometres over the last number
of years since 2015, over 2,100 kilometres. I think I'm on record this week in
the House talking about, if you think about 2,100 lane kilometres, that's paving
from St. John's to Corner Brook three times.
To the
point here, there's a lot of roadwork happening and being completed in our
province. One thing that we want to ensure is that when the men and women in our
province are going out in the morning to take on a construction project, whether
it's maintenance staff with the Department of Transportation and Works, some
800, actually, that go out day in and day out and maintain the roads in our
province and an endless number of contractors in our province that go out and do
our work throughout the year, that they're safe and they return home.
Unfortunately, in my time in Transportation and Works, we've had a number of
incidents, fatalities happening because people just don't pay attention to their
driving and their driving habits.
I had an
experience myself this past summer. It was a sunny Friday morning and I was
heading out of the city back home, I was nearing the Roaches Line overpass, and
we went into a construction zone. If you ever get caught up in a line of traffic
in a construction zone because somebody is going 50 in front of you, that's me.
I don't apologize for going 50 in a construction zone.
Somebody
zoomed by me, Mr. Speaker, and if anybody is familiar with – there's a little
crest when you go over the overpass at Roaches Line; this was a paving project,
ongoing. Just over that crest in this construction zone, there was a Department
of Transportation and Works truck with two staff members checking the quality of
the asphalt that had just been laid. The vehicle that passed me in that
construction zone, Mr. Speaker, went by me like I was stopped. I heard a
screeching stop come from that vehicle, and we're so lucky that day that we
didn't have a tragedy on our highways again.
Mr.
Speaker, to say that I'm pleased today to stand here and take a few minutes to
talk about that we're going to have an ability to ticket a vehicle and – the
Member opposite just said, if he's driving your vehicle, Mr. Speaker, and we
capture your licence plate, well, that's between you guys. At the end of the
day, we just want to make sure that we use every single tool that we have, every
single ability, to make sure that our highways are safe.
Mr.
Speaker, the story I referred to is my own personal story, but I hear these
stories every time I go into a depot, or every time I sit down with the
Construction Association or a contractor in this province. I hear these stories
of vehicles whizzing by in construction zones, and it's just not acceptable.
This type of behaviour is not acceptable.
I
understand that there are some privacy issues, and I know the department, along
with our department, and even through our pilot project back in the fall of
2018, we extensively talked to the Privacy Commissioner because privacy is
important, extremely important, Mr. Speaker, but so is safety and so is public
safety and so is the safety of everybody on our highways.
The
actual project that we did last year on the construction zone cameras was
actually supposed to happen in the summer. The reason why we actually had to
delay it into the fall was simply because we had to make sure that we had all
the privacy boxes checked. We did and we'll certainly make sure that is a part
going forward.
What we
found in that report was extremely alarming; 43 per cent of vehicles over 10 –
we gave an allowance. In the pilot project we did, we actually did an allowance
of 10 kilometres over. So if you passed by the image capturing system in that
pilot project and you were going 59, we gave that. We were capturing 43 per cent
of the vehicles going over 60 kilometres, so this is 10 kilometres and over. Mr.
Speaker, it bears repeating: That's not acceptable. In no way, shape or form is
that acceptable.
When we
looked at the technologies involved – and the Member opposite addressed this –
we'll evaluate those from Transportation and Works' perspective. We'll evaluate
those over the winter to make sure that we are getting the best technology, but,
at the end of the day, we want to make sure, from the department's perspective,
that when our employees go to work, when our contractors go to work, we want to
make sure that it's a safe workplace.
We often
hear people talk about workplace and workplace safety, but I think sometimes we
forget that for a person out, whether they're filling a pothole or doing some
shoulder work, or a contractor out doing major capital work, this is their
workplace and they have every single right to be safe in that workplace, as you
or I or anybody in this province deserves to be safe in their workplace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, one of the
things that commonly comes up – and I'll just stay on the construction side for
a minute – relates to, well, the construction signs were up and there was nobody
there. I went through a construction zone and there was nobody there, the signs
were up. There's a reality in that. The only sign that should come down in a
construction zone is the sign that indicates people working.
Mr.
Speaker, once a construction site starts, it's a construction site. I thought
about this on the weekend. I was walking through the Avalon Mall – obviously
under construction – and there was an area roped off with yellow tape and there
was nobody working, but there was a reason that was roped off because it was a
construction site.
When you
go through a construction zone the next time and there's nobody working, it's
still a construction zone and there are many reasons for that. It could be
guiderail down, it could be a large piece of heavy equipment parked on the side
of the road. There are all kinds of factors. It could be uneven shouldering. It
could be uneven paving.
That's
why these zones are construction zones. We've worked with the Newfoundland and
Labrador Construction Association and their members to make contractors more
cognizant that when they are finished a construction site these signs should
come down. Again, just because workers are not present doesn't mean it's not a
construction site, no different than you would see in any environment.
Mr.
Speaker, we tried three different systems. They will be evaluated further as we
make a final decision in which system we will be using next year. I'll repeat
this: The Department of Transportation and Works in the 2020 construction season
will be using construction cameras and image-capturing cameras. I look forward
to the day we lay the first charges, because for far too long these things have
been happening on our highways.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll conclude my remarks but I do for a second want to thank the
Department of Service NL. In my time in Transportation and Works, Minister
Gambin-Walsh and her staff have made tremendous efforts when it comes to highway
safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
I don't know of any time that
I'm aware of a department that has taken so much of an emphasis on highway
safety. A lot of it is because of the day we live in and people's attitudes and
people's behaviours.
Mr.
Speaker, I would think that we have some of the most progressive, robust
legislation in the country right now. I can assure you from my perspective on
our government is that we will continue to do everything we can to ensure safety
on our highways.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
Member for Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to see this kind of initiative taken with Service NL and in co-operation
with the Department of Transportation and Works. That we start looking at the
importance of finally using technology to capture those who are speeding in
construction zones, who are passing school buses, running red lights and things
like this. It's a problem.
There's
a lot of research even backing the use of this technology. There's a report
there that the City of Edmonton collected $32 million alone with only an
investment of $6 million. The system does work. It's renowned.
We have
to find use of technology this way, but we have to look at the privacy of
individuals as well when we are implementing technology and make sure that all
the boxes are checked and that everyone is protected, individuals, who may be
there. We have to make sure this technology is also used correctly and properly.
Cameras,
like I said, especially with the school buses – I've witnessed it myself in my
own district. People just feel like they can pass a bus. The stop sign is out,
the red lights are flashing, but it just seems that for some cognitive reason
people just see this as okay and they don't place themselves in the shoes of a
child who is trying to cross the street to catch the bus to go to school. We do
have tragedies in this way and we need to find ways of using technology to
capture offenders and also deter offenders.
Like I
said, the minister said as well, about the use in construction zones. I worked
partially in the mining industry, but also in the construction industry for a
little while. I have witnessed people speeding through construction zones and
placing the workers of said projects in jeopardy. These things are very
important that we try to deter this behaviour.
We also
have the behaviour, for some reason, that we don't any longer take our time and
we no longer follow the rules of the road. I think this would be one of the
biggest deterrents that we could place out there, knowing that your licence
plate will be captured if you offend.
With the
licence plate capture, too, we also have to be cognizant of our weather in this
province and ways that sometimes salt, snow and stuff do build up over licence
plates. Hopefully we can use other technologies as well to identify vehicles
with that.
Other
jurisdictions have been using this for a while. Ontario has been using this for
quite some time. Manitoba, BC, Alberta, Quebec and I believe, unless I'm
mistaken, I've even seen it in New Brunswick on their large highway. This
technology is useful. It is great that we can start to move ourselves towards
using this thing, because we just can't afford any more lives in the
construction industry, lives of children on school buses. This is why it's
important to move forward.
I really
do want to reiterate that it's very important we also protect the privacy of
individuals to make sure that it's not used incorrectly or jeopardize any
individual with this image-capturing technology. We have to make sure that we
work with the Privacy Commissioner; we make sure that we work with individuals
in that industry to make sure that this is used for what it's intended to be
used. That's where I feel with it.
I know
when we built the Trans-Labrador Highway, when we paved it, there would be long
sections with construction signs put out and people had their signs saying
there's construction, there's fresh asphalt put down and it might be – if
they're having a good day, they're moving along expediently.
I
noticed, though, travelling back and forth between where I live and my wife's
hometown, that they'd pass a construction sign. It seemed like their mind was
just blank and thought there was no construction, and they'd zoom on through. I
don't know how many times I saw the flag person with their flag sign swaying it
just to get the people to slow down, because they would drive past a lady with a
sign that said stop.
I don't
know where this behaviour came from in this province but it is rampant. It is
absolutely rampant that we have individuals who drive these highways without due
care and caution. This is good. This will protect lives. This will protect
people, and this is what we need here in this province.
Also,
the sections with this bill, too; it's good to see the legislation for fines and
that is all being straightened out to improve expedience through the legal
system, to clean up the language and make it easier for prosecutors to read this
legislation and to abide by it.
All in
all, this is what we need. We need to make highways safer. We need to have the
legislation easier to read and to bring this forward into this province.
I'm glad
to see this, but I want to make sure that when it comes to the image technology
and the way it's used, we have to make sure that the privacy and the importance
of individuals is adhered to.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly my first opportunity to rise and speak to a bill, so I haven't had the
opportunity to congratulate you on your position as Deputy Speaker. I held the
position for a couple of years and it was really a great experience to be able
to sit in the Chair and watch over the proceedings of the House of Assembly. I
know you will do a great job, as well as Speaker Reid as well. I pass along my
congratulations to him as well.
Mr.
Speaker, what we're doing today is we're debating a bill with regard to the
Highway Traffic Act and the amendments
to it. “This Bill would amend the Highway
Traffic Act to correct inconsistencies between sections of the Act and the
Schedule to the Act; reorder the impaired driving sections of the Act to improve
readability; authorize the use of image capturing enforcement systems; and move
penalties listed in section 175 of the Act to the Schedule to the Act.”
While
it's not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak to all of that, I'm going to wear
two hats today: one as the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development
and, certainly, in the absence of our Minister of Justice, I'll have a few notes
on his behalf as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill 5, An Act to
Amend the Highway Traffic Act, and, specifically, the amendment to allow the use
of camera surveillance in school bus zones. This amendment is another important
measure to curb dangerous driving habits. Unfortunately, there is still a great
need for such a measure to protect and enhance the safety of students across
this province.
Mr.
Speaker, it's not uncommon to witness motorists speeding in school zones and
passing a school bus, even when the bus is at a full stop with the red lights
flashing and the stop arm extended. We see this happening when students, some
only primary age, are getting off or on the bus.
It was
just last week – and my colleague across the way had mentioned today in one of
his questions with regard to Skills Canada NL. We had the opportunity to attend
CNA just here on Prince Philip Parkway to make those announcements last week.
Myself, my EA and director of communications were actually on the lot waiting
for the students from Gonzaga to disembark from the bus, lights flashing, stop
arm out, engaged. I think people just don't realize that whenever that happens
and wherever it happens, it's the law. It doesn't necessarily have to happen on
a highway, it can happen in a parking lot.
I think
for the most part, Mr. Speaker, people just need to get in touch with the laws
of the Highway Traffic Act, especially
when it comes around school buses, because the vehicle actually never even
slowed down. If he was driving 20 kilometres on the lot, he drove 20 kilometres
an hour when he passed the school bus. There's no ignorance for the law. That
person, to me – and, obviously, I should have taken the licence plate and
actually reported it, and not thinking fast enough because I was so concerned
about the students.
This
behaviour is despite current school bus safety laws. Under the
Highway Traffic Act, fines for
illegally passing a school bus range from $500 to $1,200. Excessive speeding in
school zones can lead to vehicle impoundment for up to three days and fines from
$400 to $1,800.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WARR:
Still, we are all aware of incidents where drivers are simply not following the
law and are putting the safety of school children at risk. Mr. Speaker, this is
unacceptable, and it is our duty and our responsibility as a government, school
districts, busing contractors, bus drivers, parents, students and, most
importantly, the motoring public to obey the law and make the safety of students
our top priority.
To this
end, my Department of Education and Early Childhood Development partnered with
the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District, and Service NL and law
enforcement agencies across this province in September to raise awareness about
school bus safety laws and to remind everyone to be vigilant when driving
through school zones.
Mr.
Speaker, the message was simple: to remind drivers, parents, students and the
general motoring public to keep safety top of mind, to share safety messages
through social media channels and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, to obey the
rules when travelling in and around school zones. Again, we still see incidents
where drivers are ignoring the rules and the law.
Mr.
Speaker, in the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, we have
been exploring the use of cameras to help identify drivers who do not stop for a
school bus and at potential legislative changes that would be required. This has
included discussions with the school districts and vendors.
I am
very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that our government is now able to bring this
amendment forward and to have Bill 5 debated in the House today. The use of
camera technology in school zones and on stop arms will help improve safety and
is an important measure to help curb dangerous driving habits around school
buses. As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Service NL, noted, cameras in
school zones and on school bus stop arms would capture video evidence of
vehicles that disregard the safety of our school children and illegally pass a
bus.
This is
another means of enhancing safety in school zones. The amendments will follow
such offences as speeding in school zones and passing a school bus while
children are getting on or off, to be eligible for enforcement by video
evidence. With these proposed amendments in place, we look forward to
discussions with our partners and stakeholders on the development of
regulations.
Mr.
Speaker, one incident in a school zone is one too many and Bill 5 will provide
us with another tool to keep our children safe. When I talk about one incident
in a school zone, I want to talk about an incident that I witnessed 30 years
ago. It was in my hometown and my hon. colleague for Labrador West actually
referred to it in his comments about winter driving and we all need to be
cognizant of the fact that we need extra time to slow down.
Mr.
Speaker, I was going to work, actually just walking and passing a school bus
that was stopped and saw a young child crossing the road to get across to the
bus. That young child was knocked down by a vehicle that couldn't stop. That
child was a grade kindergarten student, five years old and my daughter's best
friend.
It was
horrific. Like I said, I deal with it even today. The story ends well. She was
in cast for quite some time. I took the opportunity to go over and stay with her
until the emergency response team arrived and took her to the hospital. I
remember picking up her schoolbag and taking it with me. I told her parents,
some time after that, that I had her book bag and they just said we've got her
another one. Mr. Speaker, I hung on to that schoolbag and proudly presented it
to her when she graduated from grade 12.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
It was a special time for me
and she had no idea that I had her schoolbag. I kept it for those 12 years; she
was in grade kindergarten as I said. Again, to my colleague's comments, we got
to be cognizant at all times of exactly the type of roadways that we're driving
on. It can sneak up on you pretty fast. It's only a drop in the temperature and
the roads become very slippery.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very proud of our government's continued commitment to ensuring the
safety of drivers and passengers on our province's roadways. Public safety is a
top priority for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and improvements to
the Highway Traffic Act are designed
to make our roads and highways safer, as well as to help ensure compliance with
the act. The changes we are debating today follow a long list of improvements
our government has made to the Highway Traffic Act, with
the travelling public of our province in mind.
As the
Minister of Service NL stated, we have amended the legislation within the last
several years to reduce excessive speeding, stunting and street racing. Move
Over provisions were enhanced by requiring drivers to reduce their speed by 30
kilometres per hour below the speed limit and to move to an adjacent lane when
approaching law enforcement or other emergency stop vehicles at roadside.
Mr.
Speaker, also, a new offence for driving without due care and attention or
without reasonable consideration for other persons causing bodily harm or death
was also added. These are but a few of the significant changes we have made with
increased safety top of mind. All of these changes were made in consultation
with safety advocates including Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, the STAND
for Hannah foundation and victims' families. They were also made with the
support of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police.
Mr.
Speaker, our government will continue to work with stakeholder groups in seeking
ways to raise awareness about road safety. These changes to the
Highway Traffic Act speak to our
government's commitment to safe and sustainable communities throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our job as a government to do our best to
further the protection of the people of our province.
Today,
government is building on these amendments to further protect the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador through the introduction of camera technology. In an
effort to increase safety for all road users in the province, changes to the act
will allow for highway cameras to be used as a means of increasing compliance
with the rules of the road. We recognize this is a first step, as these
amendments simply enable us to move forward and develop the details on the best
use of this technology.
We are
confident, Mr. Speaker, that we are moving in the right direction, as every
means of improving road safety is a win for all of us. I'm happy to stand in my
place today to support the amendments to this bill and I thank the hon. minister
for allowing me the opportunity to do so.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to be
able to stand here in this House today and talk about safety on our roads and
highways. It's an honour to do so.
As the
Minister of Transportation eluded to earlier, any day that we can add more tools
to our toolbox is a good day and we need to focus on that. It is alarming to
think that even today as we stand here, there are people out there right now who
are passing school buses in school zones, who are speeding through construction
zones.
It hard
to imagine how anyone cannot see a big, yellow school bus with red lights
flashing and not understand that that means stop. It is extremely difficult to
understand how anyone could still proceed to drive through that. But, at the
same time, it's happening. As a result of that, again, we have to take
additional measures to try and fix it. This idea of a camera system is one of
those.
The same
thing on our highways. All of us, or many of us, know of people who have been
impacted or killed unnecessarily on our highways. A college friend of mine,
former worker with the Department of Transportation and Works, lost his life on
the Outer Ring Road as a result of speeding unnecessarily through a construction
zone. I also know of lots of other people that have had similar experiences. So
it is time to take an extra step and talk about what else can we put in this
toolbox. I think that's what we're talking about today: How do we continue to
try and police this illegal activity?
At the
same time as we talk about the camera system, though, I would also like to talk
about ensuring that we have enough police presence on our highways and our
roads. There have been lots of challenges with highway enforcement and the talk
and the need for more highway enforcement. So let us not lose sight of making
sure that we take advantage of everything that we can. So it's not just about
the cameras, it's got to be about the total package.
The
other thing I want to make sure, when we go to implement a system such as this
and we talk about using technology and cameras and tracking people's licence
plates, we know that there are a significant number of people out there with
licence plates where you can't read the numbers anymore because they've peeled
off. And as a result of that we need to make sure that we follow up and make
sure that people actually have a licence plate on the back of their vehicle that
you can actually read. So I think there's some work to be done on that.
But
overall, at the end of the day, trying to prevent people – the education has
been there. Recently, the chief of police in St. John's said we've tried
education, we've tried a lot of other things, but now it's, perhaps, time to try
enforcement. This measure and the fines associated with this will hopefully help
deter some of that activity.
The
education part still has to continue. I believe the minister is right when he
says that even though the signs are still up but there's no one working, that
doesn't mean it's not a construction zone. I agree with the minister, it very
much is a construction zone. But at the same time, there's an inconsistency. A
lot of times you'll drive through and sometimes the signs are down, sometimes
the signs are up. So there needs to be that consistency developed, as part of
this, to make sure everybody understands that just because you don't see anybody
working, doesn't mean it's not a construction zone. I think that's part of the
education and part of the program that we have to put forward on this.
I'm very
happy to stand here today and talk about increased safety on our highways and
our roads. Too many instances of people – and we hear it all the time, there
seems to be an alarming increase in the speed of people on our highways. We've
seen that now with – hear reports in the papers all the time and in the news
about 150 kilometres an hour and well over the posted speed limits. That's a
real problem and that's where I go back to the whole enforcement, the highway
enforcement and those things as well, to try and capture some of that.
On the
school busing piece again, it's the idea of how do we do this. Hopefully, if
this can stop one person from going through or passing a school bus stopped and
prevent a tragedy, then it's well worth the investment. I look forward to
further discussion and the regulations to come.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure, once again, to stand and speak in this hon. House, this time to Bill
5, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I do want to commend the Minister of Service NL and the
government because there's no doubt over the last four years for sure, there has
been a lot of progressive legislation brought in as it relates to safety on our
highways, whether it be changes to the
Highway Traffic Act, issues around impaired driving, imprudent driving,
street racing and Move Over laws and everything else.
I'm
going to give credit where credit is due, as I always try to do, and say that I
do appreciate there's been a lot of work done in terms of road safety. I
absolutely support that in principle.
As we
know, the bill is a fairly thick bill, but in terms of substance, there is a bit
of housekeeping there in terms of the rearranging of schedules and legislation
around impaired driving, which doesn't really change anything other than make it
easier to read and make the legislation flow better. That's important that it's
done. The real substantive change in this piece of legislation, of course, is
around the use of camera technology for enforcement of the
Highway Traffic Act.
I want
to say right off the bat, when it comes to the issue of school buses and the use
of technology on the stop arms of school buses, cameras and so on, I support it
1,000 per cent. I've said so publicly many times. I've written the minister
about it, requesting that it be done. It's being done in other jurisdictions.
I'd also
like to see the fines for people who pass school buses, I think it might be $400
or $500 now, let's up it to $1,000 as far as I'm concerned, because there is
absolutely no excuse, none. I don't care who it is. If it was constituent of
mind I'd say: b'y, if you want to vote for me, too bad, sorry. You passed a
school bus; no sympathy from me, zero, zilch, and I think every Member here
would agree with that. There are certain things that in principle we all believe
is right and there is no excuse.
I
certainly applaud that initiative of putting cameras on stop arms of school
buses as a way to deter that activity and to keep our children safe. I don't
think there's anyone in this province that would be against it, I really don't.
There might be somebody upset if they broke the law and they got caught or
whatever, and, as I said, too bad about them.
I think
when we look at other things like speeding, running red lights, speeding in
construction zones, speeding in school zones, all the issues that are outlined
here in the amendment with the addition of section 177.1 image capturing
enforcement system, I think we all agree with the spirit and the intent of it. I
know many of us have said in this House of Assembly when it comes to all kinds
of things, that we need to embrace technology. Technology is out there.
Now, for
some of us guys who are starting to get up there a little bit, like myself, I'll
be the first one to say I haven't totally embraced technology the way that
perhaps I should and could, but my children have and my grandson will, I'm sure,
as we move on. Younger people have, and that's the type of thing that comes with
change and so on and it's a good thing.
If we
can find ways of utilizing technology to make our lives easier, to make our
lives better, to help our governments function, to help law enforcement, to help
ensure the laws of the land are followed and to have that tool in the tool box
to assist, that's all a good thing, no doubt about it, and I support it in
principle.
Now,
there's one thing that I don't support in this legislation. There's one thing
that I don't support, Mr. Speaker, and it comes back to something I've said now
numerous times in numerous piece of legislation; I think I've been pretty
consistent on that. It's the ongoing concern I have as a Member of this House of
Assembly. It's not a new concern and it's not something that was created by this
administration. It's the process, it's the system, but it's a problem I have
with the system, and that is that quite often much of the meat of the
implications for these bills that come before this House are left to the
regulations.
I don't
know how many people watch this, but for anyone who might be watching. When we
keep talking, bringing up this issue about regulations, what do we mean? Well,
what we mean is this: That what we are debating in this House of Assembly, the
actual legislation, all Members get an opportunity to debate, bring their views
forward and we get to vote either yay or nay on that piece of legislation.
A lot of
the details around the things we're voting for are captured in regulations,
which we are not debating and which we are not voting for in this House. When we
allow a bill to go through and leave the regulations to the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council, which is what's being proposed here again, as usual practice, then
what we are basically saying is we are leaving it to the government, we are
leaving it to the minister of the department to decide on what all the details
are going to be.
Now, in
fairness to the minister, she's going to have staff and expertise and she's
going to get feedback and all that. No one's suggesting – I'm certainly not –
that the minister is going to sit down one night on her laptop and start typing
up regulations just on a whim. That's not how it works. Like I said, there will
be professionals and there will be stakeholders, I would assume, and
professional staff. I'm assuming they will do jurisdictional scans to see what
other provinces are doing to develop the regulations, but at the end of the day,
it is the government, the minister, who will decide all of the details.
At that
point in time, once those regulations are passed, whenever that might be, we all
got to live with it. The government can come back and say, well, you voted for
it. If there's something in the details – and the devil is in the details – that
the public are outraged with or doesn't make any sense, they'll say, you voted
for it. No, I didn't vote for it. I voted for the act, but I left all the
details to you, as is the process.
Now, I'm
not suggesting that this minister or this government is going to put in
regulations that are going to be flawed and mean-spirited and anything else –
absolutely not. I'm sure they will do a good job. They'll do the best job they
can. They will take advice and try to do it right. I'm sure they will.
The
thing is with regulations, Mr. Speaker, once the regulations are in place, they
can be changed at any time. For argument's sake, we have a Cabinet shuffle and a
new minister comes in, despite what the intent of this minister might be, the
new minister might have a different outlook on the world and decide to change
things up. We won't know about it. It won't be debated. We won't have any input.
If the
government changes in a year from now or two years or maybe four years from now
– we'll see – but the government changes and a new administration, a new
minister comes in, that minister can have a look at the regulations and say, I
don't like that, let's make a few changes. It doesn't have to come to us. It
doesn't have to come to the Legislature. We have zero input. We don't vote on
it. The minister does what he or she feels like doing. I assume upon
consultation with his or her colleagues and so on, but you get the point.
Now, if
we were just looking at, as has been specifically captured here, when we're
talking about camera enforcement systems, 177.1 to be added. It says: “An image
capturing enforcement system may be used in accordance with the regulations for
enforcing (a) subsections 106(10), (12), (14) and (16).” What is that? Well,
that's red lights. That's red lights, that's left turning with a green arrow and
that's flashing red lights. That's what that covers. They can make regulations
to use cameras for red lights, basically.
Also,
subsection 110(3). What's that? Speeding. You can have cameras on the highway
and if the speed limit is 90 and I'm going 100, the camera captures me, gets my
licence plate and I get a ticket in the mail I guess.
Then, of
course, what's the definition of a highway? Right now we might be talking about
on the Trans-Canada Highway, but does that mean every street in the City of St.
John's there will be a camera on every corner? I don't know. The highway is not
necessarily the Trans-Canada Highway or Veterans Memorial Highway.
The
highway, as far as I understand, could be any street. It could be some little
road down in Pouch Cove, Pouch Cove Highway. It could be Water Street. It could
be Topsail Road. It could be Commonwealth Avenue. There could be cameras on
every corner. I'm not saying that's going to happen. I know it's a bit of an
exaggeration, but the point is – I'm saying it to make the point that based on
this for speeding, there could be cameras on every corner, in theory.
Subsection 110.1(4), speeding in a construction zone. We understand there are
issues there, but we also understand there's a lot of confusion around
construction zones when the signs are up, the signs are down, there is
construction or there isn't construction. Maybe they're finished for the
weekend. There are no hazards. There's no equipment there. There are no holes in
the ground, but the signs are still up.
There is
speeding in a school zone. We all, I'm sure, agree with that. That's subsection
110.2(4).
Then
there's subsection 137(1), passing a school bus. This is the part where we're
saying that we're going to allow camera technology, I'm assuming to be placed on
a stop arm of a school bus, as they're doing in other jurisdictions, to catch
people and to charge people who are passing a school bus. As I said when I
started out, that's something that I have advocated for, I wrote the minister
about, I've called the open-line shows, I've done interviews about it because I
think that's something that needs to be done.
I wish
that section could be hauled out on its own and we could vote on that right now,
because I'd support it 100 per cent right now. It's almost like an omnibus-type
situation where there's good stuff in there but then there's concern. Do you
vote for something that you want, knowing there are concerns that you have over
here, or do you not vote for it and then you lose something good over here? I
don't want to lose any of it because I think it's all a good idea, but that's
kind of the conundrum we have at the moment.
Here is
the part that I have my biggest concern, and this is why I can't support it as
written: “177.1 An image capturing enforcement system may be used in accordance
with the regulations for enforcing … (f) other sections of the Act prescribed in
the regulations.” Other sections of the act. Now we're not talking about red
lights – we are talking about red lights, we're talking about speeding in
construction zones, we're talking about passing school buses, we're talking
about speeding in school zones, but then “other sections of the Act prescribed
in the regulations.”
So that
means anywhere else. That means while this is our intent, this is our main
focus, every single section of the act can be dealt with in the regulations for
camera technology. That's how it reads. It may not be the intent, but that is
exactly how it reads.
That
means if I vote for this, in theory when the regulations are written up, we can
start putting cameras on every corner and say: b'y, you did a rolling stop. Then
when they're talking about speeding, police officers haul you over, they have
some discretion. You were going five kilometres over or 10 even, slow down; or,
I got my emergency lights flashing, I'm speeding, I'm on my way to the Janeway
with my child. Okay, I understand, try to slow down and we'll even help get you
there.
A
camera, you're either going the speed limit or you're not going the speed limit.
One kilometre over or you're 30 kilometres over, beep, that goes off, a picture
taken and so on. Now, maybe it can be adjusted for discretion. Again, we don't
know that, do we? Do you know why? Because it's going to be in the regulations,
which we don't know and we don't get to see.
Like I
said, the broader piece for me is that with section (f) it says – even though
we're concentrating on school zones, passing school buses, speeding,
construction zones, by putting in section (f) you are giving the minister –
again, not necessarily this minister, any minister of any administration down
the road – giving them the ability to put cameras wherever the heck they want
for any offence they feel like. Regardless if it makes a whole lot of sense,
regardless if it eliminates any discretion, regardless if it targets the wrong
people. Because that's the beauty of having police officers, that's the beauty
of having human beings, because a police officer has the ability to utilize his
discretion.
If my
grandmother is going down the road and she doesn't make a complete, full stop.
She does a bit of a rolling stop or something, he could haul her over and point
it out to her and say: next time around try to remember it, okay. I'm just doing
it for your safety. She's not going to get a ticket in the mail.
If
someone is going a little bit over the speed limit and they have some reason why
they're in a big hurry, that police officer can say: Well, yeah, technically
you're over, but you're only five or six kilometres over; I'm not going to give
you a ticket for that. Slow down, keep it in mind next time. And any other
offence that can occur. Again, I'm not saying it's the government's intent; I'm
sure it isn't, but it opens up the door to put cameras everywhere for
everything, and that is a concern I have.
If you
want my support, one thing you need to do is get rid of section (f), and if you
want to start adding other offences under the
Highway Traffic Act that you can
utilize camera technology to try to police, if you want to add other offences,
then you come back to this House of Assembly with your proposal of what you want
to add those offences to, and we can have a debate and we can determine if it's
fair and reasonable and makes sense and would be acceptable to the public at
large, and if it is, we'll vote in favour of it. But I'm not prepared to give
you the opportunity to do whatever it is you decide to do after I support the
bill. Those things could be detrimental and offensive and certainly against the
wishes of my constituents.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll be taking my seat.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
MR. TRIMPER:
Interesting, eh?
Thank
you for that, Mr. Speaker.
I think
it's the first time I've stood and spoke to a bill in three years. I may be a
little rusty, so let's see what happens.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. TRIMPER:
It is a great honour to be
here and represent the great District of Lake Melville. I wasn't going to speak
today, but I had a great reminder. I was sitting in my chair and I saw three
dear friends sitting up there in the audience, and I've seen them sit in those
same seats many times over the last few years. If you need any inspiration at
all to really get on your feet and talk about something, it's those three
ladies, and I will come back to them.
For
those that are watching at home, and just to bring us all into where we are in
this day, we are dealing with Bill 5. It is An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic
Act and it's doing essentially three things: It's correcting inconsistencies
between the sections and schedule of the act; it's reordering impaired driving
sections for readability; and it's authorizing the use of image-capturing
enhancement systems.
That's
what it's doing. This is second reading, and in second reading, before we get to
Committee, we need to focus on the rationale: Why are we doing this? Unlike my
previous colleague, we are not to get into the clauses of the bill; it's all
about: Why are we doing this? Why are we here? Well, we're here because,
frankly, I'm very proud to be part of a group of people who, not during this
Assembly but during a previous Assembly, the previous administration as well,
brought forward some five separate hard moves against impaired driving and
districted driving. This is now the fifth and, for five times, I've sat and
watched those same people sit in those chairs. That's why we're here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. TRIMPER:
I had the honour, and
previous to this minister, to sit in that same amazing Department of Service NL.
It's a fascinating place because they deal with some 44 pieces of legislation.
There are hundreds of people and there's essentially only two of each and they
all do a whole bunch of different things, but I can tell you there is a very
dedicated group of people in there. As indicated earlier, this minister has
carried on and I'm very proud to see this going because we have a serious
problem in society. That's the rationale.
This
isn't just about tightening up and doing a little administration. It's because
this continues to be a very serious, deadly problem. I bet if I asked for a show
of hands in this Legislature right now as to whether anybody has ever lost a
loved one due to a distracted or impaired driver, I bet you we'd all put our
hands up a couple of times. It's just an ongoing problem and I just reflect on
my own personal loss. Again, that's why we're here.
Back in
2017, before I had the honour of becoming the Speaker, when I was minister of
Service NL, we brought in a bill, Bill 68; I remember it very well. It was an
interesting time because it was a serious advancement on dealing with the issue
of impaired driving. I remember the folks from Mothers Against Drunk Driving up
in the audience and working very closely with them, as well as the other ladies
– I'll mention their names in a few minutes, but it was a serious, aggressive
move and I'm proud to say that not only did this government bring it in but it
enjoyed the full support of the entire Legislature. I would suggest that's
probably been the case with the previous four moves, as I've indicated. So
everyone has been here with great determination. I hear from one of my
colleagues that is, in fact, the situation.
Back in
Bill 68, I just want to tell folks a little bit of a story and why this takes so
much conviction and energy. Bill 68, that was in 2017, it was in March, it did
three or four things. Essentially, it brought in an interlock system for those
who had been arrested with an impaired driving offence. If they were going to
get back behind the wheel, they were going to be operating that vehicle for some
time with an interlock system.
It also
allowed police officers to impound a vehicle of an impaired driver. Previously,
you used to be able to go and grab the car as soon as you were done with your
processing, get back in it and drive on home. Then, finally, we raised the
zero-tolerance age limits up to, I think it was, 22 years of age. Those were
just some key moves.
I don't
want to digress from the rationale of this bill, but I want to tell everyone
here a story. As I was on my feet some three years ago talking about that bill –
and a lot of people here in the audience talking about it – my office phone was
ringing. The majority of the calls that were coming in were very supportive of
what we were doing, but I can tell you there were a few who called – and I want
to mention her name because she's no longer with us. She has to be one of the
most amazing administrative secretaries that a minister could ever enjoy. Her
name was Madonna Pitcher and a dear friend of the ministers and I and many
others who would have known her. She was fielding calls all that day while we
were here debating that bill, Bill 68.
When I
walked back in after a long day in the Legislature she was both elated and
absolutely bewildered that there were actually people calling in complaining,
challenging the government at the time: How dare you look at this as a money
grab? They saw it as a revenue-generating opportunity. It was almost incredulous
to think that such a concern that I'm sure touches every single resident of this
province across the country and perhaps around the world, that you would be
challenged on such a vice to suggest that you were somehow doing it to put some
more money in the coffers. That's what we're up against and that's why we're
here with what is seemingly step five over these last few years. We're dealing
with a very serious situation.
I did
want to do a couple of more things. When I concluded Bill 68, the emotion in
this Legislature was palpable. There were a lot of people, I would suggest,
probably in tears just thinking about loved ones they had lost. As I concluded
my remarks I read a list of names of victims, people who have been killed by a
drunk driver. I spoke for quite a while with that list of names, it was perhaps
quite an unusual move, but I think it was all about – no, I don't think, I know
it was all about driving home the message as to just what is going on and why we
are all collectively, as legislators, so determined about this.
So I
read those names. What I'd like to do now is talk about other victims and those
three ladies who have been sitting here witnessing us again in this Legislature,
all of us: Ms. Gail Thorne, Sarah Pittman and Frankie Ralph. I hadn't seen them
in sometime but several of us have been going up to visit with them as the
debate has been unfolding because those three ladies are still victims. They
will forever be victims, and that is why we're here today.
I want
to say to them and to the organizations they represent – STAND up for Hannah,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the RNC, the RCMP, these organizations – these
people are all still dealing with it and we need to feel that energy. We need to
keep going.
When I
just went up to talk to them, I asked them – and we reflected back on the last
few years, and as I said there's been some five big moves, this is number five.
I said, what do we have left to do? They thought, and we'd been sitting there
thinking for some time while others were speaking and we concluded – they
suggested it's still a serious, societal, attitude problem. There still tends to
be a tolerance, and I've heard Members talk about being witnesses to situations
and so on but until we all stand up, not just for Hannah, but for all of
ourselves and really get to the crux of this, we are going to continue to
encounter abuses.
Here we
are tightening up bills. We're tightening up enforcement procedures. We're
tightening up situations where we can actually capture these offences and bring
it to prosecution. We're doing all that but, despite all that, we still hear
these amazing stories. Every morning when we turn on the news, it's still going
on around us, crazy levels of impairment and so on. We agreed, and I would
suggest to the floor, we need to keep going.
I just
spoke with the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development about the
concept of bringing this into the curriculum of high schools. As our youth
become of age and start to drive and start to appreciate the amazing
responsibility they have now as they get behind the wheel of a vehicle and while
they have – as many have said here today – that privilege, they also have a huge
responsibility to everyone and they need to think very seriously about that.
I will
throw that out in terms of the rationale for this bill. I look forward to the
debate. As the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands has concern about the
details, we'll get into those details, but I can tell you the conviction that
I've seen in the Department of Service NL, that I've seen on this side of the
House and that I've seen on that side of the House, I do believe, Mr. Speaker,
that we will get there with, again, another stronger message to our province and
to everyone in it.
Anyone
who wants to visit and drive on our roads, that distracted driving, impaired
driving is not going to be tolerated here, and we are going to get to the bottom
of it.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
it's an absolute privilege to get up here and speak to the House of Assembly and
represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. I want to congratulate
you, Mr. Speaker, on your new position. It's nice to be back in the Legislature
again to have discussions like we're going to have here today.
It's
interesting, because I listened to the Member – I wasn't going to start off this
way, but I listened to the Member, the former Speaker, get up and speak that
time, and I can assure everybody in this House that the people on this side of
the House, and I'm sure everybody in this House, utmost, more than anything,
safety is first. We want to make sure the lives of our loved ones, our children,
our families, anyone, is priority one. I'm sure that's with everybody in this
province.
I look
at the Department of Service NL, and my colleague got up earlier today as the
critic. He was the first one to speak, and I had the opportunity for four years
to be the critic for Service NL when you were minister and now the new minister.
I'm going to applaud government and say there's some fantastic work that's after
being done when it comes to the safety of our roads, to the enforcement and
making sure that people are aware of what's happening out there and also to make
sure that there are proper fines in place too.
Do you
know what? We will never always have it done. We'll never have a time that we'll
get here in the House of Assembly and say, b'y, we got it all done; we don't
need to do anything else. I have to applaud the minister, she's done a fantastic
job in her portfolio as minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I believe that her concerns are the same concerns that I have.
Today, I
look at this bill and, again, it's another example of doing things right and
making sure that we do things properly.
Listen,
I looked at what happened here – we talked about pedestrian-bicycle accidents. I
can remember a time just up here, just past the Confederation Building, where
there was an accident where a young man lost his life. I had a good friend of
mine who lived in Flatrock one time, moved to Clarenville, and he was struck by,
I think it was trusses or something on a truck that hit the bicycle and he was
killed.
Any
death is too many; one death is too many. If there is anything we can do to make
sure – there was great legislation brought in, and the minister got some
criticism over it, but we, here on this side, supported it. That you should be a
metre away from a bicycle rider. That's all about safety.
We made
some changes when it comes to impaired driving. Things have changed. A novice
driver or a new driver, I think it was up to 22 years old, the regulations are
no tolerance. You just don't have a bottle of beer, you don't have a drink of
wine. There's no tolerance, and those are great things. We, in the Opposition,
have supported it.
We will
continue to support this government as long as it has to do with safety and
making sure that things are done properly on our roads, because we all have to
drive them. We all have family who will be on those roads driving. We want
nothing but safety. Safety is a major concern for everybody in this province and
we want to make sure the roads are safe.
We had
some issues when it came to speeding and stunting. We saw the examples of the
corvette doing donuts on Kenmount Road and everything else, but those things
today – I don't know, when I grew up I saw it in my community. I saw it in drag
racing. I don't see it today. I don't see it like I saw it when I grew up.
Do you
know what? That's because we bring in regulations to this House and we try to
stop that stuff because we're concerned about the safety of people. So all those
things have been great. It's great that we brought them in.
I have
to say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, he said something earlier
today and it was interesting. I'm going to just talk a little bit about safety
when it comes to our construction workers and people on the highway. He said
something today that I should have thought about it but I didn't think about it.
He was
saying about – when I drive through construction zones on the highway, and I'd
say a lot of the people in this House it's the same thing, and there's nobody
working, I say: what did I slow down for, there's no one working. He's correct,
that's still a construction zone. Because somebody is not working there, that is
still a construction zone. It may mean that you should slow down because there's
a big place dug out in the middle of the road or there's a guardrail out or
something like that.
Now,
when there are people working there, I don't know – and the minister can
probably answer this one – maybe it changes the speed a little bit. I know in a
lot of them it's 30 kilometres and it may be that – because you mentioned 50
kilometres, but I think in most of them it slows down to 30 kilometres.
We've
seen too often – we've heard it and we hear it in the news, someone in a
construction zone, somebody got killed. Now sometimes it's company issues. It
could be something rolled over or whatever. Whatever it is, we don't want to see
it.
Listen,
when a person goes out and leaves their home in the daytime and goes to work,
whether it's at the Confederation Building or it's on the Trans-Canada Highway,
our families want to make sure they come home safe. So this bill today will
definitely – definitely – help the safety of those people that have to leave and
go home and make sure that get to work and get home safe to their families.
That's what we want to see as an Opposition Party, and I'm sure that's what
everybody in this Legislature wants to see.
Another
part of this bill, the minister talked about school bus safety. Sometimes I
really get appalled, I don't know if people don't know the difference, but when
you're on a four-lane highway and a bus stops and puts out that arm, you'll see,
because it's on the inside lane and there's another lane between, the crowd over
on the other side thinks they don't have to stop, and do you know what? There's
nothing more that bugs me than that, because I don't know what that child is
going to do when it get off the bus. Is the child going to go to its right or is
it going to go to its left? It seems like on two lanes, people have a little bit
of common sense and know that, listen, it's a bus stop, they may walk across,
but I've seen it a few times on four-lane highways.
I'd love
to be an RNC officer or an RCMP officer at that time because that's something
that should be ticketed because, listen, honestly, a child going to school and
we put them on a bus in the morning, we just pray to God that they come home in
the evening. I have never experienced it, don't want to experience it, but I
would never want to be a parent of a child that got injured because of
something. That's something I only can imagine, because I really don't want to
get to (inaudible).
So,
that's a great thing. Let's put cameras so that anybody that does that, they get
a fine, and I agree, I think somebody said here today, I don't know if it's the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, that it should be – I think it's a $400 or
$500 fine now, he said $1,000; I'd say $2,000 because that's stuff that we
shouldn't tolerate. So, those are important things that we should do. Speeding
on our highways, sure, we got to slow people down. There are too many accidents
and stuff like this.
Again,
this bill, and I'm not saying anything bad against government, I'm not saying
anything, I've been around for a while and I've seen a lot of legislation come
through House of Assembly. I've been on both sides of this aisle here. I've been
on it when we agreed to it, but you'll always hear the thing: the details are in
the regulations.
Something started here a little while ago that we were going to look at the
legislation so that we can talk about this piece of legislation and say that
it's in different parts of the country. I believe it's in Alberta, BC, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. I believe the minister mentioned that we're
going to be looking more along the lines of Manitoba and going with what they've
been doing, but it's interesting to see that – and I don't know if it is or not,
but I haven't heard anything from Atlantic Canada. I know one Member mentioned
that it was probably in New Brunswick.
I'd like
to see the regulations because I know, and I've read that there are some
concerns about this type of legislation and what the legislation has done in
other provinces. While we could say let's look at Manitoba, perhaps we should
look at Alberta and BC and the other places and make sure that what they're
doing and the good things with their legislation is what we do with our
legislation. It's making sure that this legislation is done right.
I
applaud the minister and government, this is the type of legislation we need to
do to make sure – I also listened to the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands,
and not too often me and him agrees, by the way, but this time we kind of do.
There are a lot of regulations here and I'm a little bit nervous of what can
happen, once you pass a bill like this, what can happen in regulations.
Sometimes I think we should look at making sure that the proper regulations are
put in place.
Like I
said earlier, I agreed with every part of the intent of this bill, what I read
with the intent of this bill, but there are also regulations there that can be
stretched a little bit too far. One section opens the door to everything. Opens
the door to having a camera anywhere at all that a person can view. I don't know
the privacy. The minister mentioned that it's only a view of plates, that's the
intent, but what will the regulations say? That's where I think we need to
really have a look at this bill.
Mr.
Speaker, again, safety trumps everything. Safety is what we should be here for.
The best interests of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is
the reason we sit in this House of Assembly and it's the reason we debate these
bills. We'll disagree a little bit back and forth, but I think yesterday what I
heard, most people want to make sure that it's done right.
I'd like
to see some changes in this bill and I'd like to see the regulations. I'd like
to see the government, the Opposition, the Third Party and independents work
together to make sure that we do it properly. That's not a bad thing. That's a
good thing. I think that's what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to
see when we do a lot of legislation in here.
Like I
said, when I was on the other side, we did, our government of the day, the PC
government when I was there, we had a lot of legislation come through that the
details weren't there and I always wondered: Where are the details? They'll say
that will be brought up later and stuff like that, but I think it's a time for
us, as legislators, to ask important questions and make sure that what we want
to see in regulations are in the regulations because sometimes – listen, this
minister's intent today could be great. That minister today could be another
minister tomorrow. This government today could be another government within a
couple of months, who knows, things change. So, it's good to have it done
properly in the first place.
I want
to make sure that all the regulations that are in this, that people have input.
I'm not an expert. We have a Member there from the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary, he was out on the road and saw what people do, saw what
regulations, saw what needed to be done, but I bet you if he was an RNC officer,
there are a lot of times when, if there was a camera, they would have given a
person a speeding ticket, and nothing, that's it, they got the speeding ticket.
But when he hauled that person in, he might have changed his mind and maybe
said, listen here, hold on now. Let me help you out here or do something –
there'd be a reason. Not every time there's a reason for speeding because there
is no reason for speeding, but it puts the human aspect into it.
Again,
one part of this we talked about today is going through red lights. Now, how
many times have people in this Legislature have come to an intersection and say
how did that accident happen? Somebody had to run a red light. Normally, if you
run a red light it's because you're not paying attention. You're distracted by
something or you're just not paying attention; you never looked up and saw the
light was red.
Well,
that can happen. That can happen and that's another good part of this
legislation. I have no problem with that, but I have a fear of this legislation
just opening the door to put cameras everywhere. I know, and probably I'm like
some of them here, I come from the old school and everything else. Maybe that's
the way we should go, I don't know, but let's talk to people that have this
legislation. Let's look at what's happening in BC. Let's look at what's
happening in Alberta. Let's have a look at what's happening in Ontario.
The
Member for Lake Melville mentioned about those ladies that were there today;
there are many more like them. Let's make sure that if we're going to do
legislation that we do it right so that they don't have to come to this
Legislature any more.
We've
seen it too often. I stood in this House when we talked about impaired driving
and the legislation. I have to applaud everyone that spoke that day. I think
there were – I don't know how many speakers. I think everybody wanted to get up
and talk and we had the gallery full.
Do you
know what the one nice thing about it was? We all agreed, we made changes and
the changes will work in the future so that people from MADD don't need to
worry. We'll always have to worry about our loved ones out in vehicles, but
hopefully we can do something to make their lives safer. That's what we're here
for. Let's do the legislation and let's make sure we do it right.
At the
end of the day, somebody says, oh my God, you're delaying this or you're going
to try to delay it. That's not so. We don't want to delay anything. Let's do it
right, get it done as fast as we can to make sure that the right legislation is
in for the safety of everybody. That's what it's all about.
I say it
every now and then when I get up that I have two little grandchildren and I
think the world of them. There's nothing I would do to make sure that their
lives and my loved ones and everyone else's loved ones are safe. Let's do a
piece of legislation, let's do it right and make sure we do it so we don't have
people having to come here to the House of Assembly and protest or hope
something is done right. Let's do it right in the first place.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it's a part of the changing times. Legislation years ago – I've
seen some changes in this House of Assembly. I'll soon be going on 12 years in
this House of Assembly and I've seen a lot of changes here and, you know what,
most of them are good. They're good changes. I applaud government, I think
there's so much good stuff in this that I want to see, but I think we have to do
it right and make sure we do it. I know we're going to do it for the right
reasons and that's the safety of our loved ones of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon.
Member for Cape St. Francis was talking about being old school. I don't think
he's much older than me and probably the same age. You talk about cameras. I
couldn't help but think – and I try not to look at the hon. Member, but the old
saying was a picture was worth a thousand words. We're up here today to debate
the Highway Traffic Act, Bill 5.
Safety
always and must be the priority. For anybody who's driving, who's working on the
roads, you have to think safety. Safety has to be always number one. We all
agree with that for sure. The hon. Member talked about the old school and where
it's going to be with privacy. I would question that because if you look around
this room right now, there are cameras looking at us. You walk up the corridor,
there are cameras looking at us. If you're driving on the road, almost every
second vehicle right now has a dash cam, so there are cameras looking at us.
There are traffic cams and there are highways cams. There are cameras everywhere
today in our society.
I'd say
if you were in New York City right now, you cannot make a step without 10
different pictures of you on a camera. So, would cameras be everywhere? I don't
think that with our geography, you're going to see cameras everywhere. But will
you see cameras in areas where we have major concerns? The hon. Member over
there for Mount Pearl - Southlands talked about the school bus – major concern.
A major concern to know that someone would pull out into the street and pass a
school bus with a flashing red light.
Every
week, I drive about a thousand kilometres. For some people, that may be a year's
driving for them, what I drive in a month. Every week, I drive a thousand
kilometres. We leave here when the House closes, there are four or five of us
from Central and we drive out into our districts. I can guarantee you, the
cameras that would come into effect will slow down the traffic.
The
major thing that I see is speed and distracted drivers. I don't do a survey, but
I drive a lot, and you can ask any Member here who's constantly on the highway.
Our Trans-Canada is probably the safest time now it's ever been. You heard the
Minister of Transportation talk earlier about the upgrades that have been done
to the highway. Our highway is probably in the best condition you've ever seen
it for years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
But the best conditions bring
excessive speed, and anybody here who has been on the highway can see it. The
Member opposite there drives out as far as Clarenville to go home. I'm sure if
he's driving 100, it's like he's parked on the side of the road; 110, you may
keep up with it, but I can tell you, a lot of traffic just zooms right by.
About
four weeks ago, I was leaving and driving in to the city – I drove early one
morning. I passed through my neighbouring community on the main road before I
got to the highway. When I looked, a RCMP officer was pulled off on the road. It
was 6:30 in the morning. I knew him so I just swung around and turned around and
said: What's on the go? He said: I had reports of people doing 140 and 150
kilometres through this small community, and my ambition is to stop it. This
officer had to sit there that morning to patrol the highway. I know that's their
job; I understand that, but the traffic cam would take care of that problem.
The
minister has stats there, in construction zones, how fast people are going.
Almost half the vehicles exceed the speed limit, and the minister was right: I
dare you to go 50 in a construction because there would be cars and trucks piled
up that much behind you, you'd almost think you're Mother Goose walking across
the road with all the little goslings behind you. It's amazing, when you
actually maintain the speed limit in a construction zone, how fast traffic piles
up behind you.
Mr.
Speaker, you do a lot of driving. You drive probably 10 hours to get home; you
see it. I've seen people passing in places they should never pass. I've seen
people doing some crazy things on the highway, and whatever we can do to
increase highway enforcement, we have to do. We have to make every possible
effort we can. What we're talking about here is a traffic-imaging camera. It'll
be up, but it will be posted.
Almost
everybody here probably drove the 401 at some point in their life. There's a big
billboard, half the size of this building, that outlines your speed and what
your offence is going to be. It tells you that this is patrolled by traffic
cameras. That is hundreds and thousands of vehicles in a run or a day, a week
and millions in the run of a year. It helps to patrol that.
We have
the new pull-over legislation. I see it first-hand because I see tow trucks on
the side of the road. I see RCMP officers with people pulled over. I see
ambulances. The pull-over rule works. You slow down and you make room; you don't
endanger anybody's life.
So,
that's new. We've done a lot of things, and bringing in the camera, the imaging,
I'll call it the speed camera, for the sake of enforcing our highways – who hear
haven't heard in their districts: Where are the RCMP all the time? We don't see
enough police force.
They
have big areas to patrol. What a great way to patrol areas. There's not a week
that we don't look at our television, at the news, and there is someone in a
motor vehicle accident. Most times it's distracted driving or speeding. So how
can we not up the hand and up the ante?
There
may be some concerns. Sure, but the biggest concern has to be the safety of
every single person that travels our highways 24 hours a day. If we're going to
go backwards because we may think that we're old school – we're into a new era
right now.
The
Member opposite showed me a few minutes ago, the Northern Peninsula, a picture
of snow on the highway. TW has a slogan that says: Snow Means Slow. In the next
month or two I can guarantee you, you'll see cars and trucks bottom up in the
ditch because snow did not mean slow to those drivers. You drive to the
conditions.
I see
it. I live it. There are times I go home and say I had a close call. Nobody
measures the close calls, but when you're doing 100 or 110 one way and someone
is doing 110, 120 or 130 the other way, you don't want to be a part of that
impact.
I came
upon an accident two or three months ago where the first thing the people who
came there said: I can't believe how fast that car was going. The car was off
the road out in the ditch.
You're
on the highway, you drive and the road is not great and, all of a sudden, you go
and it's the car that just passed you. Hopefully you'll see the RCMP with them
pulled over, but more often than not you'll see them causing a problem down the
lane. They may not put people off the road but you'll have people and their
heart is going thump, thump, thump because they said I can't believe how close
that was. They shiver.
We worry
about moose when we're driving on the highway. That's the biggest thing for
anybody who drives on the highway after hours is moose. We always worry about
moose. I had a close call with one a little while ago. All I have to say is it
wasn't the moose's fault because the moose was not in the car, but the car
behind me was that close when I hit the brakes, I had to let go of the brake. I
was almost better hitting the moose than worrying about the impact coming behind
me.
If a
camera is anywhere in this province – anywhere at all – it has to help how safe
our roads would be. It has to control the traffic flow. What are you worried
about? Let's be fair. You want to see how fast you can get to Gander or how fast
you can get to Grand Falls, but you don't want to get there and it cost you the
extra $500, because a tank of gas probably cost you $80 to start with. I know my
wife, if I get caught with a ticket, I can tell you right now my allowance for
the week is gone.
Mr.
Speaker, I make fun of that but with this legislation what the hon. minister is
trying to do and what we're trying to bring in is for the safety of everybody
here. All your loved ones, people you don't know, people you'll never meet, it's
all about their safety. How can we ever dissuade that? How can we vote against
something that promotes the safety of our highways? That's something like
telling the minister don't pave any roads, Minister. Don't waste your money
paving roads because we're not putting up the cameras, the potholes will slow
them down. We don't do that because that creates its own hazard.
What
we're doing here now, I can't say it enough because I drive so much – and I
challenge anybody here who's never driven across this province who can't say
they had at least one close call, because someone coming towards them was
distracted, passed when they shouldn't have and drove too fast. This is what
this is about: controlling the traffic flow, keeping every single person here
safe. We don't want to see any more headlines that say fatality last night,
head-on collision.
The
Veterans Memorial, I don't know if there's a weekend without there is someone
off that stretch of road. I drove it with the minister. There are little cameras
that tell you how fast you're going everywhere. I don't know if that's something
that you monitor your speedometer by and say oh, 140 on mine, 140 on that, works
great. That's not the intent. The intent is to tell you you're going too fast.
We could
bring in speed bumps. Obviously, a lot of towns do it, on their own town roads
where the traffic is slowed 30, 40 kilometres and you're putting in a speed
bump. But this will be the speed bump for your wallet. Guess what? The Member
opposite asked – and I had a briefing on this. The ticket goes to the registered
owner. I may be driving the Minister of TW's vehicle and if that vehicle was
caught in the radar, then the ticket is assigned to the registered owner but the
registered owner knows who drove the vehicle. May lose his mind – let's be fair;
you loan out your vehicle to someone and you get a fine come in the mail for
$250 for speeding or passing a school bus, you're going to be mad but you're
going to know who had your car that day or your truck that day or your vehicle
that day.
I don't
see how we can do anything here but look at this in a positive way. Will there
be a little bit of negativity from it? Maybe so, but I'm sure if we save one
life, just one life by putting this in there, the investment we've made is well
worth any debate we will have in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, on that note, I
will take my chair. I would encourage everybody – first, I tell you, if you're
not so sure what to do, if you should vote on this bill, drive to Whitbourne
now. Go get in your car, drive to Whitbourne and back, you do 100 and get your
passenger to count the vehicles that go past you and, like, blow by you. I
challenge every person here. I'll actually take four in my car right now and
we'll go do it, because you will come back here and you will say I cannot
believe how fast people drive.
Anybody
who can say any different than that probably never driven outside of the centre
of this city and most people here, I would think, have driven outside the centre
of this city. We're not on a raceway, we're on a highway. We're on a highway
that needs to be protected and I think we're on the right move to make that
protection.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
hard not to agree with these changes to the act. Safety is paramount and I think
the minister said to keep the dialogue going on safety. Safety on our roads is a
must.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis actually mentioned a young man who got killed up on
the highway on a bike; ran into a Kent truck. That was my brother and Jim's
brother. That was about 10 years ago. That was on the last day of school. It was
27 degrees, blue sky, clear skies. He was riding home from down in Torbay, the
school he taught at; going home to meet with his sons, take them swimming and
start the summer off. He ended up being driven into a flatbed and hit here at
the chest, breaking his neck. It's still hard to talk about it.
There's
nobody who can relate to safety on the roads until you have someone who dies
from that. I remember the call here at work. The longest drive I took from here
to the Health Sciences. My brother and I, my family and our extended family
watched my brother die. We had to make a decision to take him off life-support,
and that's because of an accident on the highway.
Three
years later, I'm working in my office again and I get another call: Mr. Dinn,
come to the Health Sciences. Of course, what do you think is going to happen?
They say: There's been an accident. Your wife and two daughters were in an
accident.
So, I'm
over there. They were T-boned while making a left-hand turn, which traffic has
stopped to give them an opportunity to do. A car came down – we'll see it all on
the way home tonight; we'll see cars and traffic that create those inside lanes
where no lane exists – and my family were T-boned. All I get is: Get to the
hospital; they've been taken there in an ambulance. I thank God there were no
major issues there.
Until
you experience this – and I hope no one ever has to because it is very sudden.
You're enjoying the day, a great day, the last day of school and you never make
it home because of road rage, someone speeding, someone making their own rules
on the road. It is unbelievable when you think about it. We've heard stories
here today about different incidents happening.
I
applaud anything that we can do to make our roadways safer. As the minister
said, we have to keep the dialogue going here because we will never make it as
safe as we can, but we can continue to make it safer. I applaud this. Again, as
regulations come out, we will have to see what comes out in regulations, but
this is an issue so prevalent around here.
The
Outer Ring Road, the Peacekeepers Way, Veterans Memorial Highway, you ride those
roads any day and you see people speeding by, people running through
construction zones without a care in the world other than getting somewhere two
minutes earlier. You can drive at 10 kilometres, 20 kilometres more across the
whole province and you're saving, what, a half-hour, at the end of the day?
Anything we do that can improve safety on the road is certainly applauded.
I have
to applaud Chief Boland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DINN:
I applaud Chief Boland for
what he's trying to do. This is not a knock at government, but with limited
resources, you try to do the best you can. I know as a councillor in Paradise we
looked at – and I think he implemented it with a couple of other municipalities
since – bringing in and having the municipality purchase the car and have
retirees manage the cars to try and deal with speeding and other violations on
the road. He spoke, I believe, last night up at Kenmount Terrace and I think
they are looking at forming a police and traffic committee. These are things we
need to be doing.
I live
in a district with four schools – or, sorry, five; I have four K to six and one
K to four. It was mentioned already today, you have young kids going off to
school – I always dread the first day and the last day because they have no
cares in the world. You have a four-lane highway and for whatever reason the bus
stops, puts out its arm, but the other two traffic coming the other way for some
reason feel they don't need to stop. I've seen so many near misses. I can't even
imagine a parent with a child who's gone off to school and expects to arrive
there and come home safe that never makes it. It really hits at the core of why
we need to create as safe of an environment as we can. The highways are a huge
one to address – the highways with speeding, with cellphones. It's crazy.
The only
thing with this – and, of course, we went through this as well in Paradise in
terms of cameras. I know we installed cameras in all our public areas and we
went through quite the process on that in terms of whether they're able or not
to be there. I believe cameras are a deterrent. I think they will help address
some of the issues. I don't think you can replace the value of actually having
human resources right on the ground with a patrol car in the area. It's hard to
replace that. Like I said, I applaud Chief Boland on what he's trying to do
there.
We get
up here in the House – and I won't keep you long because I know we're nearing
the end here today – and we talk about the 1.6-kilometre busing. We talk about
that from a safety point of view. I know we all have safety paramount and we
work with what we have, but this here on the highways, I would suspect most of
our people get killed on the highways now. There are a lot of deaths on our
highways and 99.9 per cent of them, I'm sure, are avoidable.
As we
push this through, in terms of approval by all of us, I can't see it being
denied in any way. As we move forward with this, I really hope we take an effort
to look at the regulations as we develop them to ensure they address what we
want them to address, to ensure that they don't affect another group in a
negative way because, of course, we have to deal with privacy and
confidentiality.
We'll
probably catch the speeders who sped for one time. As we know, there are others
out there who continue to go on and on and on. We pull them over, and they got
thousands of dollars in fines. Again, I know we continue to improve safety and I
think we need to look at some of those individuals and see how can we keep them
off the roads.
I know
we no longer do the yearly vehicle inspections. Some of that may be an
opportunity there, because I've heard some of the cars on the roads, they don't
know how they're on the roads. Some of the stuff we might have to backtrack on,
but the bottom line is ensuring the highways are the safest they can be for all
who are on them.
I can
only say, having gone through two highway-, roadway-related incidents which
resulted in the death of my brother and Jim's brother and – he's still with us
everyday, but all avoidable, all avoidable. I wanted to say that. More than
speak to the bill, to be honest with you, I just wanted to remember him. Again,
as we move forward, let's make these the safest highways we can have.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise to offer some insights or some different perspective because, in a
sense, the stories we hear tonight – and I take my hat off to the Member
opposite for telling his story – some of these are very difficult.
I go
back to the comments from the Member for Lake Melville. Our job in here is to
lay out a rationale for a piece of legislation, and that is what I would hope to
do from a variety of perspectives.
If you
look at the causes of fatalities on the roadways in this province, three
factors, three features seem to be prevalent, and they are highlighted, one or
all of them, in pretty well every incident that you hear from the RNC or the
RCMP when they issue statements – albeit, limited usually – on the nature of the
accident. They talk about alcohol being a factor, they talk about seat belts or
lack of seat-belt usage being a factor, but they also talk about speed.
The
principal aim around the camera technology is to provide a solution to some
driving infractions which are just simply down to careless ignorance or
disregard of some of the, what I would call, low-speed rules of the road. The
other biggest, single factor is around speed. The rationale behind the cameras
is they are basically an extension of enforcement.
The
technology, I was actually amazed when the original debate around St. John's and
the city council putting in cameras came up. These had actually been established
as techniques in my previous country some years prior to my leaving. Highway
cameras, speed cameras in the UK are the norm, to the point where the number of
speeding tickets they issue is fairly steady. The number of speeding incidents
on the main highways has actually been significantly reduced to the point where
they've actually been able to redeploy law enforcement resources away from these
main trunk roads because, basically, they have become self-policing.
One of
my staff in the department went on a trip to the UK and, as part of that trip,
had to travel from the north of England to the south. It was a five-hour journey
along one of those motorways. Unbeknownst to him, he collected seven speeding
tickets on the way simply by being ignorant of the existence of these cameras.
The technology is sophisticated. It relies on number plates. In the UK it's a
little bit different, they have number plates on both ends of the vehicle. So
they have options with bidirectional technology which we wouldn't necessarily be
able to use here.
They are
calibrated and they allow 10 per cent in the UK. That's what they have been set
at. Ten per cent over the speed limit, you're okay, 11 per cent you get dinged.
The other thing about them is they are adjustable. For example, if you have
overhead gantry signs, which are common in the UK, which denote a change in
speed limit because of road conditions – and these are able to be done on the
fly in metropolitan areas – the speed cameras automatically reset to the new
speed limit plus the margin. They have reduced the number of accidents, reduced
the need for policing and they have generated a modest amount of revenue, by the
look of it, from Canadian travellers.
From my
own perspective, the rationale there is self-evident, but I'd like to bring a
slightly different view because, for three decades, I was related to the calls
that the Member opposite would have received. I spent a lot of my working career
in emergency departments. Indeed, sitting here listening to some of the stories
and particularly the one from my colleague from Green Bay, reminded me of some
incidents I really would rather forget.
It's
interesting that even just thinking about that now means I have to take a deep
breath because that was my first job as a resident in emerg. It was certifying
an 11-year-old girl dead on her first day of school, hit by a speeding traffic
car, and I can still see that to this day.
The
issue for me then as a physician was if this was a public health crisis, I could
see medical officers of health actually declaring it as such. If you look, we
have had provinces declare public health crisis on opioid deaths. They are
dwarfed in this country by deaths related to alcohol, but we hear nothing. Even
those are dwarfed by deaths on the road, yet we do not have the same outcry
around public health about the careless use of the most deadly weapon any of us
will come to possess.
You hear
about gun regulation and gun legislation. The most dangerous weapon, and we all
have them, is the vehicle you get into in the morning. It takes a moment's
distraction, a moment's thoughtlessness to wreak absolute havoc on somebody else
more than likely. Because we made vehicles relatively safe for their occupants,
it's the pedestrian and the motorcyclist who will come into the hospital
literally in pieces as a consequence of that.
If you
want to see the best of Newfoundland and Labrador driving, go to Birchy Bay
Resource Road on a Friday afternoon. You will see a mix of pickups, cars, bikes,
ATVs. They're all puttering along at 20 to 40 kilometres an hour, people wave at
each other and they pull over to let you pass. You get off Birchy Bay Resource
Road on a Friday afternoon and go to the Road to the Isles and it's like
Death Race 2000, that movie that they
don't show anymore because it's politically incorrect. It's horrendous.
I dive
3,900 kilometres a month, on average, most of it is highway driving. I would say
80 per cent of it is highway driving. I keep thinking I ought to buy a dash cam.
I could do one of those YouTube Russian driving style videos of the idiocy I've
seen on the road.
But the
other perspective I bring now is less emotional in a sense because it's not as
personal and not as literally as visceral between the sights, the touch and the
smell. As Minister of Health, we have a significant public health issue. We have
not chosen to address it as a public health crisis, but every day we allow
speeding cars on the road without any further deterrent, we run a risk that is
needless. You see the evidence of that risk in the number of times phone calls,
like the Member opposite received, are made from emergency rooms, literally,
every day in this province. It's not just one emergency room in St. John's doing
it. There are emergency departments all over the province, each and every day,
who are dealing with this issue.
We have
three of these causes that we can identify, these risk factors; this deals with
one, which is probably in my experience, the commonest, that simple lack of
attention to the speed limit. The laws of physics are immutable, as far as we
know. For every increment in speed, you stand a greater chance of suffering
death or dismemberment. Your risk of death as a pedestrian being hit by a car
doing 30 kilometres an hour is half what it is when you get to 50 kilometres an
hour. At 80 kilometres an hour, if a car hits you, your chances of survival are
pretty well zero – pretty well zero.
So,
speed and death and dismemberment are linked. The longer we leave it in an
environment where we are permissive – driving is a privilege, not a right.
People who are not prepared to follow the rules must take the consequences.
This
system, this change to the regulation, allows that to happen. The technology,
the image-detection systems, this is old technology. This is not even piloting
technology or demonstration projects. You can buy there off the shelf. If you
want to look at it as a cost-benefit analysis simply on the cost of the cameras,
it's $150,000 to $200,000 to buy a camera. Given the experiences on Peacekeepers
highway when the RNC did a traffic stop, they were handing out 45 tickets an
hour.
You just
think how long it would take for a camera to generate its return on investment.
I actually did the calculation on the back of an envelope, pretty much like the
way some previous governments have designed hospital builds, but it worked out
that in three weeks, that camera would be a pure revenue generator. That doesn't
take any account of the real driver behind this, which is the price to the
health care system, if you want to do it in dollars. The real price you saw when
the Member opposite got up and he has a box of tissues by there and he wants to
remember his brother who doesn't come home for supper anymore. That's the driver
for this piece of legislation and this amendment. It makes absolute sense and I
would argue that any delay on this is totally unjustifiable on any moral or
ethical grounds whatsoever.
Given
the hour of the day, however, I'm going to stop on that point. This is an
ethical imperative, as well as a medical one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that we adjourn debate.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that we adjourn debate.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
The hon.
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to Standing Order 11(1), I hereby give notice that the House not adjourn at 5:30
p.m. on Tuesday, November 12.
Considering the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Transportation and Works, that the House do adjourn for the day.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House does now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
House stands adjourned until tomorrow, 1:30 in the afternoon.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.