June 15, 2020
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 39
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members'
statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune, Ferryland, Bonavista, Terra Nova and Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MR. LOVELESS:
Mr. Speaker, today I
recognize and congratulate a strong, young woman from my district who was
recently awarded the Loran scholarship worth $100,000.
Lydia
Hardy of Rencontre East – as all locals say round counter east – was one of 36
recipients chosen this year for the scholarship. Founded in 1988, the
scholarship is awarded to undergraduate recipients who show character, service
and leadership.
Lydia is
a tireless volunteer who has given her time and work to mental health issues,
human rights, environmental issues and also community development. Through huge
support from her community and her guidance counsellor at school, she won the
award. She is – and the people of the community are – Rencontre proud.
Mr.
Speaker, she also believes that you don't win anything without a fight.
Overcoming adversity and indifference is nothing strange for her as she
personally faced many challenges. Her advice is “to keep fighting, even if you
don't know what you're fighting for.”
Mr.
Speaker, her plan is to study neurobehavioral science and then continue on in
the field of medicine. She's hoping to start her post-secondary studies here at
Memorial University.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Lydia Hardy and in
wishing her the best as she continues her journey to success.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this House to recognize the St. Shott's Recreation Committee. On
February 15, I was honoured to attend a community supper in St. Shott's. St.
Shott's is a small town in my district with 58 residents. I was so impressed
with such wonderful community spirit, and to see a small town with such a big
heart and so much passion to do good for their area.
This
group organizes many activities such as dart tournaments, card games, dances and
community suppers, Christmas activities for all ages, fitness programs, et
cetera. They also organize the annual St. Shott's weekend that is held every
August and has an annual memorial Christmas mass for their deceased loved ones.
They host a fundraiser each year for the Trepassey Lions Club Sick Fund and are
currently in the process of preparing Come Home Year 2022.
The same
people have served on this committee for the past 15 years, and some for over
30. Present committee members are Anita Molloy, Sylvia Molloy, Joanna Finlay,
Elizabeth Molloy and Marie Gibbons. This committee is to be commended for their
accomplishments.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the St
.Shott's Recreation Committee.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure to celebrate Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Terry Stead's 38 years
of exemplary service to our nation.
Lieutenant Colonel Stead was born in Little Catalina in 1962 and joined the
Canadian Armed Forces in 1979 at the ripe age of 17 years old. His career
highlights included service in all three battalions of the Royal Canadian
Regiment, the Royal New Brunswick Regiment and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
He saw
operational deployments to Cyprus, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and
Israel. His appointments included command team positions in all levels of an
infantry battalion up to the rifle company as both sergeant major and officer
commanding a dismounted infantry company.
In 2014,
he was appointed as commanding officer of the 5th Canadian Ranger Patrol Group,
the largest reserve unit in Atlantic Canada. Lieutenant Colonel Stead's training
included basic parachutist, advanced winter warfare instructor, advanced small
arms instructor, advanced reconnaissance patrolman, United Nations military
observer and army tactical operations, to name a few.
He
received numerous awards for outstanding merit and exceptional service, to
include the Queen's Jubilee Medal and commendations from the chief of defence
staff and commander of the Canadian Army. In 2010, he was recognized for
outstanding service to the military and inducted as a Member of the Order of
Military Merit.
I ask
the Members of the 49th House of Assembly to join me in issuing a sincere thank
you to Lieutenant Colonel Stead for his outstanding service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm honoured to
pay tribute to a fallen comrade from the District of Terra Nova.
Mr.
Sidney Matthews was a Korean War veteran and a royal Canadian Army member who
served as a peacekeeper. Sadly, he passed away on June 8 at the age of 90.
Comrade
Sid was a founding member and charter member of the Legion Branch 48 in Port
Blandford. For over 60 years he was instrumental in building the Legion. In
1964, he nailed the first nail; he served the first beer and he was the first
bartender. In 1966, he was elected as its treasurer and through the years he
held numerous positions, including president.
During
his 60-plus years, Sid remained faithful to his community volunteering and was
recognized on many occasions: Lifetime membership award; 50 year gold service
medal; 55 year gold bar; Branch 48 service medal; 55 year certificate of
appreciation; Canada 150 Award, and charter member and founding member award
On July
1, 2018, a dedication stone was unveiled with the names of Sid's fellow veterans
and friends from the community of Port Blandford. As the last surviving Korean
War veteran, Sid was proud to be part of this unveiling. Mr. Sidney Mathews name
will now be engraved on the dedication stone.
I ask
Members to honour Sid for his years of service to our country, province and
community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to recognize an everyday hero in Grand
Falls-Windsor, Terri-Lynn Barry.
Terri-Lynn's involvement with such programs as Welcome NL and Ride Don't Hide
are combined with her role on the Central Health Advisory Board and Central
Health and Addictions committee. As director of youth and community employment
services and the manager of the Youth 2000 centre, Terri-Lynn has become a
valued leader in our community.
During
COVID-19, Terri-Lynn delivered hundreds of hampers where needed, including Kids
Eat Smart food hampers, all the while delivering virtual programs so could kids
could remain engaged. Whether she is teaching children the fundamentals like
baking, reading to kids in the evening or giving our youth a safe place to go
when they feel lost, she is an asset and we are so lucky to have her in Grand
Falls-Windsor.
I have
had the pleasure of working with this amazing individual this past year, and I
ask you now to join me as we honour Terri-Lynn Barry, a true hero for our youth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to announce that our government and the Transition House
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador are partnering on a dedicated,
province-wide domestic violence phone line that will go live next week.
The
Transition House Association's membership consists of 10 provincially-funded
shelters in the province. These shelters are staffed by highly skilled and
compassionate individuals whose mandate is to counsel and assist women who are
facing violence.
The
Domestic Violence Help Line will have a single telephone number for the entire
province. The service will detect the region from which the person is calling
and route the call to the closest transition house. The caller will then be able
to immediately speak with a trained professional who will assist them directly,
or connect them to the appropriate service or organization in the community,
including our women's centres, Violence Prevention NL organizations, or medical
and/or policing services.
I am
also pleased to say this new phone line will have full texting capabilities.
Mr.
Speaker, more information on the Domestic Violence Help Line, including the new
toll-free number, will be released in the coming days as soon as details are
finalized.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking our transition houses and
all women-serving organizations for the tremendous work they have done and
continue to do as we make our way through COVID-19.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr.
Speaker, we, on this side of the House, join the minister in thanking the
Transition House Association in partnering on a new Domestic Violence Help Line.
Mr.
Speaker, we all know too well the very public and tragic cases of domestic
violence that have occurred in just the past few years. These have raised public
awareness and help to shine a light on this issue. Anything we can do as a
society to combat domestic violence is a step in the right direction.
Women's
advocates and groups have been lobbying for a dedicated service for months –
and, indeed, years – to have this resource to combat domestic violence. It is
very unfortunate, however, that we are three months into the COVID-19 and the
minister is still unable to provide specific details or even the telephone
number.
Government has been too late on this issue, and the lack of leadership is not
lost on women's groups in our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I also thank the
minister for her commitment to helping women who are subject to domestic
violence.
Snowmageddon and COVID-19 have exacerbated the danger faced by those enduring
intimate partner violence. The presence of an understanding voice and a source
of needed information will be a beacon of hope for those feeling hopeless.
I
commend the minister on her work with transition houses and women-serving
organizations. This Help Line is another small step on the long road to
equality.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Normally, Mr. Speaker, around this time of the year I stand in my place and
recognize Public Service Week in Newfoundland and Labrador, but things are
different. Today, I sit in my spot to provide thanks in a different way.
Due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, we have postponed Public Service Week until such time as
we can safely undertake the activities that make the week a highlight of the
government calendar.
But this
does not in any way lessen the need to recognize our public service, and so
today I do just that.
This
year, more than ever, has demonstrated the talent, commitment and sacrifices
that public service employees make for the people of this province.
Amidst
the challenges of COVID-19, public service employees rose above and tirelessly
gave of their professional and often personal time during what has been an
especially difficult period. Mr. Speaker, it has been nothing short of
professional excellence.
I know I
speak for every Member when I say that we look forward to thanking you in person
for your hard work and dedication. But until that time, I ask all Members of
this Legislature to join me in reflecting on how members of the public service
support us each and every day in serving the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and to express thanks for the work that they do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I thank the minister for an
advance copy of his statement.
On
behalf of all Members of the Official Opposition, I would like to thank all
public service workers for their ongoing efforts and to wish them well during
this Public Service Week.
While
the activities are postponed, we do not need to postpone recognizing the
hard-working and talented individuals who helped to administer our government
services, provide policy advice and help individuals through their greatest
challenges.
To all
our public service workers, I offer a heart-felt thank you. I would also like to
acknowledge the great challenge which the public service has overcome during
this ongoing public health emergency. Working from home has its challenges and
the public service has risen above them to provide critical and important
services to the residents of this province.
I look
forward to the time when we can host the Public Service Week activities and
properly thank our public service for their efforts.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Mr.
Speaker, I remember my time as a public servant when Public Service Week brought
the annual softball tournament and the beginning of summer hours – lighter days
indeed.
This
year I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize the tireless work of our
public servants who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to keep this
province running during what are exceptional times. Their dedication and
professionalism has ensured our programs and services were delivered during this
pandemic.
We owe
them a debt of gratitude. Keep up the great work.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
week, the Minister of Health told us that lack of PPE prevents our hospitals
from getting beyond 75 per cent bed occupancy.
Is this
a health care crisis?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question.
It is a
challenge, there's no doubt about it. We are a little different than other
jurisdictions and perhaps a considerable way ahead.
I'm
pleased to report to this House we've had a considerable delivery of both gowns
and masks over the weekend and I've been in discussions with staff today to
encourage further increase in activity within the RHAs to get to our 75 per cent
level by the end of Level 3.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The question was: Is this a
health care crisis when you can't get beyond 75 per cent for the foreseeable
future?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
restoration of normal function is predicated on 75 per cent activity at the end
of Level 3. If and when we go to Level 2, we will set new targets and likely
that will see a further approximation to full occupancy.
We have
still not yet safely decided on what margin of beds we need to keep in reserve
against the second wave, but there will be a further increase in RHA activity
over the course of the next level.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Many thousands of patients
and their families who can't get access to health care think that this is a
crisis.
Now, we
asked the Minister of Health when did he learn there was no stockpile of PPE and
he did not answer.
When
exactly did he learn there is no stockpile of PPE exactly?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I can't
give an exact date. What was left in the stockpile when I took office was
300,000 masks in various state of disrepair, some of which have been repurposed.
The
facts of the case are that stockpile had been left on the vine since 2009-2010
and been parked in a corner and left. Our proposal now is when supplies allow,
for us to build a stockpile, a buffer into the supply chain so that we're not
faced with that situation again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The minister must have missed
the point of the question.
When did
he find out about this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I cannot
recall; I shall go back and check with my notes and briefing notes. The facts of
the case are we inherited a situation where all that was in the cupboard in
Carbonear, as I recall, was 300,000 masks, and that happened before my time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Well, Mr. Speaker, we'll look
forward to the minister addressing that when he reappears in the House tomorrow.
Business
leaders warned last week that we are on the precipice of a wave of irreparable
economic disaster – and I'm quoting that – and asked for immediate action.
Where is
the plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there was a
letter that was addressed private and confidential that came to me last week.
Many of those business leaders that signed that letter were people that we
worked very closely with during this pandemic.
Mr.
Speaker, we're all aware of the challenges that this province has faced even
prior to this pandemic. The oil and gas industry, which represents nearly 30 per
cent of our GDP has been challenged, not by the pandemic as much as the result
in the collapse of oil pricing.
We
continue to work with the federal government; we continue to work with other
provinces as well, making sure that we can position the oil and gas industry
into its place where it can actually create revenues for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been able to work with the Bank of Canada
and others to make sure that we continue to borrow in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There is some $200 million in the contingency fund, Mr. Speaker, that is part of
the recovery plan for the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon Premier's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps
it's just me, but I didn't hear an answer to the question, where is the plan.
Now,
maybe the Premier can answer this one. Wayne Myles signed the business leaders'
letter. When the Premier's own appointee as chair of the biggest government
profit centre, the Liquor Corporation, warns of economic disaster, does the
Premier lose any sleep?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
people that would have signed that letter, Mr. Speaker, were a couple of things.
One, they wanted the province to ignore Level 2 and move immediately into what
would have been Level I; that is something that we would need to work with
public health officials. There were a number of things in terms of the request
in that letter but moving to Alert Level I right now, Mr. Speaker, all we need
to do – and I say to the Leader of the Opposition I'm not so sure if he's
ignoring what's happening around the world, if he's looked at what's happening
in Florida, Texas, California, Arizona over this weekend as people open up their
economies, you must do it very strategically.
I would
say there's overwhelming support from the people of our province to make sure
that before we move, we must be prepared to respond to a surge, if it comes.
We've only been at this program with the Alert Levels for a number of weeks. We
will move but only (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
The Premier's time is
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know
that times of high stress and economic instability increase rates of domestic
violence upon women.
Why has
it taken the minister well over 100 days into this crisis to implement a simple
province helpline to support women of domestic violence?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for her question.
Most of
us would assume that it would take overnight to put in a phone line such as
this. That's not the case, Mr. Speaker. There were a number of factors that
needed to be considered, one in particular being the texting capability. Given
this day and age, we need to have texting capacity and, of course, we need to
have trained staff to work with the system. Women who will be at their most
vulnerable will be calling in to this helpline, so we have to ensure that all
factors were put in place.
It is
essential to understand that this won't only address the immediate needs, but
this line will be used post-COVID-19 and we wanted a service that would be in
the best in of the most vulnerable in our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, this should have been done long ago, and it may very well be a case
of too little too late for many vulnerable women who have been in isolation over
these number of weeks.
Mr.
Speaker, I have heard from women and women's groups throughout the province who
believe that the silence of the minister has been deeply felt on important
women's issues.
How can
the minister stand idly by as women are struggling and trying to cope with
issues like the lack of affordable child care for example?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do thank the hon. Member for her question.
Affordable child care is a very important issue in this province, and I want to
ensure this hon. House and the hon. Member that I have worked closely with the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development in the beginning days of
the COVID-19 pandemic when our government provided some $5 million to help those
early childhood educators and those who were using the child care services but
would not be having the service available to them. I will continue to work along
with my colleagues on this side of the House on that same issue.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, as we
transition through this pandemic and continue to confront economic and social
issues, it is vital that we address the structural inequalities that exist.
What
plan does the minister have in place to address these inequalities and to ensure
that women also have the opportunity to recover and thrive?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for her question. It's ironic when we have the chief medical
officer leading this pandemic a female. We have three CEOs of our regional
health authorities, Mr. Speaker, female. Our dean of medicine is female, as well
as many of the front-line workers of essential services are female.
I've
very proud of the leadership role that they have taken, Mr. Speaker, and I will
continue to work along with them.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today,
the Child and Youth Advocate issued a statement of concern about the
unacceptable delay in establishing an inquiry for Innu children in the child
protection system. Additionally, this government still hasn't implemented all
the recommendations for Inuit children in care.
Why does
this government seem more concerned about the historical racism reflected in a
statue, Mr. Speaker, while they continue to procrastinate on addressing
institutional racism, especially when it is impacting our Indigenous children in
care?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
certainly we have not been procrastinating, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the
two different inquiries here. The Child and Youth Advocate this morning with her
statement – we were given two options, or there were two inquiries that would
need to be done, two reviews. One, working with the Nunatsiavut Government. They
were prepared to work with the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate to do the
investigation, the review of Child Protection Services, and that report has been
made public.
The
second was the Innu inquiry, Mr. Speaker. So we work very closely with both
Sheshatshiu and Natuashish and leaders within the Innu Nation to put in place an
inquiry. First and foremost, it was important that the federal government would
be involved. There was a lengthy process on the terms of reference. Secondly,
was to put in place a commissioner that could actually lead the inquiry. We need
to be able to work with the Innu residents to make sure they had the appropriate
commissioner in place. That is a work that is ongoing now.
I can
assure the Member opposite that this provincial government is committed to
making sure this inquiry is done, but we must be able to work with the
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for an answer has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier
today we learned the details, or some of the details, on the essential worker
wage top-up. One of those details being that the employer will apply on behalf
of the employee.
I ask
the minister responsible: In the case of businesses that have gone out of
business, how will the employee apply for this top-up?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, and I thank the
Member for his question.
Obviously, this is a program designed to help the lower income essential workers
in our province, Mr. Speaker. If there is a situation where an employer is gone
out of business, we certainly won't see those employees disadvantaged because of
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Applications for this top-up won't be available until July and up to the end of
July. We all understand the importance of our low-income essential workers.
When
will they be expected to receive their cheques?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and,
again, I thank the Member for his question.
This is
a program where we will work with employers to get the money into the hands of
the employees as quickly as possible. We obviously need to rely on the employers
to apply for the program. We have provided 10 per cent of the amount provided to
the employer to cover their costs. So as employers get the information to
government, it will be processed as quickly as possible.
The
application time, as the Member has pointed out, will start the first week of
July. We expect the applications no later than the end of July, and as quickly
as they can be processed by government, they will be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
seen issues with the commercial rent program whereby businesses would have
preferred to apply for the rent themselves as opposed to going through the
landlords. In this particular case, you have employers administering to the
employees.
Looking
at this, and given that these top-ups will take deductions such as EI, CPP,
personal income tax and the like, what would the actual essential worker receive
given he will be receiving $1,200?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The 10
per cent provided to the employer is to cover the employer's cost of the CPP and
EI deductions and so on. So, for the employee, Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a
taxable benefit. Their contributions to those programs would be deducted from
those amounts as well.
To
specifically say what an employee would receive is almost impossible without
knowing their personal deductions. Each employee would have a different amount
of personal deductions, but it is a taxable benefit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
that we've had the luxury of looking at what other provinces are doing, is this
similar process being taken with other provinces?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Different provinces have
provided a different program across the board, Mr. Speaker. Part of the reason
our province – it had taken so long to get this program approved by the federal
government. They provided the parameters in which we had to operate, such as the
$2,500 salary maximum. We negotiated that up to $3,000 on a monthly basis.
It was
initially intended for health care workers. They provided additional parameters
there, broadened it. We've gone with the most broad parameters we could, which
is Canada's Public Safety definition of essential workers, Mr. Speaker. We've
tried to broaden the benefit to as many people as we could.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, many parents are
reporting a very wide discrepancy in teacher-student interactions over the
course of this pandemic. Government had no plan to assure that there were
minimum benchmarks and standards of teacher-student interactions to ensure
achievement of these core outcomes and to assure that students who needed more
assistance received it.
What
grade would the minister assign to government's effort?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
appreciate the question of my colleague.
Mr.
Speaker, at the beginning of this pandemic we were certainly thrown into a
situation here that we had absolutely no time to plan for. Given the fact that
we had an education system to continue to operate here, we did the best that we
could, given the time constraints we had.
Mr.
Speaker, I tip my hat to the educators. They've again – putting the resources in
place on the connectivity was a struggle. We want to ensure that we have a plan
going forward for September and, certainly, that plan would have all students
back in the schools.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
In keeping with the plan for
September, Mr. Speaker, this morning the CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador
English School District, Tony Stack, was in the media suggesting there are
challenges in the school system he does not have answers to. We still have no
plan or even basic information for September coming.
When is
government going to release a specific plan for the new school year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, discussions and planning with the school districts, the NLTA, Public
Health officials have been well underway and we're working towards having a plan
in place as soon as possible. I've also been in contact, Mr. Speaker, with the
Federation of School Councils. The English School District is beginning
consultations with school councils, chairs and parent representatives this week.
A plan
will be provided; an approach and guidance for school districts to put into
operation, given the particular status of the pandemic come September. We are
focusing on having a full return to class come September and we'll take the
advice of Public Health officials as we get closer to that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Stack also revealed this morning that children may have to find their own way to
school in September and the district is still waiting on the information from
the department on provincial assessment, curriculum and graduation requirements.
Again,
when is the minister going to release a plan for September?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague brings up a good point with regard to our busing systems. I'd like to
be in a position to give concrete facts here today, but this all depends on
where the pandemic is in September.
Our
plan, Mr. Speaker, we'll hopefully have in place sometime towards the end June.
Our plan is to have the full student population back in classes in September. We
will take the advice of Public Health officials as we approach September.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, a constituent of
mine, Leah Hollahan, is a parent of two children in the K-to-12 school system
residing in Southern Bay. She has been advocating many years for improved
Internet service in her area. Ms. Hollahan states that if online learning is a
tool for her children's education, it should be an essential service. When
Google Classroom was in session this past year the screen was freezing up and
delayed.
Will
government provided funding to provide equitable access to technology and
Internet for our students?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our
public school system, Mr. Speaker, is based on equity for all students. It's a
fundamental part of our education system and one that we're all working to
achieve during this extraordinary time.
The
school district, Mr. Speaker, distributed hundreds of devices to students this
school year and we found options to address connectivity issues such as portable
Wi-Fi devices, iPads with data cards. Our plan is have the resources put in
place for all students. We realize that there was an issue with resources this
year and I think most of us sitting here as Members today know that we have a
connectivity problem in the province as well. Hopefully, that will be addressed
at the same time, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, are you buying all the PPE that is available in this province from
local companies?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We work
closely with TaskforceNL, for example, to make ourselves pretty well
self-sufficient in face shields, for example. We have prototypes of gloves and
gowns with Health Canada awaiting final evaluation.
In terms
of supplies locally, any supplier that has contacted our department has had
their inventory assessed and, if suitable, we bought it. If it's not suitable,
we haven't.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our
understanding is that – fair enough – the department has bought specific pieces
of PPE off individuals, but on small amounts, even though these same providers
have massive amounts that could be provided.
Again, I
ask: Why would you not procure all of the PPEs that are available locally from
these companies? When you're providing small proportions of it, why not buy it
all? We're in a pandemic, as you had mentioned, and you had mentioned earlier
that the cupboard was bare when you started. Five years ago was an opportunity
to replenish that cupboard.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The key
around PPE and these resources is whether or not they pass Canadian, or now even
European, standards to allow them to be used safely in our facility. The worst
situation we could find ourselves in would be to provide health care staff with
PPE that was not fit for the job. Those large batches of PPE of which we had
been made aware, a significant number of them have turned out not to meet the
appropriate standards; therefore, we will not spend public money on it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the
minister table the list of PPE purchases in the last four months, detailing by
supplier, quantity and the amount?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
That may be something of a
challenge, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that we're getting a significant proportion
of our PPE at the moment through national and through federal supply lines. I
have no way of knowing directly where that comes from. What I do know is that
these have been inspected at their point of purchase or at their point of
delivery and have been certified by the federal government and our agents as fit
for the purpose.
I cannot go back with any certainty to identify precise
sources for this equipment. I simply know that it's fit for the job and will
protect the people who need it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. Opposition House Leader for a quick question and answer.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Has any monies been forwarded to
TaskforceNL to procure PPEs for Newfoundland and Labrador health care?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
I am aware that funds have been provided to seed their local manufacturing, Mr.
Speaker, but as to whether or not money was given to them for advanced
purchases, I would have to go back and check. I can do that.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has promised to
deliver a budget before Interim Supply runs out, barring any unforeseen event. I
note that the impending election of a new Liberal Leader and premier is not
unforeseen. A second wave of COVID-19 is not unforeseen, nor is the possibility
of a non-confidence vote on a non-collaborative minority government budget
unforeseen.
In order for a budget to be debated and passed, or an
election held before we run out of Interim Supply, a budget ought to be
presented to the House by the end of July.
I ask the Minister of Finance: Will he commit to
presenting a budget in ample time to allow democracy to run its course?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After three years of promises, government has yet to
launch an inquiry into Innu youth in the child protection system. Serious events
have transpired including the recent death of an Innu child in care, which, as
of today, prompted the Child and Youth Advocate to issue an unprecedented
statement of concern calling government's foot dragging unacceptable.
I ask the ministers responsible: Enough is enough, will
he order this long-promised commission struck immediately?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe the Premier previously addressed this in
Question Period. This is a commission that has taken some time, due to the fact
that it requires three partners. We've been working with the Innu communities,
as well as the federal government.
We are moving forward with this. One of the things that
we do need is a commissioner put in place, and that is something we have been
working with the Innu on; but, again, as the Premier stated previously, this is
something that will happen in 2020.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The term Discovery Day ignores the fact that Indigenous
people predates European arrival to our province. My wife's family have hunted
and trapped in Labrador for thousands of years as many other Labrador Innu and
Inuit.
I ask the Minister Responsible for Labrador and
Indigenous Affairs: Given that Indigenous organizations are asking for this,
will he consult with
Indigenous communities and governments and do away with Discovery Day?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Sure, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Again,
this is a topic that comes up and it's one I've had conversations with multiple
people about. It's something that – again, with Discovery Day coming up very
soon – will continue to be a discussion item and one that should be a discussion
item; however, I'm unable at this time to commit to such a plan, but what I will
say is it's something that our government will be willing to consider and have
multiple and further conversations with interested parties.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister –
Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you for the promotion,
Mr. Speaker. Does it come with pay?
Mr.
Speaker, speculation as to what courses will be taught in the 2020-21 school
year is creating anxiety and concern for teachers. Teachers have informed me
that at recent staff meetings they were told to be prepared to teach or help
teach something else if a particular course was not going to be offered in the
fall. As one teacher noted, he and his colleagues never really know what's
expected of them.
I ask
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development: What, if any, courses
are going to be dropped or what changes to the provincial curriculum are being
considered?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question coming from the hon. Member.
Mr.
Speaker, again, our plan is to have students back full-time in class come
September. We're looking at doing a full curriculum and having public exams next
year. Mr. Speaker, the school staff are delivering professional learning to over
5,000 teachers within the English system this year. Certainly, as you can
appreciate, this is a huge undertaking.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, our plan is to be back in class and no changes in the curriculum.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, in order for
parents of school-aged children to fully participate in the opening of the
Newfoundland and Labrador economy, it's essential that the province has a fully
functioning education system that can operate under public health directions in
September.
I ask
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development: As the government
spends the COVID-19 contingency fund, how much of the fund is government putting
aside to support the public education system so that students and parents are
not disadvantaged?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
certainly focusing on having a full return to class instruction this fall, but
we are also very aware that we must ensure, if needed, that remote learning can
be delivered to all students. There's considerable work, Mr. Speaker, underway
to determine what is required for September to support enhanced digital learning
for both students and teachers. We want to ensure that no student is
disadvantaged, Mr. Speaker, and that teachers are fully equipped for digital
learning regardless of the situation with the pandemic.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
is expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
MR. OSBORNE:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
We'll revert to Tabling of
Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker – one
of the benefits of not being able to stand in your place.
Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to section 26(5)(a) of the
Financial Administration Act, I am tabling four orders-in-council
relating to funding pre-commitments for the fiscal years 2020-2021 to 2024-2025.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution: Be it resolved by
the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under section 28 of the
Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make
recommendations on the salaries and benefits of judges and the chief judge; and
WHEREAS
the tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety on June 6, 2019; and
WHEREAS
the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial
Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal Report was tabled in this House on
June 25, 2019, as required by section 28.2 of the act; and
WHEREAS
the House of Assembly is required to approve, vary or reject the report; and
WHEREAS
government has decided to ask this hon. House to accept all the recommendations
of the tribunal as contained in its report of June 4, 2019;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of the
2018 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salary and Benefits
Tribunal; and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the recommendations of the tribunal be
implemented effective April 1, 2017.
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 give notice to
move the following private Member's resolution:
BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government to table and bring to debate
and concluding votes the 2020-2021 budget prior to any general election.
It's
seconded by the Member for Windsor Lake.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, the private
Member's resolution put forward by the Member for Port au Port and seconded by
the Member for Windsor Lake will be the private Member's resolution that will be
debated this Wednesday, June 17, here in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
present a petition here signed by residents of the Bay of Islands and some from
your own district, Mr. Speaker, to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to direct the province's health care authorities to develop and make
public a plan that not only returns our health care system to normal operations,
but also deals with the significant backlog in appointments, surgeries and other
procedures.
I raised
this issue many times, that the biggest concern that I'm hearing is health care.
There are a lot of people that are in need and there is a lot of anxiety. I know
my colleague the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands and myself were trying to
raise this and had some questions, but we were rejected. It's great to see that
the Opposition, after rejecting us, brought up these health care issues, Mr.
Speaker.
They are
major concerns. There are a lot of people I know that need heart surgery, some
waiting for some testing, some wondering about the cancer testing. This is
significant. I've been dealing with the minister on it, and he's well aware of
it and trying what he can.
Mr.
Speaker, last week I know I was told by the Leader of the Opposition that it was
a publicity stunt that we're trying to raise questions. I had a few calls over
the weekend and I say to the minister, next time you go to St. Mary's Anglican
church, a few of the people that you met there would like to speak to you about
this publicity stunt, that they're so concerned about their health care. If you
think health care is a publicity stunt, Mr. Speaker, there are a few individuals
can't wait for you to come back to have a few words.
I know
the Member for St. John's Centre said he works well here speaking to people back
and forth. Obviously, that person never represented anybody from rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, because when you deal with people in the rural parts,
a lot of times it's different trying to find out who your specialist is, how
you're going to get in. It's easier than running over to the hospital, running
to the minister. I don't think you realize about rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, because it's different.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you, everybody in this House works differently, but I can
assure you one thing. The anxiety of health care for people with heart surgeries
or with diagnostic testing is real. I call upon the government to work as fast
as they can to get something in place, to get a plan in place so that these
people can have peace of mind.
As I
said, Mr. Speaker, in a speech last week, one lady with her hip and the family –
this is before the restrictions were lifted. One family asked her mom not to
move, sit on the couch, because if she broke her hip they couldn't visit her.
That's what we're down to. This is real.
So I
call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to find some way to start
this emergency surgery that's needed. I have another person here today who gave
me a consent form that I'm going to present to the minister. I just urge the
government to work on this as soon as they can.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services with a reply.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands raises a very topical and very important
issue and, certainly, it's one we in the department have been hearing about
expecting this. We tasked the regional health authorities some while ago now to
prepare a plan, both to restore, in a graduated way, to normal functioning as
the alert levels change, but also then one to address the backlog. Indeed, I
have a meeting with the Medical Association as well for next week, I think,
virtually to discuss that, among other concerns.
What is
happening is there is an increase in both testing procedures and in-patient work
across each of the regional health authorities. The priority for this is
determined solely by clinicians. As the capacity increases, so the ability to do
more will also increase.
It is
more than ever now a time where primary care doctors, their patients and the
specialists all need to get on the same page about individual cases so that no
one is overlooked. I would encourage physicians and nurse practitioners to do
this.
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.
WHEREAS
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live
inside the Eastern School District's 1.6-kilometre zone, therefore do not
qualify for busing; and
WHEREAS
policy cannot override safety of our children;
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 eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all
elementary schools in the province, and in junior and senior high schools where
safety is a primary concern.
Mr.
Speaker, we brought this petition forward a number of times. I know my colleague
for Conception Bay South has also brought this petition forward, it's timely.
It's always timely when we talk about the safety of our children.
In this
particular instance of busing, this is in areas where there is nowhere for them
to walk or wait for a bus in a safe manner, especially when you have snow on the
ground and the roads are smaller again. If there's anything we've gotten out of
COVID is the huge, huge need to be concerned for safety.
I heard
the minister responsible for Education earlier today speak to that next year
it's expected to have full classes, no changes in curriculum. I believe the
Member with the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District spoke on the
news earlier about a hybrid, potentially. Regardless, the fact of the matter is
kids will be in some form of school in September. The minister noted it's a
complicated issue when it comes to enhancing digital learning but I would
challenge that providing safe school busing is probably not as challenging or
complicated.
I will
ask for the coming school year that this is on the agenda and that we are
looking at ways in which all children can get to and from school in a safe
manner.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development with a response.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member, I guess for his heartfelt petition, because that's certainly
what it was, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
think I need to make a further statement, other than the fact that the safety of
our students is paramount – it really is.
Having
said that, we, as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, have one of the
best busing policies in the country. We will continue to monitor the busing
system; but, again, I certainly concur with the Member about the safety of our
students.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Whereas
there is a growing urgency for brush cutting in several communities in the
District of Harbour Main, specifically in Conception Harbour and Roaches Line,
Route 70. These roads are of high volume traffic with significant moose
sightings that pose a serious threat to motorists. Brush cutting maintenance on
these roads must be carried out as soon as possible to ensure the safety of the
people that use them daily.
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 immediately take the necessary steps of conducting
and maintaining brush cutting operations on the Conception Bay Highway,
specifically Conception Harbour and Roaches Line, Route 70, to ensure motorists
safety and to improve the sightlines for the driving public that use these
roadways each day.
Mr.
Speaker, I rose in the House of Assembly with a petition on this very issue of
brush cutting last year, December 5, 2019, with respect to areas of Conception
Harbour, Roaches Line and as well Hodgewater Line, Route 71. Mr. Speaker, I'm
disappointed, to say the least, to report that although the minister gave
assurances at that time that this important issue would be addressed, little has
been done in all this time.
Mr.
Speaker, in fact, the minister rose in the House of Assembly when I brought this
petition forward last year and stated in response to my petition, which I
presented on behalf of the people in these areas, he stated that he was going to
actually please the Member opposite. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can advise you that
the Member is not pleased. This work, he indicated, had been added, and that
would be to the contract. That was on December 5, 2019.
I
followed up, Mr. Speaker, on December 16 with a letter to the minister regarding
brush cutting for Conception Harbour and Roaches Line and I asked for an
expected time frame. Again, sad to report, little happened. My understanding was
that work was commenced in the Roaches Line area, but I'm advised it was only
approximately one kilometre which was completed and then it stopped because of
snowfall.
Mr.
Speaker, no work at all was started in the Conception Harbour area. Mr. Speaker,
this is of grave concern. The Conception Harbour area, it has clearly been
stated that there are many moose sightings in this area. The area needs to have
the brush cutting taking place. Those who travel through the community would
have a better chance of being able to avoid a collision. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a
collision occurred in this very intersection of the Conception Harbour area. We
attribute that – at least the residents in the area say it was caused because of
the inability to have appropriate sightlines by the vehicles.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a serious issue and this needs to be addressed immediately once
and for all.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works, for a response.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the petition.
The hon.
Member mentions a few dates and they're all, I think, December. We did add that
work to a contract last year in December. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we do have
to stop cutting brush once the snow falls. It's not practical to do so. If we do
continue to cut brush once there has been snow accumulation, what we find is
work is not of a good quality and you end up with brush that's two or three feet
high and it just doesn't work.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the Member, talk about immediacy. We do not cut
brush in this province until after, usually around the end of August due to the
Migratory Bird Act.
The
Member wrote me an email a few days ago. I explained that to her, that there are
no brush cutting tenders that would've been let as of yet, simply because it's
not something we've done as a department under this administration or previous
administrations. Brush cutting is a fall activity, Mr. Speaker, and we're going
to again this year invest some $2 million in brush cutting in this province and
we look forward to getting those tenders out early in the fall.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Prescription Drug Program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in
the economy-killing fee and tax-adding budget of 2016. Low-income families and
low-income individuals, particularly seniors, are struggling with the cost of
living and struggling to meet some of their basic needs. Many seniors and
low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care, and
those same individuals can now no longer access dentures, leading to many other
digestive and medical issues.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover seniors
and low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of
life and dignity.
Mr.
Speaker, this, I believe, is my fifth time presenting this exact petition. And
while we see this administration continue to pass out funding and increases for
certain demographics of society, this one demographic continues to be ignored.
This is
not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. It's not acceptable that somebody is afraid to
smile. It's not acceptable that someone is prevented from getting a job because
they're afraid to smile, they're afraid to speak. It's not acceptable that
people are malnourished because they can't chew their food. This is a modern
province. While we have our challenges, when it comes down to the fact that we
are ignoring people's basic needs, such as access to dental care, I think that's
something we should all hang our heads in shame.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services, with a response.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Member opposite raises an important area of concern. There's no point in going
back to discuss the financial situation of the budget of 2016. Quite frankly, it
can be summed up in the words it was a disaster that we inherited and we did
have to make some awkward choices.
Our
Dental Program is in the middle of what other programs across Canada look like.
We are better than five and not as good as another five. We would love to be
able to expand that, but there are dentures being provided. There are emergency
services being provided for dental care and there is a small allowance for
annual dental care for those eligible individuals, Mr. Speaker.
In the
fullness of time, would I like to see this expand? Yes, I would. But until and
unless we can solve our fiscal problems, we have to spend within the limits of
our budget and we are in the middle of the pack, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, residents of the Exploits District have a great concern from the result
of the 24-hour emergency service cut to the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre
in Botwood. All residents feel that the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. service does not
adequately and efficiently address the emergency requirements of this district,
affecting both patients and residents to receive adequate care when needed.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to restore the 24-hour emergency service to the Dr.
Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre immediately.
Mr.
Speaker, in 2016 the Liberal government stripped the 24-hour emergency service
from Botwood, giving them 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Stats show from October 2018 to
October 2019, 7,833 visits were made to the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre
in Botwood. Another 4,620 visits were made to the Central Newfoundland Health
Care Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor. This is a total of 12,453 people of the
Exploits District needing 24-hour emergency service.
Mr.
Speaker, this is still an ongoing concern and the people are interested in
getting this 24-hour emergency service put back. Before that, there was millions
of dollars spent to upgrade the lab and X-ray service at the Dr. Hugh Twomey
Health Care Centre and they decided to cut that service. Doing this leaves added
burden now on the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital. People have to leave in the
nighttime to get to Grand Falls-Windsor, adding stress and time to patients,
staff, problem areas and lineups at the Grand Falls-Windsor Health Care Centre.
Mr.
Speaker, this is not good enough. They can take the stress off there by
replacing the 24-hour emergency service in Botwood. Not only that, last week the
minister blatantly acknowledged that he was taking the testing hub from Grand
Falls-Windsor and putting it in Gander with no justification only that he can.
He's going to protect his own area of Gander.
Mr.
Speaker, services can't be taken from the Exploits District or the Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans District just to satisfy the minister's need.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services with a response.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I would
suggest that investing $20 million in a state-of-the-art facility at the Hugh
Twomey centre is indicative of an interest in supplying services to the area of
Exploits.
The
issue of the emergency department that he references, those numbers that he gave
were people who did receive care. Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre is
20 minutes away by ambulance from Botwood. The issue of the need for 24-7
emergency care, I have said, will be revisited when the new wing opens and we
see what staff is available and what the out-of-hours demand is.
Currently, it seems to be of the order of two patients a week presenting there
outside of hours. That was the last time I looked; those figures may be a little
out of date. I'll look again and see if the update would provide any more light,
Mr. Speaker. I would argue we have gone out of our way to make sure that
Exploits has the health care it needs.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
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, other cognitive debilitating conditions, whereby
loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly, and not
received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to the
government's failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
We
therefore call upon the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which would
include mandatory establishment of 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 other required care. This 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 have presented this petition I'm not sure how many times now – an
awful lot – on behalf of the group Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights. I did
commit to them that I would present it again this sitting of the House of
Assembly, which is what I'm doing. For the next three days after, I certainly
want to talk about health care, education and daycare. I'll be presenting
petitions on all three of those topics in the next three days because that will
be my only opportunity, unfortunately, to bring these issues forward on behalf
of my constituents.
Back to
this particular petition, as I said, it's been raised numerous times. The issue
here is not about the staff or the quality of the staff or anything like that,
it's about the fact that there's not always enough staff available to deal with
residents. Perhaps on paper it may look good but if you're not calling people in
and replacing them when they're off sick or when they're on holidays or you're
using this approach of not to replace the first sick call, then you're impacting
the seniors. In particular, these are the most vulnerable seniors of them all. I
encourage every Member to go to the Facebook group, Advocates for Senior
Citizens' Rights; you will see hundreds and hundreds of postings from people
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador with seniors, with loved ones in long-term
care who have experienced some of the things that have been indicated here.
Again, they believe primarily due to lack of available staffing at all times.
I
certainly encourage the government to take a look at this. The federal
government now, they learned through COVID – we know what's happened in
long-term care homes on the Mainland. We're lucky that didn't happen here, of
course, and they've done a good job through the COVID-19, but during regular
times, there's certainly an indication that there's not enough staffing at all
times to take care of our seniors and we must make sure we do so.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 3, second reading of Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 25, An Act To
Amend The Social Workers Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Social Workers Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Social Workers Act.” (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
My
speaking notes are so old that it says, I stand in this hon. House to commence
debate, but I'm quite happy to continue from a sitting position.
I think
it would be remiss of me, however, if I didn't note that originally I had
intended to bring this piece of legislation forth during National Social Work
Month and also to acknowledge the work that our health care providers, in
general, have done for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the last
three to four months. They have risen to an occasion which is truly a
generational kind of issue, and I really can't say enough good things about
them.
If you
ever wanted a moto for the health care system at a time of challenge, it is:
improvise, adapt and overcome. I think that has been the moto in the way they
have worked over the last little while and, indeed, continue to do so as they
deal with some of the issues we've heard about today, brining back some sense of
normalcy to one of our busiest public sectors.
The
rationale behind this is that in this province we have social workers in a wide
variety of departments. In actual fact, if I'm not mistaken, one of my
colleagues may address the fact that her department has more than anyone else's,
and it's not health care.
They
work in public service. They work in the private sector. They work with
children, adolescence; they work with their families. They work with seniors and
their families, both in acute-care settings and in long-term care, and, indeed,
they are instrumental in helping support seniors in their decision-making about
how to be cared for and care for themselves at a time in their life when they
need a little bit more than they can do totally by themselves.
They
also work in the education system. They work in the justice system. They have an
immense body of counselling skills. They use these skills for support of
individuals who find themselves going through these various services for
whatever reason.
Mr.
Speaker, social work has been a regulated profession in this province since
1992. The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers is the
regulatory authority. It's responsible for licensure and it's responsible for
regulation of social workers in accordance with the
Social Workers Act, which is now what
we're setting to amend.
In
broad-brush terms, the association is responsible for acting in the interest of
the public and to do so by establishing and maintaining standards of
professional conduct, knowledge and skill amongst its member; ensuring
competency of social workers; protecting the public interest; and promoting,
increasing and improving the knowledge skill, efficiency and proficiency of its
members in all matters related to the profession and practice of social work in
the province.
The
association's mandate is potentially around, in this element, ensuring that
social workers are qualified to do the job and that they provide services to the
people of the province in accordance with standards of professional and ethical
excellence that really cover social work as a profession at large.
The
Social Workers Act amendment here,
Bill 25, does a couple of things. It's actually to remove the term “association”
from the name so that the name would henceforth be the Newfoundland and Labrador
College of Social Workers, to better reflect its public protection mandate.
If you
recall, we had similar amendments in the Nurses Act when we amended the name of
the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador to the College
of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. The title college is now
generally accepted in the public domain as being one that is involved with
standard setting and regulation, whereas by and large associations have had a
more advocacy-focused role and that certainly, in the case of the registered
nurses, led to some confusion. I think here as well, the college would also like
to clarify that they are a regulator and a licensing body responsible for public
protection and standards, rather than necessarily an advocacy group on behalf of
social workers.
The
second thing the bill wants to do is update the definition of social work. The
logic behind that is that the scope of practice – they are a self-regulating
profession; their scope of practice has changed since the original act. As a
result of that, they find themselves needing to update, refresh their
definition. Whatever the changes here were during discussions with the social
workers, we have not removed its responsibility for public protection. That will
not change, nor is it the desire of any party to do that.
The
amendments around the definition of social work clarify that when individuals
provide service using the skills and training that they have, when they use what
they're taught to do they are actually doing social work. I think that needed
some clarity around reference to their knowledge theory and skills that they
accrue over the course of their degree and subsequent training.
It also
clarifies that these skills do not necessarily reflect those that are unique to
social work in the sense that others may possess them, such as counselling
skills and these kinds of things. Basically, it says that if you practice from a
social work perspective, then you are doing social work as reflected for the
purposes of the act.
It also
amends clarity around managing programs, so that when you're employing social
work skills and training that also is a managerial responsibility within the
definition of social work. The amended definition also reflects the role of
social work in the policy sphere of health policy in general. It aligns with the
interpretation of the definition by the association when they responded to
inquires.
There
are a couple of other elements here that were timely. What it was trying to do
was align the requirements for licensure under situations pertaining to a
pandemic that would remove any barriers should we find ourselves in a situation
challenged to deal with a workload that the existing licensed body of social
workers couldn't cope with, as it were.
There
was, however – particularly around the definitions I've just mentioned – a
suggestion or a requirement that the bill would come into force at the end of
September. That would fit with the delay in proclamation that we had when we
amended the Nurses Act back last year. It requires some administrative changes.
It requires some publication changes, specifically around materials that would
bear a logo or their name and, obviously, this would be best done in a managed
transition.
Whilst
in a sense they may appear to be housekeeping, from the view of the social work
community they are viewed as very significant indeed; particularly in their
recognition of the regulatory role of social work college and also in
enshrining, I think, a little more clearly what the contribution is that social
workers make in their everyday activities around the support they provide to
people in the province. They are a very important part of our health care
system, our education system and our justice system.
This was
a very collaborative process. It's not something that we came up with in the
department and pulled out of a hat. This was driven by – in the same way the RNU
were keen to have their amendments last year, this is very much a parallel
process where the social-work community sat down on frequent occasions, as they
could in face-to-face circumstances in those days, to help draft the bill.
It has
broad support across the social-work community and certainly the association,
and what hopes to be the college very shortly, would have no doubt in standing
up and supporting this. Indeed, there had been a hope, when this was originally
presented, that social workers may actually have been present in the gallery to
show their support. Unfortunately, they are not able to be here because of the
chief medical officer of health response to COVID-19.
I think
it's another episode in legislation where we're ever greening and updating our
legislation to make it current and relevant to today, rather than necessarily
kind of stuck in the past, as it were. I really don't have an awful lot more to
add at this stage. I've only used a fraction of my introductory time, but I
think I would look forward to comments from my colleagues on either side of the
House.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will metaphorically take my seat once again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 25,
An Act to Amend the Social Workers Act, this is a very big part of the public
sector, obviously, and it's a very important role in carrying out a system of
care, as opposed to any kind of silos or anything.
I think
with the changing of the name from association to college, it's more coming in
line, I guess, with a national standard. As the minister pointed out, it makes
it more current and relevant as a regulatory body. The regulatory body is
setting standards and regulations, and it's a self-regulating profession. There
needs to be some checks and balances in there to make sure, I guess, that vacant
positions are becoming filled in a timely manner, because as we know our social
workers are working with the vulnerable of our society, from seniors to youth,
and they have to keep the public interest at heart as well.
It's a
fine balance, and I very much respect social workers. When they go into that
profession, it's a level of care that you're willing to provide. A lot of times
I think it goes over and above anything you learn in theory, because not always
does theory relate to the real world. So it's a system that we'd like to see
probably more acknowledgement of what's going to happen in the workplace and
stuff like that, because as we know there are many challenges in many different
areas.
Like I
said, social workers obviously are an integral piece of our system of care. They
deserve government support to bring their professional expertise to the
residents of the province. Social work being defined in the act differentiates
these professionals from other types of counselling. So to work with society's
most vulnerable social workers' counselling is needed, and this is most times
the initial consultation that brings confidence to the client that they are
entering a system of care that is actually willing to help.
These
changes, as we see, are definitely necessary. When it comes to the board itself,
it's setting forth instead of having a president-elect, the president-elect will
be considered then the vice president. Then when that term of vice president is
ceased, the vice president moves into a two-year term of president. Then
consequently after that mandate, turns into a two-year term of past-president.
Which I think is a good part to the system, for the simple fact that you have
the same people looking at the regulatory process for six years and know what
goes on there and then the more people that come into the system are more apt to
know where the college at this time, once we pass the amendment, will know to go
forward with their legal system.
So it's
welcome news. Like I said, it includes the reference to social workers with not
only their knowledge and theory but their skills. A lot of times these are
tertiary knowledge of how you grew up yourself, probably, that you bring to the
table that can make the difference in somebody's life.
As the
minister stated, this is one of the busiest pieces of our public sector, for the
simple fact they deal with the vulnerable in our society, from youth to seniors
and people living with disabilities, anything like that. So it's definitely some
welcome changes to the act. They are necessary to go by more a well-developed
system, I guess, that brings them more inline with a national standard. It's
something that we, as the Official Opposition, are willing to support.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
enjoyed listening to the comments from my critic, actually, the Member for
Placentia West – Bellevue. I do agree with lots he had to say, certainly, when
it comes to the checks and balances that should be in place for folks that work
in this profession.
Mr.
Speaker, it comes down to accountability. I believe we've never been in a time
before in our province more than where the people of the province expect that
accountability across departments, but perhaps none more so than when we talk
about things. I'm going to speak for a moment through the lens of child welfare,
that's in my department.
My
colleague, the Minister of Health, said he believed I had the highest number of
social workers, but I will say to him of the 1,600 registered social workers, I
believe I am in a close second to health. I think he's beat me on this one item
here.
Mr.
Speaker, today we're talking about sort of a minor change here to Bill 25, a
bill that would amend the Social Workers
Act. Basically, we're changing the name from Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Social Workers to the Newfoundland and Labrador College of Social
Workers.
This
bill proposes to change the name to better reflect its public protection
mandate. The association, Mr. Speaker, carries out a critical role of protecting
the public by licensing social workers who have the necessary education,
training and competencies to practice in this province. Changing the name to the
Newfoundland and Labrador College of Social Workers will help to better identify
their role.
The bill
also proposes to update and clarify the definition of social work, including
adding a specific reference to social work knowledge, theory and skills.
Clarifying that managing programs when employing social work skills and training
is social work and acknowledging the role of social work in the health policy
sphere.
These
amendments, Mr. Speaker, it is hoped, will clarify any confusion regarding the
association's role as regulator and will update and clarify the definition of
social worker to avoid confusion as to the application of the act.
In our
province, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers is the
legislated authority responsible for the regulation of social workers who work
throughout our province. Mr. Speaker, when we look across Newfoundland and
Labrador, where do social workers work? We see them in hospitals, in schools, in
child welfare, mental health, addictions, housing, palliative care, corrections
and policy development, so just like we've been hearing this afternoon.
Social
worker is a profession that does work with some of our most vulnerable. They
work often in very, very difficult circumstances. People look to them often when
something is very broken, when they need support.
Mr.
Speaker, NLASW holds all social workers accountable for offering the highest
quality professional services to their clients, specifically the NLASW standards
of practice outline the practice requirements for social workers in our province
to ensure safe, ethical and competent professional practice.
Many
times since I've been in the Department of CSSD – it'll be three years next
month; time goes fast, Mr. Speaker – I've been on my feet commending and
applauding the difficult work of social workers, but there's another side as
well and that's why it's important that we talk about and that we have in place
the checks and balances. Because while we may have nine of every 10 social
workers that are out there that are going above and beyond, sometimes for
various reasons – and you know we all make different career choices – sometimes
we might have somebody in that field perhaps that were not meant to be. They
might have been meant to be somewhere else. That's why it's very, very important
that we have standards of practice in place, Mr. Speaker, that hold folks in
this profession today, in particular that we're talking about, to the highest
standard in the areas of competence, documentation, confidentiality, ethical
decision-making, advocacy and social policy, professionalism and accountability.
Mr.
Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning the 1,600 social workers that are
registered with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers and
one-quarter of those who are currently working in my department. We also have
social workers over in Housing that do very valuable work out in some of our
eight community centres that would be around the province and that work with
very vulnerable families.
The
mandate of CSSD – it's a large social department – is to support individuals,
families and communities around this province in achieving improved health and
social well-being and reduced poverty, and to ensure the protection of children,
youth and adults from abuse or neglect. We would have children on one end with
child welfare that would work with social workers and we also have the
Adult Protection Act which is housed
in CSSD. We would also have social workers working with – sometimes there are
adults that may lack capacity and need supports, et cetera. The department
promotes the values of inclusion, diversity and healthy active living and are
working for the well-being of all.
Mr.
Speaker, CSSD could not carry out its valuable work for the people of this
province without the skills, knowledge and professional practice of social
workers. Each and every front-line child protection social worker in my
department and also the staff managing these programs are required to be
registered with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers as a
condition of employment.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to say that again because we are only, I believe, the third
or fourth province in the country that requires this. They are required to be
registered with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers as a
condition of employment. What this does is it ensures that CSSD social workers
are held to a very high standard from the moment they are hired, and so they
should be. No disrespect to some of my other colleagues across departments but I
say it all the time, it's not roads, it's not water and sewer, it's not
infrastructure, it's lives. It's very important decisions dealing with lives
every day that folks in this profession would be doing.
We are
one of only four provinces in Canada – I misspoke when I said three – which
requires regulatory registration for child protection social workers. This means
that CSSD social workers must meet the strict requirements to be a registered
social worker and they are held accountable to meet the professional criteria
set by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers.
Mr.
Speaker, I will also say social work is not easy work. It takes patience and
compassion. It takes a dedication to helping people, families and communities.
People who enter this profession, they do so because of their strong commitment
to help others, and I've seen this first-hand. I often say to social workers
when I travel around the province, it's a work of heart.
I've had
the opportunity to be in Central, to be on the West Coast, to be in a number of
communities in Labrador, Mr. Speaker – some very remote communities where the
work is extremely challenging, some places where we have social workers that fly
in as teams, two weeks in, two weeks out – yet people step up for this job all
the time and, actually, instead of focusing on the challenges, they focus on the
reward they receive from helping others. I've always been impressed with the
level of commitment that I have seen as I have visited many of the offices
throughout the province.
In each
of these visits, Mr. Speaker, I make a point. Once the business is done,
whatever reason I'm there to visit, I usually pull the social workers into a
boardroom; sometimes I meet individually with social workers because I want to
hear from them. I want to hear what their challenges are and I want to hear what
we can be doing in the department, Mr. Speaker, to better support them.
Every
day, I have a great executive team that works extremely hard and I should give
them a shout-out because they have certainly worked hard through COVID.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Most of the people in CSSD would be considered essential workers, Mr. Speaker.
But still, every day when I sit with the executive in the department, they are
giving me a view through one lens. That's why it's always been important for me,
right from day one, that I get out into community when I have the opportunity to
also sit and speak and talk with the social workers. They give me another
perspective; they give me another view, and when I come back into the
department, sometimes I ask different questions based on those conversations.
Let's
just it leave at that. Each time I get out and I talk with them, I'm always left
with a very profound respect for the people who have chosen this profession and
the stellar job that they are doing serving the people of our province, Mr.
Speaker.
Social
workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador strive to promote and demonstrate
excellence in the profession and practice of social work, but as I mentioned,
sometimes it only takes one. When you're on a team, Mr. Speaker, nine can be
doing a great job and it only takes that one sometimes. It is unfortunate, but
it can taint the whole team. That's why I say when – I was going to say when
they fail or if they fail, but they are only human as well. When social workers
fail to meet the standards expected of them, the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Social Workers is our check and balance – that's what we're
talking about here this afternoon – through its complaint and discipline
process, designed to professionally and objectively review allegations against
professional social work practice.
We get
them sometimes, Mr. Speaker. We have around 350 social workers in my department
that are spread all across this province and while the majority are doing great
work, periodically we do get a complaint. One thing I can tell you is that when
a complaint is received, there are levers in place and there are checks and
balances. There are things that get pulled. There is an investigative process
that happens on a number of levels within the department, and sometimes we see
that the Advocate, when things are made public, she does her own investigation,
but any time we get feedback within the department on an area that someone has a
concern about, we start to dig and investigate into that very timely and we take
it very, very serious.
The
purpose of this process is to provide clarity regarding professional obligations
and responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, it's all about holding them to a higher
standard and to ensure social work clients have their right to skilled, ethical
and professional services affirmed. Social workers are expected to maintain the
public trust in social workers and the social work profession.
People
trust them, Mr. Speaker. They are held at a very high standard because of the
type of work they do. So our social workers, they are not to discriminate
against any person due to culture, religion, social economic status, gender,
age, sexual orientation or disability. They are to carry out their work with
honesty, reliability and diligence.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers is the organization
which holds social workers in our province accountable to meet these
expectations. While the majority of social workers will meet and exceed these
expectations, it is the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers
in its regulatory role that is able to address those that do not. I cannot
underline how important that is.
I want
to say I am pleased to stand – I feel like we're on all the COVID couch those
days, because after seven years of saying I'm pleased to stand and support, I am
sitting, but very happy to support Bill 25. I believe it will strengthen the
overall accountability of the social work profession in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador and that's very, very important, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank my colleague for bringing forth this piece of legislation and thank him
for the opportunity to speak to the bill today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak to this bill as well. It's been covered by previous speakers
but just to clarify what this amendment to the act is doing. It's essentially
changing the name of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers
to the Newfoundland and Labrador College of Social Workers. It's updating
terminology used to describe the executive members of the board of directors and
it's also to clarify the roles and responsibility of the board of directors and
the college.
These
changes, to some, may seem miniscule but they are very important. Ensuing the
act is updated is important, just as the profession of social work is extremely
important.
Social
work, as has been touched on, is a profession. It's concerned with helping
individuals, families, groups and communities to enhance their individual and
collective well-being, so they serve a huge role. They help people develop
skills and they, as a result, require a unique blend of skills and knowledge.
The Minister of Health and Community Services, I believe, mentioned that it's
unfortunate that we're not speaking to this during National Social Worker week
because it's a good opportunity to throw a bouquet and applaud the work they do
in a wide variety of ways.
I
actually had the benefit or the opportunity of working the front lines in the
social work department through my public service career: twice during two work
stoppages and, of course, once through 9/11. It was extremely eye-opening. I
don't think the general public has a good understanding of what some of our
social workers go through on a daily basis and some of the clients they have to
deal with who are in dire need and in extreme situations.
Our
social workers deal with quite an array of areas. Just think about it. Many deal
with long-term care issues. We heard about some of that today in a Member's
petition. They have to deal with our elderly and the families of our elderly in
specific situations. Primary health care: Social workers are involved in primary
health care on a daily basis. Family service agencies: Dealing with family
issues, and family concerns and family court. Think about it. I mean really,
think about your own family, but then you're dealing with multiple issues of
other families that need a skilled, and knowledgeable and independent
individual, professional individual, to help them out.
Child
welfare: The Member for Torngat mentioned – Torngat?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.
MR. P. DINN:
Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair,
right, mentioned that earlier as well, talk about child welfare; investigating
concerns around family violence, investigating child abuse and neglect, going in
and taking a child from a home. Really, think about it. Then recruiting a foster
home and foster parents to look after this child in an interim period. I can't
do that. I had the opportunity, like I said, to be on the front lines for a
couple of times, during a couple of work stoppages and 9/11, and that was only
for a short period of time. Our social workers do this on a daily basis.
They
also deal with issues around mental health, psychiatric hospitals and school
boards. Some of the most stressful jobs in the world to have – and I hesitate to
say this because I'll never hear the end of it from my brother – but one is
teaching, and up there with that is social work. Social work as well up there in
the top of the list.
Dealing
with correctional facilities and correctional institutes; helping offenders,
young and old, to rehab back into the community – huge, huge responsibility;
helping some to readjust to the community. I think of the movie
The Shawshank Redemption when one of
the long-term occupants of the prison was released and just could not deal with
being out in the real world as I'll call it. You have social workers that have
to deal with that.
When
you're dealing with the schools – and our school, our education system has
changed. We have more and more children of special needs. We have social workers
who are in the schools dealing with children with aggressive behaviours,
children who are not showing up for school, children who have family problems at
home, children who come to school to get a lunch, really. You have social
workers who deal with those individuals as well.
The
department I worked many of my years with, Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour, of course deals with welfare administration, income support. To see some
of the individuals who come in to see a social worker on that and the situation
they are in – and you're following policy and following regulations and here's
the most I can give you – I don't know how their heart works for this. I don't
know how their heart can't break every day when you look at some of the
individuals you have to deal with, but you have guidelines to deal with it.
Really,
it really takes a special person to become a social worker. To become a social
worker, when you go in and you want to help people – and it's a strong
commitment that was said earlier as well. You need a strong commitment to help
people. Just on the other side of that, when you talk to social workers – and I
mentioned earlier about stress – it's not an easy occupation. I think unless
you're involved in it on a daily basis or see it on a daily basis, you do not
realize what they go through.
Depression, anxiety, emotional issues are substantially higher as social
workers. They have issues with their poor psychological well-being if they're
there too long and it's stress related. They have issues with their physical
well-being. They are important. This legislation is good in making it more
accountable in how we help clients and how we deal with the board or the college
now. I think, at this time, we also need to take a closer look at what we do for
social workers.
Social
workers, I guarantee you, need supports. Because you say to yourself: What are
they getting out of it? Most, being the professionals they are, will say
satisfaction. If I could take one child out of an abusive environment and place
he or she in a loving home, then that's satisfaction. But I would suspect there
are a lot of other negative issues they deal with in order to get to that one
file that gives them satisfaction.
In
addition to this here going ahead, I think it would be also prudent on our part
to look at what supports we give our social workers, what toolbox we give our
social workers, what we can do to help them in a proactive manner to be the
professionals they are and to do and provide the services they can to the wide,
wide variety of clients that they help. Again, they're helping individuals,
they're helping groups, they're helping communities and they're helping them all
to be more than they can be.
We
certainly, on this side, have no issue with this bill going forward, this act to
amend. I just hope that in future discussions we dig a little deeper into what
we can do to assist our social workers in the job that they do on a daily basis.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):
Seeing no other speakers,
if the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will close the
debate.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker
Just for
the sake of Hansard, and for the
record, I will be supporting this bill, to change the name and the other couple
of changes that are associated to it.
I
certainly want to recognize, as others have, the great work that social workers
do in our province.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I really feel privileged here again today to represent the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis and say a few words on this bill. I
wasn't going to speak, but I felt like I had to. I have a daughter who's a
social worker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I think when we talk about
social workers in this House of Assembly that it would be a great opportunity
for me to get up and acknowledge the great work they do.
I see it
first-hand, and I see the passion that a lot of our social workers have. Like my
colleague from Paradise mentioned, it's such a wide variety of work in which
they do, from taking care of our elders in seniors' homes to in hospitals and in
everyday life when it comes to taking care of the most vulnerable people in our
society. So to make any changes that will make social workers' lives a little
easier or to give them the tools that they need to perform their duties, it's
important.
First
when my daughter told me she wanted to be a social worker, I was trying to talk
her out of it because I said, no, you're way too soft to be at that; that's not
the type of job that I think you should be involved in. As he became a social
worker and I watched her over the last number of years do her job, I'm very
proud of her and very proud of the job that she does because I do realize that
it takes a special person and it takes a person that is a very caring person. I
have to say, she's a very caring person.
I just
wanted to say today to all social workers in our province, we appreciate – it's
a hard job it's a very difficult job. The Member from Paradise also mentioned
the duties sometimes that they have to do. When you're dealing with family care
and you're dealing with abusive situations and where children are involved, when
there are drugs involved or domestic abuse and whatnot, sometimes that's the
person who has to go and make the hard decisions. The Member for Cartwright -
L'Anse au Clair mentioned some of that also.
It's
very important that we, as a government, be there for those people and be there
to make sure that they have the supports that they need in order to carry out
the work that they need to carry out.
I was
there a couple of times when they came down to my daughter's house; I was
speaking to a lot of social workers. There are a lot of young social workers in
this province. I know, as a social worker develops, it seems like their career
develops also. When you're becoming a social worker, sometimes it's hard to get
into what you want to do, so you start off in the most difficult jobs there are,
and the younger they are.
I tell
you, the people that I have seen involved in social work, that I've been around,
are all dedicated and they start right at that front-line work. I always
remember when my daughter had an opportunity to work, that's where she wanted to
work. They're eager. A lot of our young social workers in this province are very
eager and they want to work, and I commend them all.
Like I
said, I just wanted to give my support to all the social workers in this
province and I really want to say thank you for the great job you do. Sometimes
the appreciation is not there when you're dealing with hard situations, but as
long as your heart is there, that's all that matters.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't
belabour this. This is an excellent bill. This amendment brings the
Social Workers Act into current times.
It reflects their roles and responsibilities appropriately, and it reflects the
changing nature of their work. I would just like to go on record as saying the
New Democratic caucus does support this bill. We laud the work of social workers
here in the province, and any opportunity we get to help them ease their burden
in a lot of the work they do, we wholeheartedly support that.
Thank
you very much for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and you will have our support
in passing this bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Minister of Health and
Community Services speaks now, he will close the debate.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
great to hear the contributions from Members opposite, including a nice personal
touch from the Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
I look
forward to any questions in Committee, as long as they're simple ones, and I
commend this bill to the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 25 now be read a second 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.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Social Workers Act. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Social Workers Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
25)
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and that the House be
resolved into a Committee of the Whole.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Bennett):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 25.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Social Workers Act.” (Bill 25)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In
clause 1, it reflects the expanded role of practice for a social worker. In some
cases, individuals who are social workers may also practice a different type of
therapy.
How does
the college regulate an individual who may be trained in more than one
discipline?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The
college only regulates those people who are practicing social work in the
context of social work. Anything outside of that would fall outside their
mandate.
So if,
in the hypothetical posed over there, a social worker was acting outside of the
scope of social work, then it would be outside the mandate of the college to
regulate that specific activity. They may have an interest if it for some reason
brought the profession into disrepute indirectly, but they only regulate social
work as defined in the act.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
The legislation reads: “Where
the vice-chairperson, for any reason, does not assume the position of
chairperson under subsection (3), a chairperson shall be selected as provided
for in the by-laws.”
Is the
minister able to outline what this process is?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
The by-laws are the property,
as it were, of what is currently the association. I would have to go back and
check exactly what it is. My understanding is that would be a collective
decision of the board of the association as it currently is. That would not
change under this. The by-laws are a separate body which are written under the
framework of this legislation, or the previous act anyway.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
In the briefing, we were told
that an individual is elected to the position of president-elect where they
spend two years, then they serve as president for two years and then past
president for two more years. This bill will change the office from
president-elect to vice-president, but the succession plan, planning rotation
will no longer be contained in the legislation.
Previously, it appeared in section 10 of the act but it appears to be removed.
Is the succession plan schedule contained in the regulations or the college's
by-laws, and why is it being removed from legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
That's a general trend across
legislation is to leave the regulatory, the by-law piece outside of the act.
One of
the challenges with the Social Work Act
and with a couple of other acts is we've had to come back into the House for
this body, whereas if you looked at say another self-regulating profession,
there's an umbrella piece of legislation then there are regulations which LGIC
or the minister would proclaim and then by-laws written under that. That is the
logic behind this. It would still be encoded in the by-laws which are the
property of the college.
From our
point of view, we have no firm stance one way or another on whether these terms
should be two or three years, for example, if they wish to change them. The plan
they have there used to be certainly a very well established way of establishing
continuity over time.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Due to COVID-19 there have
been some delays, obviously. The date contained in the draft legislation was
September 30, 2020. The bill is supposed to come into force on September 30,
2020.
Given
that this legislation was supposed to be debated in March, will it still come
into effect on September 30?
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
This delay was to accommodate
the association/college's request to do the administrative work behind it. I
have not heard that that has changed. Absent that, I would stick with the date
there.
CHAIR:
Any other questions to clause
1?
Shall
clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 34
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 34
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 34 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Social
Workers Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 25
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I move,
Mr. Chair, the Committee rise and report Bill 25.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 25.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Lewisporte - Twillingate.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 25 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters referred to them
and directed him to report Bill 25 without amendment.
When
shall this report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper Order 4, second reading of Bill 27.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader, that Bill 27, An Act To Amend
The Personal Property Security Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Personal Property Security Act, be now read a
second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Personal Property Security Act.”
(Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to speak in the hon. House again today to introduce amendments to
legislation within the mandate of Service NL. Mr. Speaker, my department
provides a wide range of services to residents of Newfoundland and Labrador,
including licensing and inspections related to public health, public safety and
environmental protection, as well as the provision of vital documents.
It
regulates the health and safety of employees in the workplace in Newfoundland
and Labrador, and also safeguards consumer interests. Through the Motor
Registration Division it performs driver testing, issues driver licences,
vehicle registrations and other photo identification cards. It is also
responsible for achieving safety on public highways through a number of program
areas.
Mr.
Speaker, Service NL was created with the aim of consolidating, to the extent
possible, the licensing, permitting, inspecting and regulating functions within
government and providing a single window access point to the public for those
services. The authority to carry out its functions comes from over 150 pieces of
legislation, standards and codes of practice.
So, Mr.
Speaker, one of these pieces of legislation is the
Personal Property Security Act. It regulates the creation and
registration of security interests in Newfoundland and Labrador, such as an
enforceable legal claim or a lien in collateral that is placed against a loan.
As an example, a consumer may borrow money to purchase a vehicle and that lender
typical registers a lien on the vehicle. If an individual defaults on the loan,
the lender can repossess or take the vehicle back. Once the loan has been paid
in full, the lender then releases their interest on the vehicle.
In other
words, when an individual secures a loan, assets are placed against the loan
which gives the lender the right to repossess all or part of the property if the
borrower stops making loan payments. This practice allows the lending industry
to reduce the risk on a loan, which in turn allows for a lower interest rate and
borrowing costs. It is a mutually beneficial agreement in that the borrower can
take advantage of lower financing and the lender has security that the debt will
be repaid.
Back in
2007, amendments were made to the uniform
Securities Transfer Act, another piece of legislation under the mandate of
Service NL. This act provided for uniform laws for the transfer of all
securities and focused on facilitating the electronic transfer of those
securities. Securities are defined as financing or investment instruments which
are bought and sold in financial markets, such as bonds, options, shares,
stocks, warrants, just to name a few. As a result of the changes to that
legislation, there were unintended consequences to the
Personal Property Security Act. These
unintended changes altered the description of collateral, thereby reducing the
options of what can be used as collateral in a security agreement.
Mr.
Speaker, section 11 of the Personal
Property Security Act provides a list of what can be considered collateral.
Prior to the 2007 amendments, it stated: by item or kind, or by reference to one
or more of the following: goods, document of title, chattel paper, security,
instrument, money or intangible. When the changes to the uniform
Securities Transfer Act were made in
2007, the description in section 11 of the
Personal Property Security Act was changed to “by item or kind as 'goods',
'chattel paper', 'investment property', 'documents of title', 'instruments',
'money' or 'intangibles' ….”
The
insertion of “as” before the list of categories and the removal of the final
clause including the “or” indicates the collateral must be one of the categories
listed. It reduced the options of what can be used as collateral in a security
agreement by changing the description. Because of the amendment, acceptable
securities have been limited specifically to only goods, chattel paper,
investment property, documents of title, instruments, money or intangibles.
As a
result of this unintended consequence, the province is the only Canadian
jurisdiction with such legislative wording. Amending section 11 of the
Personal Property Security Act would ensure the original spirit and
intent of the legislation is upheld.
The
proposed bill will realign Newfoundland and Labrador with other jurisdictions,
thereby achieving the original objective of harmonization of the legislation
throughout the country. It also addresses the return of the words “or another
person on the secured party's behalf” at the end of the subsection to align with
other jurisdictions in the country.
Mr.
Speaker, it's incumbent upon us, as a government, to ensure that legislation is
meeting the needs of our residents. It is also incumbent upon us to address
corrections that are required when we are made aware of any inaccuracies. In
this particular case, the unintended consequences resulted from the 2007
amendments; they came to light as a result of a court challenge.
Mr.
Speaker, we continue with our efforts regarding better services and better
outcomes for the people of our province. An important aspect of these objectives
is our continued focus on ensuring our legislation is both modern and effective.
Legislation should be easily understood and interpreted. When it comes to
matters such as personal property, security and an interest in collateral, we
can easily see the significance in making sure it is clear and cohesive.
I
believe, Mr. Speaker, that the bill we have introduced today will achieve just
that in terms of the Personal Property
Security Act. I look forward to the debate and from hearing from Members on
all sides of the Legislature.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
For the
second time today, it's a privilege to be here on behalf of the beautiful
District of Cape St. Francis and the beautiful people in the District of Cape
St. Francis.
Mr.
Speaker, I was a former critic for the Department of Service NL and the minister
is right when he first named off all the duties of Service NL. Like I always
say, it seems like they have you from the time you're born to the time you die
and everything in between.
I know
last week we debated a bill here in the House of Assembly when it came to
automobile dealers and safety on the road. At that time, I had the opportunity
also to speak on the bill, and I just want to go and say a little something.
I want
to congratulate the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's because she was the
previous minister of Service NL and while I was critic she did such a fantastic
job making sure our roads were safe and stuff like that. I don't care what
colour you are, red, blue, orange, whatever it is, we all have to be here for a
reason, to make sure that our residents are safe. I think over the last number
of years we've done that in some of the changes we've made.
Now,
when you look at the Personal Property
Security Act, I have a lot of notes, Minister, of what you outlined. I'm not
going to go into the detail like you did, but I'm just going to hit a couple of
points.
Making
this language of section 11 consistent with the rest of the Atlantic provinces
and the rest of the country, I believe it's a part of what we're planning on
doing because we were a little bit different. It's also just correcting some
cross-referencing in sections of the act.
When we
talk about, like I said earlier, Service NL, they do handle a lot. When we talk
about security guards and security and stuff like that, we also can talk about
Service NL because that falls under there for regulations and stuff like that,
but this is a little different. This is financial security, what we're talking
about here today. The act is used to regulate and create registration of
security interest on personal property for the province.
What
we're doing here in this act today is we're dealing with two different groups.
We're dealing with creditors and debtors, and we're talking about collateral and
the security of making a debt payment. I would imagine that most of the people
in this province and most of the people in this House of Assembly at some time
had to go get a loan and sometimes a signature. If you're buying something which
costs money, a new car or something like that, they'll see what your debt is
like and they'll also look and see what assets you have, whether it's a home,
whether it's a piece of property, whether you have some investments or something
like this, or you might need somebody to sign a loan for you and they put up
whatever they have. So this is what we're talking about here today.
There
are all kinds of different titles when you talk about personal property in this.
The minister went through all kinds of them, like the document title, investment
properties, instruments, money and intangibles. The officials in the department,
when they discussed the security interest, the officials described it as a lien
or collateral that has been pledged to obtain a loan. So that's what you need to
obtain a loan.
I know
most people in this House will understand that a lot of legislation that comes
through this House sometimes is considered, we call it, housekeeping. I wasn't
here in 2007, but the minister was. I would imagine back then in
Hansard it was described as purely
technical and there were no implications or impact and effect on any other
legislation. Now, people do make mistakes and, obviously, there was a mistake
made at that time because it did affect this act.
Back
then, like I said, it was brought in to be purely technical changes they had,
and pieces of legislation do change. The language sometimes – what happens in
one piece of legislation affects other legislation, and I think that's exactly
what happened in this case.
What
officials found out, that this was done – and it was unintended consequences of
these amendments and the changes to the language that were done in 2007. It
wasn't until 2018, when there was a court case and the judge looked at this –
and he even reviewed Hansard at the
time and looked at the Personal Property
Security Act and said there should be some changes. I think that's first
when the department became aware of the changes that needed to be made. It
wasn't just picked up by officials in the department; it was actually picked up
in a courthouse. Since then, the department also indicated that they're not
aware of any cases which this did impact in the court of law.
We're
making a change here today. It's not to make it wrong or right I guess, it's
just to correct what needs to be done in case this comes up and can have some
effect on courts down the road. It's more on a financial side than anything else
that the securities are worried about. It's just making sure the proper
regulations are in place and people play by the rules, and they know what they
can use when they're putting out trying to get a loan and what they can use to
be able to obtain that loan.
That's
the basic gist of it. I had some notes wrote down that the minister already went
through and I'm not going to go through those again. This is just based on what
happened in a court case in March of 2018 where the judge referenced section 11
of the act. He suggested then that someone should review that section, and I
guess the department did review the section. The changes you see here today,
which are very small, will be made so that the act is back to where it was
previous 2007.
So it's
the same act. The wording has gone back to what it was 2007 in this act. Like I
said, the changes were made and they were unintentional. No one thought there
would be any consequences to it, but sometimes when you do change one act, it
does have an effect on another.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Scio.
MS. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
a very exciting piece of legislation. I'm sure it's exciting to people who work
in securities and personal property securities. Previously, I worked in
financial services and I had become intimately familiar with the federal
Bank Act. That was very exciting at
the time, and I know this is kind of linked to that. I know it's kind of
difficult for the average person to wrap their head around the changes required
in this piece of legislation, but certainly very important for our financial
system.
So what
are we talking about here today? Security interests: enforceable claims on
collateral that have been pledged usually to obtain a loan. And the person with
a claim, they have the right to repossess all or part if the borrower doesn't
meet their obligations. That could be paying back a loan.
This
act, overall, provides a set of rules to govern rights of creditors and debtors
when personal property is used as collateral to secure payment of debt. That's
my understanding of it. This includes every transaction which in substance
creates a security interest without regard to its form and without regard to the
person with whom has title to the collateral. Security interests are created
through attachment. So that's a very important part of this piece of
legislation. Not the changes today, but the act overall.
Value
has to be given to the interest. The debtor has rights in the collateral and
they have to be enforceable against third parties. Overall, this regulates the
creation and registration of security interests in all personal property within
Newfoundland and Labrador. But that also excludes liens, interests and
annuities, insurance policies and interests in land. So it does not include any
of those things. Very nuanced and complex.
Then one
element in the changes today is around the description required on the financial
statements related to the personal security. The debtor must sign a security
agreement that contains a description of the collateral sufficient to enable it
to be identified or the secured party must have possession or control of the
collateral.
On the
financial statement, they're supposed to go into as much detail as possible
around the description of the asset. In some cases, for example, you just put
equipment, but then which equipment. So they have to go into as much detail as
possible.
I do
support, obviously, the change. It's very important that we make the language
consistent with other provinces, particularly when you're dealing with something
that is not in most people's everyday lives. Obviously, it is very important
that we correct the cross-referencing error that was noted. Overall, I support
this legislation.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
First of
all, I would just like to go into a little bit of background regarding the
Personal Property Security Act
legislation. This legislation, as has been noted previously, varies somewhat by
province and territory, but ultimately there are certain basic concepts that are
common to all provinces and territories. Just looking at the PPSA, we know that
it serves a very important function, this legislation does. I guess we can look
at the role for creditors first of all.
Creditors, when considering whether to grant secured credit, they need to have
confidence. They need to know that they're confident as to their positions with
respect to the collateral that's involved. As I've indicated, every province and
territory has legislation in place to provide an orderly system to give that
confidence and that protection, if you will.
Every
province and territory has this kind of legislation to recognize the interests
that people will have in personal property collateral. Every province and
territory sets out rules to determine priority disputes among competing claims
with respect to the same collateral. This law is important because it allows
lenders or creditors to grant credit, knowing where they will stand with respect
to the collateral in terms of competing claims.
Mr.
Speaker, this legislation is important because it applies to every transaction
that creates a security interest – in essence, every transaction. If the
transaction's real purpose is to create an interest in personal property, to
secure payment or if it's the performance of an obligation like a debt, then it
is classified as a security interest and, therefore, the PPSA will apply. That's
the background in terms of the Personal
Property Security Act that we need to understand. Credit transactions are a
very important and normal part of every business. Practically speaking, the PPSA
system provides potential creditors and buyers with a high level of protection,
so that's why it's so important.
A lender
can search the registry that's in place, the PPSA registry, before granting
credit to determine whether there are other existing borrowers out there
competing. Purchasers of goods can search the PPSA registry to also determine
whether the goods that they're interested in are subject to a security interest.
That would take priority over them. So it's really important because you
determine who has priority over collateral.
I guess
the main thing with respect to this legislation, the PPSA, it gives knowledge
and it gives the people the ability to make informed decisions and to have
confidence. This knowledge allows creditors and buyers to make informed
decisions, business decisions, with the confidence of knowing where they will
stand in the event of a default by the debtor. There's no question that the
Personal Property Security Act
legislation is very important.
With
respect to this particular amendment, we look at why it is being presented. I
guess there are a couple of things I'd like to point out regarding what I think
are relevant in terms of drafting legislation. We do know that it's important to
construct legislation that gives legal effect to government policy. It's
important, as well, in drafting legislation to ensure that we communicate the
law clearly to the people who are affected by it, the officials who administer
it and the judges who interpret it. Drafting legislation is a very critical,
important role.
The
meaning of the law is, in essence, what the courts determine it to be. We see in
this, with respect to this amendment, the officials became aware of the
unintended consequences through a court case in 2018. That court case was an
appeal and it talked about the language in subsection 11(1). In essence, the
appellant court judge reviewed the Hansard
and concluded that the changes were not meant to change the intent, which is
important. Although the case was upheld, the judge ruled that some of the
difficulty with the case related to the language of the act.
The
meaning of the law, again, is what the courts determine it to be. The role of
our courts, as we know, is the final authority on the meaning of legislation and
is one of the most important components of the rule of law. Some key principles,
when we're looking at statutory interpretation: one, we know that different
words mean different things; secondly, every word has a meaning; and third,
words are to be given their ordinary grammatical meaning. Those are some of the
key principles when one is assessing statutory interpretation. These principles
have many implications for legislation drafting.
That is
why I think we're here today. We're looking at the amendments which are proposed
in Bill 27 and all it's really asking is that we reinstate the original wording
as it was prior to 2017. It's a correction, if you will – it's an amendment or a
correction – and the purpose is to reflect what the intended meaning of this
legislation is to give us the clarity that we need and to be consistent across
jurisdictions.
In view
of that, Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this amendment to correct that error
and I conclude on that point.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
commend the Member for Harbour Main on her legal view on this. I am going to
cast my professional view on this and provide a bit of an economics perspective
on it all.
I would
like to point out that the Minister of Health and Community Services has
repeatedly said that there's nothing like a good court case to improve the law,
and I think this is an excellent example of this. What we are seeing is we have
corrected some unintended consequences that we did not realize were the case
until we were challenged by a court case. What we see is these unintended
consequences highlight a need for due diligence in our legislation.
As a
slight aside, there is a story that's often told in economic theory when a
community was trying to rid their community of rodents and passed a law to say:
if you kill a rodent, you bring the tail to us and we will pay you – thinking
that all the rodents would go away. What actually happened was someone started a
rodent farm just outside of town and would harvest these rodents for their
tails. So we had a whole bunch of tailless rodents in a farm and people getting
paid for the tails they had cut off. That is an unintended consequence of
legislation.
What we
see here is we have another unintended consequence, albeit not quite as
dramatic, but it is a recognition that even when we try our hardest, quite often
we can possibly get legislation incorrect. So when we talk about correcting
these unintentional consequences, it's a testament to our need to regularly
review our legislation and take the due diligence to ensure that we avoid these
unintended consequences, but we also must ensure that our legislation matches
with any changes that are happening elsewhere in society.
For
example, when we were going through the expansionary period, just before the
housing market bubble collapsed, we found that a lot of people were getting what
they called NINJA loans, which is no income, no job, no assets loans. For some
reason, the legislation was not strict enough and it allowed individuals who
were not capable of perhaps paying their mortgage, were able to get a mortgage.
What
happened as a result of that was there were major regulatory changes in both
Canada and the United States that tightened that regulation to ensure that such
financial catastrophe was mitigated; that we wouldn't find ourselves in a
situation where too many people had too much debt, they were no longer capable
of paying for that and our financial house was built on a stack of cards, making
an untenable situation. What we saw as a result of that was the financial
collapse in the United States due to over mortgaging.
It is
vital that our legislation backs the requirements that are happening in the rest
of the world. As we reflect on this legislation, it's important to capture any
deregulation or new regulations that arise in our financial industry. What
you've seen in Canada is an increase in the stringency of evaluating individuals
who are getting mortgages. Your ability to get a mortgage is tighter; your down
payment is a little bit higher. There are much tighter regulations to avoid a
potential collapse again. We think that is an absolutely important thing, and
that's what we are doing, in effect, in this piece of legislation.
One of
the other things we are doing is also providing consistency across provinces.
That's going to enable us to, perhaps, integrate our legislation a little bit
better, but it also enables individuals who are moving across provinces and
engaging in this type of business across provinces to have at least similar
pieces of legislation so it's a little bit easier to maintain their work and
work environment.
I did
note – and this made me go look up the actual
Personal Property Security Act. I
notice that we have some interesting definitions here. If I was to teach an
introductory economics course right now, one of the first things that I do is I
define things, because the way in which you define things dictates the way in
which those things will be used and how a theory works and all of those good
things. If you quickly go down through section 11(b), you will note
“instrument,” but it's not defined. So I, of course, ran over to the act,
knowing full well that they were not defining a piano, but wanting to know
exactly what we were talking about when they talk about instruments. I find that
has a reasonable definition of instruments in here.
Also –
and this is something that will probably come up as we go into Committee – I
found that “intangible” was quite an interesting thing and I'm not quite sure
what they mean by this. It says personal property that's not goods, a document
of title, chattel paper, investment property, an instrument or money. So I'm not
quite sure what intangible means, but I'm very curious to find out and perhaps
the Minister of Finance can answer that once we move to Committee. I think that
is certainly an interesting piece. I'm not sure if everyone else is on the edge
of their seat waiting for that answer as well, but we can perhaps all guess what
that might be.
Beyond
that, certainly this piece of legislation brings everything into line. As we had
hoped, it does address those unintended consequences and it aligns our
legislation with that across a number of other provinces. At face value, we
support this and I look forward to our discussion in Committee.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, I have no problem with this piece of legislation. Just for the record, I
just wanted to say that I do support the legislation. Obviously, there was an
unintended error that occurred and we're simply just fixing that unintended
error here today. It makes all good sense. There's nothing earth-shattering
about this naturally, but the implications are important nonetheless. So it's
important that we fix this here today.
I will
be supporting it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board, if he speaks now he'll close the
debate.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker
I thank
all Members who spoke to this and some of the discussion that has taken place. I
think it highlights the importance of what happens here.
A couple
of the Members had indicated when they spoke, that as a result of the court
challenge the judge actually went back and read
Hansard, and as the judge read
Hansard it was clearly articulated – more so in the discussion that had
taken place in this Legislature than it was in the words in legislation – what
the intent of the legislation was. So needless to say government won the court
case or the challenge but it was highlighted the need to clarify in legislation
the intent, even though government had won the challenge in court.
What is
said in here is important. I often think of a former member here, Roger Grimes,
who constantly – one of his mantras were: words are important. It is important
what's said in here.
As
Members were speaking, the various Members and their different backgrounds, I
started looking around the Legislature, and we've got a diverse background. I
know one of my critics across the hall has a background in administering health.
We've got a farmer. We've got teachers, people who are involved in unions. We
have an economist here. We've had people who their profession were taxi drivers,
in this Legislature.
So we
bring a very diverse background which is, I think, part of what makes this place
important. If we were all physicians or we were all teachers or we were all
lawyers, you wouldn't have that same background to draw on different opinions or
a different way of looking at something that we debate in the Legislature.
So not
only are the 40 of us very privileged to be here to represent the people we
represent in the province, but the background that you bring represents
everybody in the province who shares that background with you. So it's
important, when we debate in this Legislature, the words that are used and what
we bring to the table. It is the reason, when this issue had gone to court, that
the judge had gone back and read Hansard.
There
are three areas of the law. In this Legislature we make laws, the law
enforcement enforce the laws that we make and judges interpret what that law was
supposed to mean. In between there, while it's not an official component of the
three areas of law, the lawyers will argue on one side of what a law means or on
another side of what a law means. Even when that's being debated in court and a
judge is looking at what legislation means, that debate back and forth will
often look at Hansard and what's said
in this Legislature as a decision is made and a judge interprets what was
intended to happen in this Legislature.
Anyhow,
it is the word housekeeping – I mean, that's essentially what this is, is
housekeeping – to fix a piece of legislation to what it was intended. And the
debate that had taken place around that legislation clearly articulated what was
intended. But the words could have been interpreted one way or the other in
debate. In a court setting the judge had ultimately – what essentially saved the
day was the debate that happened in this Legislature and the full intent of what
the legislation was intended.
So
again, I wanted to thank all Members who spoke to this legislation and
appreciate what you've contributed.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 27 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this 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
Personal Property Security Act. (Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill “An Act To Amend The Personal Property Security Act,” read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 27.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Bennett):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Personal Property Security Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Personal Property Security Act.” (Bill 27)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
The
proposed changes stem from a March 2018 court case. When was the department
aware of this issue?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Member for the question.
I
believe it was as a result of the decision that had gone to court. Again, the
judge had looked at the discussion that had taken place in
Hansard, but I believe it was that particular situation that
highlighted the fact that the wording could potentially be viewed – either way,
the judge looked at Hansard to
determine which way the wording was intended. But that is what highlighted –
before I conclude, I wanted to thank the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's as
well. Much of the work on this piece of legislation was done by her when she sat
in Service NL.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Why has it taken so long for these changes? Once it was recognized in 2018, why
are these changes occurring only now? Why didn't they occur earlier?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I will ask officials in the
department. I'm guessing at this stage that a jurisdictional scan was done to
determine what was put in place. I know that was done, but I'm guessing that's
part of the reason for the delay. I think this legislation was initially
introduced by the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's some time ago, when we last
sat, several months ago.
Part of
it was the jurisdictional scan that was done. Justice and Public Safety had
reviewed what was there, what was in place in other departments and, I guess,
the recognition from the court system that maybe greater clarification in the
wording was needed. But once I hear back on our trusty BBMs from officials, I'll
tell you the answer from the officials.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know that in the briefing
the department officials stated that they weren't aware of the impact on any
other cases. Was this brought up in other court cases, when it was going through
court?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
It's my understanding it was
only the one situation. Between 2007 and 2018, there was no challenge to this
particular wording. I understand from the deputy minister that because of the
large legislative agenda in Service NL, we didn't feel it was a threat as a
result of the recommendation from the justice that maybe we clarify the wording
because we did win the court case. It wasn't one of the hot top priorities, but
it did need to be done. Because of the large legislative agenda, other items got
done sooner.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
I'm just
wondering when these proposed amendments will come in effect.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
I would
say once this legislation passes and the Lieutenant-Governor proclaims them, and
they're gazetted, they'll come into effect. So it shouldn't take long.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
I know we're all really
curious about this. Can you tell me what the intangible is defined as? I'm
racking my brain on trying to figure out what that might be and I know it might
be just a catch-all.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
No, it's
a good question. I think it would things such as patents or trademarks would be
intangibles.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you
So
that's something that has a stream of income associated with it. This is lovely,
thank you.
The
other question that I would have would be: are you satisfied that we have this
bill in line now so that we won't find that there are any other inconsistencies?
We're up to date entirely?
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MR. OSBORNE:
I would hope so, so I will
give a cautionary yes. I would guess that the minister of Service NL back in
2007 would have said yes as well. Obviously, based on the debate in the
Legislature, the intent was what was ruled in court, but there are always errors
or omissions that are picked up.
Again,
the three legs of the legal system: the legislators, the law enforcement and the
people who interpret the law, the judges, there are times always which is what
makes this place – we'll never be out of business because we'll always need to
make amendments to law.
CHAIR:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess
one final question here would be: in the interim up, until we pass this, are you
aware of anyone who might have had any negative financial impacts as a result of
the law not being changed yet?
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
No, I'm
not. In fact, there was only one challenge and government felt strong in the
case against the challenge because government knew the intent of the language in
2007. Obviously, the judge, in reading
Hansard and looking at the intent – the intent was what the decision that
was made in court was. There was never an intent to change the intent in 2007;
it was to harmonize the bills.
CHAIR:
Any other questions to clause
1?
Seeing
and hearing none, all those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Personal
Property Security Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 27
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
the Committee rise and report Bill 27.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 27.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. Member for
Lewisporte - Twillingate, the Chair of Committee of the Whole.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and directed me to report
Bill 27 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 27 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time.
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We could
press on with more government business and conclude for this sitting this
evening, but I would suggest Members opposite would like to have their Question
Periods and Orders of the Day in the next number of days; therefore, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that we do
adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to speak to that motion. I do understand what the Government House Leader
is proposing. I don't have a problem with us carrying on in terms of having more
Question Periods, which is obviously the motivation for the Official Opposition
and the Third Party, and I don't blame them. There are a lot of questions to be
asked and answers that should be received on behalf of people. I'm certainly not
objecting to that process whatsoever, or saying we should just barrel on through
the legislation so we can shut the House down early, so to speak, in terms of
the days we would be sitting and not have that opportunity for a Question
Period. I have never had an issue with that.
The
amendment I brought forward, that was supported by my colleague for Bay of
Islands, on sitting on Wednesdays, that was exactly what we were saying then. We
weren't suggesting that Wednesday mornings we would be taking up time that would
interfere with the legislation or say we'd barrel through the legislation so we
would not have Question Period – quite to the contrary. We had suggested, Mr.
Speaker, that on Wednesdays we would be open and it would be Address in Reply so
that Members could stand and speak to issues important to their districts,
issues that they are having raised to them by constituents.
So in
the same spirit of that, right now we're talking about shutting the House down
now. It's only 4:30, the House is supposed to be open until 5:30. We want to
shut the House down because we don't want to proceed with legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't have a problem with not proceeding with legislation, but if we
have an hour here now on the clock, I don't know why we cannot take this time to
call Address in Reply so that Members, if they so wish, can stand and speak to
issues that are important to them; issues that are important to their
constituents. I know I have things that I want to raise. I know the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands has issues that he wants to raise.
I've
been contacted by, I don't know how many people in my district and throughout
the province who have major concerns about health care, about the major backlog
that we now have in our health care system. We all realize we're in challenging
times and so on, but even if we were to get back to normal with our health care
system and our health care authorities, even at the best of times there are
extended wait times for a number of procedures.
Albeit
the government, I will give them credit, there have been a number of procedures
which they have reduced wait times on. They've done a great job when it comes to
mental health services, as an example, and I give full marks for that. There are
a number of other procedures that they've reduced wait times, and I commend them
for that, but there still is a number of things, Mr. Speaker, in our health care
system where people are waiting, and now they're going to have to wait even
longer. People want to know, what is the plan going to be to deal with the
backlog in the health care system; not just to deal with the ongoing on a
go-forward basis.
There
are people that were diagnosed, Mr. Speaker, who found out perhaps three months
ago they had some kind of a growth in their body and now they're worried to
death. They're waiting to get a test to find out, is this growing any bigger?
What could it be? What is my diagnosis? And they're waiting on this. Now this
has been an extended period of time.
The
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, I've had people in my district the same
thing, waiting on heart procedures and so on. As time goes on their heart
conditions are getting worse and worse and worse. There are people really
concerned about, will I ever get to have my procedure before it's too late?
So these
are things, Mr. Speaker –
MR. SPEAKER:
I just want to remind the
Member that it has to remain relevant to the adjournment motion.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To bring
it around to that, I think the point I'm trying to make is that we have a motion
on the floor to shut down the House an hour early. What I'm suggesting, Mr.
Speaker, is that I do not agree with that motion because we have a number of
important things, like the issues I've been raising, that we want to speak
about, and I'm suggesting we should be going to Address in Reply.
I don't
know why the Opposition parties would be against it, I really don't, to be
honest with you, because, at the end of the day, they're still getting their
Question Period. I'm not saying that we're going to stop here now and all of a
sudden we're going to go into legislation. I'm saying let's go to Address in
Reply.
I'm sure
there are Members on this side who are getting complaints from people that they
want to talk about health care. I'm sure they getting the same calls as I'm
getting, Mr. Speaker, from people who have children in the K-to-12 system who
are really not happy with the way things went this year. There are people who
are worried about what the K-to-12 system is going to look like next year; how
we're going to address that with technology in some parts of the province we
just don't have the Internet capability.
People
who have children with special needs, who at the best of times, at the very best
of times, have all kinds of challenges, Mr. Speaker, with their children and
getting an equal education for their children. Now, how are we going to deal
with it when we're going to be having all these challenges around COVID-19 and
trying to do things virtually and so on? How are we going to deal with the
busing issue with COVID-19? How are we going to deal with the food issues in the
cafeterias and stuff like that, if we open up the schools?
I'm
getting calls as well about child care. We have significant concerns with child
care because now businesses are opening so more and more people are going back
to work who need child care, but the child care operators are at reduced
capacity. They can't handle the same number of children. What are they supposed
to do with their children? What is the plan to deal with that?
Then a
lot of daycares are saying, well, I'm operating at a reduced capacity so in
order to keep my doors open, I'm going to say to the parents who can't even get
a seat, who need one, I'm not going to give you a seat, but you're going to have
to pay for it anyway in order to keep our doors open.
Some of
these families are families who have been impacted by COVID-19 and so on, and
their finances have been impacted tremendously. They don't know how they're
going to do it, Mr. Speaker. So these are things that we need to talk about.
I
presented a petition in the House of Assembly today, Mr. Speaker, about
long-term care, which I've done numerous times. I'm still getting calls from
people who have concerns about long-term care. It's not about the staff at the
long-term care facility. They're doing the very best they can, Mr. Speaker, but
it's an issue around lack of staff. Not having those staff there at all times,
not replacing people when they call in sick or holidays or whatever. Then you
have seniors who are not getting the care that they need, they require and that
they deserve. I'm having lots of people reach out to me about those issues.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to, for the sake of doing so, stay here. According to the
clock I have 52 minutes, if I wanted to, to debate this motion, but that's not
my intent to stay here until 5:30 and to take the full hour. I'd like for other
Members to stand up and talk about these important issues, but at the end of the
day these are important things.
The
Government House Leader said to me there last week – she was saying you need to
find opportunities. You have opportunities, she said, to bring up these
important issues. I said, well, where are my opportunities? The only opportunity
I have, really, is I can do a petition, which I've done and I'm going to do. Or
I can take advantage of the opportunity I have now to raise these issues, and
that's what I'm doing.
Now,
this is not a publicity stunt, I will say, Mr. Speaker. I don't care if there's
anybody listening from VOCM or CBC. I don't want to see this on the news. I
don't care if it's there or not. I could care less. But what I do care about is
the fact that I have people in my district that are contacting me about these
issues and they want them discussed.
That's
all I'll have to say. My colleague for Humber - Bay of Islands may or may not
want to say something and perhaps there are other Members who do. Again, I just
want to put it out there for all Members in this House, and I want to put it out
there to the Opposition Members in particular, from my perspective this is in no
way trying to take away from your opportunity to have additional Question
Periods. That's not what I'm suggesting.
I'm
saying that if we have downtimes now – we have an hour and we could be in the
same boat tomorrow and the next day because of this reduced agenda – why not go
to Address in Reply? Why not have Address in Reply on Wednesday so that all
Members, including Opposition Members, can have the opportunity to raise these
issues that your constituents wanted raised?
That's
the gist of it, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, if I'm going to be voted down, that's
fine, but it's important to get these issues out there.
I'm
going to take my seat.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Humber -
Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to spend just a few minutes to talk about this today and concur with my
colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands.
Mr.
Speaker, again, I'm not trying to be difficult in this House, but it's my
opportunity to bring up issues that people ask me to bring up and mainly it's
the health care. I'll just give you a good example why. Can I confirm this 100
per cent? No, but I just know the way the procedure works.
I ask
the people opposite, the Members opposite – and this is why, Mr. Speaker, that
I'm so concerned about bringing up stuff in debate – is there anything that we
can do in this Legislature, any act we need to pass, any funds we need to
approve that would help speed up and to get surgeries back on track?
I'll
give you a good example. When this ban came in, not allowing people in the
province, I am confident – and I'll tell you why I'm confident. I am confident
that it didn't go through the vetting process. Because if it had to go through
the vetting process, we would have heard that you would have someone out in the
public asking questions about the restrictions allowing people into the
province.
I'm
confident that that statement was made that we're not going to let people in as
of, whatever it was, June 1 or June 2, but it didn't go through the Cabinet
process.
MR. SPEAKER:
I just want to remind the
Member that the matter that he's speaking of is before the courts and we have
the tradition of sub judice in here where we don't usually talk about matters
that are before the courts. I just caution. I don't think he's said anything out
of order, but I just want to caution him at this point on that matter.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
But my
point is that if we're going to get ready for the minute we get the PPEs which
now we say we have, is there anything in this Legislature so we can't slow it
down by not having any legislation that we need changed or any funds that we
need to put in place? That's the idea.
That's
the whole idea is be prepared. So when it's time, when there's an opportunity,
when we have all the necessary equipment that we can just start. If not, we have
to come back in this Legislature. To keep the Legislature open just to ask
questions and the cost, the amount of money that we're spending, staff is in
here, people from outside St. John's coming in, staying, accommodations, the
rental cars, now we're going to keep it open for Question Period yet we're not
going to extend the debate time in this Legislature.
With the
deficit that we have and the serious issues and the concerns that we have around
the province, and we're not going to bring this in so we can extend Question
Periods for the next couple of days? I've never seen it before in this House.
Never seen it, with such a pandemic in this province, an opportunity – Mr.
Speaker, when I'm bringing up health care concerns, this is not a criticism on
the ministers. I could look at ministers across that I have been dealing with on
issues on this and they have been helpful.
The
Minister of Education, child, youth and family services has been good. The
Minister of Health; the Minister of Industry, trade and rural development, they
have been good. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have been dealing with. But
the big thing that I'm hearing, there are a lot of other issues – like school,
are we going to open? I know the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the
minister, is working hard on that and I have confidence that it's going to be
done. We work well together on all this.
Mr.
Speaker, health care is the one issue that I hear on a regular basis. I'm sure
I'm not the only person in this hon. House who listens to that. Again, I'll say
to the Minister of Health, he's been open, he's been speaking to it, he's been
trying, but I have to push it to see what we can do to speed it up.
Now the
PPEs is not the issue. We have enough PPEs now. It's not the issue; it's to
bring it up to 75 per cent. So what is it we can do in the Legislature to bring
it up? Because when you hear of a person telling their mother don't get off your
couch because we can't visit you in hospital if you break your hip, that's sad.
I'm glad to report, by the way, the person I was speaking to about blind in one
eye, he did get in to see the specialist last Thursday. I'm proud of that. He
did get in to see; waiting about two months to get in, but he finally got in.
Mr.
Speaker, I know there's another case that came to me that a person is waiting to
get a pacemaker. He can't walk. Another person I was speaking to has two
blockages, 100 per cent. I know when I was speaking to the minister – and I'm
not putting words in the minister's mouth one bit – sometimes there's a
disconnect between the patient, the GP and the specialist, to make sure the
information is to the point that if his condition got worse, bring it to the
specialist's attention so we can get this up.
These
are the concerns that I'm hearing on a regular basis. Every day I'm bringing in
a new one, sending it off to the Minister of Health, saying: look, can you look
into this to see if there's anything that can be done. I'm not the only Member
here doing that.
I'll use
education; a lot of people are concerned with what's going to happen in
September. I know the minister is working with them, but these are the questions
that are being asked us and this is our opportunity to bring it up in the House
of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to prolong this anymore, but I have to say – and I'll say
it once again – I've been in this Legislature, and sometimes we had some very
ruckus sessions, we had some filibusters that I was a part of, but we always try
to be a bit fair to people with people's concerns. So when myself and the Member
for Mount Pearl - Southlands brought up concerns last week that we wanted an
opportunity to ask a few questions on health care, we were denied. We were
denied an opportunity to bring up questions on health care.
People
who I know back in my district, know that when I'm trying to be reasonable,
which is usually very often, if I'm trying to be reasonable and all of a sudden
I get shot down by bringing up major concerns of people in my district, I will
find ways to do it. I will find ways to do it.
Mr.
Speaker, people are talking about grandstanding. I'll say it again, if people
call me grandstanding or I'm trying to railroad this House of Assembly, for
someone who's dying and can't get an operation, can't get a specialist on his
eye, someone told their mother to sit on the couch, another person today needs a
pacemaker put in, can't get up the steps, another person with 200 per cent
blockage; if you're saying I'm hijacking this House to bring up these concerns,
I'm guilty as charged. I'll hijack it every opportunity I get, if I'm not given
the right to bring up these concerns. And I make no apologies whatsoever in this
House for doing it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the opportunity for us – and I hear this on many occasions from people
opposite and in the Opposition, this is all new to us. This pandemic is new to
us, it is. To everybody it's new; everybody is learning as we go. The only
question I have to ask, if the government is saying this is new to us on a
regular basis, things change, we adapt, why can't we adapt to allow the
Opposition to ask more questions in this hon. House now that we're here? Why
can't we let the Third Party ask a few extra questions and why can't you let the
independents ask a few more questions?
If
everything here is all new and we're in a pandemic, why can't we just change
things in this House to accommodate everybody? Because I can tell you I'm sure
I'm not the only person, and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands is not the
only person in this House who are hearing those concerns. We should have an
opportunity to express our concerns, to voice our concerns.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not saying that every concern that I'll bring up or my colleague
for Mount Pearl - Southlands will bring up or the Opposition will bring, but
it's the comfort of people knowing that you're raising their issues, that it's
going to be heard. So we can find some resolute into helping those people, find
some reason that we can say, yes, we're going to bring it up. We're going to see
what we can do, we're going to raise your concerns. If nothing else, the anxiety
of sitting at home saying what's next. At least we're raising the concerns, Mr.
Speaker.
I
understand the backlog, I understand the emergency cases, I understand all that,
but if people know we're trying to get this open, we're trying to now see how
can we get it to 75 per cent operation, it does decrease the level of anxiety.
If I can decrease the level of anxiety for the people who are affected through
health care, I can assure you that we're doing our job for everybody. I don't
mean to be obstinate in this House. I don't mean to be hard headed in this
House.
I was
talking to the Member for St. John's Centre today about rural Newfoundland. In
rural Newfoundland it's different from when you're in here, because a lot of
times you don't even know who your specialist is and all that. We agree, it is
different. It is different. So that's why sometimes the only opportunity you
have is the House of Assembly to raise these concerns and to ask questions on
behalf of them.
We all
agree that some people may operate in their district different from the way I
operate and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands operates, or any Member
here, the way we do business for our constituents. I know the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay has to drive nine hours just to get to every community; if he
just drove, don't stop, nine hours. So I'm sure he does it different from what –
it takes me 45 minutes from one point to the next when I leave my house. So you
do business different than we do, you have to. You wouldn't be able to visit
every community everyday like I can.
This is
the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, when you're raising your concerns, you're
bringing up the concerns of the people in the best way you think you're going to
get results.
Mr.
Speaker, I've always said, and I'll finish on this, that I've been privileged to
represent the Bay of Islands for a number of years – now it's the Humber - Bay
of Islands for a number of years. They expressed their confidence in me, Mr.
Speaker. They know if I have an issue and I think I'm right on the issue, and
they know if they have an issue and I'm going to bring it up, I'm going to
continue to bring it up. They gave me that confidence, so I have to represent
them to the best of my ability.
Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to this House and when you're denied the opportunity to
speak, there is no one in this House that's going to find a way to make sure I
don't speak, I can assure you that. So it's always better, let's co-operate, and
when it comes to health care, I will find a way to speak and raise the concerns
of the people of Humber - Bay of Islands in this area.
I say
again, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I've been dealing with a lot of ministers
since this pandemic, no problem, all good. I can tell you sometimes you may not
get the answers you want, but you get the respect of getting an answer and you
can pass it on. I have no problem with that whatsoever. My concern is when it
comes to health care I think we have to find a way to address if there's
anything we can do in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, so that there's no further
delay. The anxiety level is very high for all of us.
I'll
close on that, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this.
I'll say to the people of Humber - Bay of Islands that when I deal with the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, he has the same concerns that I have and
it's not that we're working in tandem, it's just that we're hearing the same
concerns and this is our only opportunity to bring it up.
For the
people of Humber - Bay of Islands, I can assure you that I will continue to
raise the concerns to the best of my ability. I thank the Minister of Health for
every day sitting down listening to my concerns about it and giving the
opportunity to see what he can do and I'll be asking him every day. He knows it,
he knows the way I am, that every day that I see him I'll be asking what can we
do, how can we speed this up, is there anything we can do to help out. To give
the Minister of Health concerned, he has a lot of weight on his shoulders but
I'm sure he don't mind me pushing for this to continue because that's what we're
elected to do.
I know
someone – I think it was the Minister of Finance – brought up Roger Grimes, back
here when Roger Grimes was in this House. When Roger Grimes was a minister and
we had concerns in our district, Roger Grimes used to say: Do what you got to do
for your constituents. Write me; it's my problem how I deal with it. You write
me; let them know that you're fighting on their behalf. Don't worry if you're
going to upset me; they're the ones who elected you. Roger Grimes always said
that. What we're doing here, we're raising the concerns of the people who
elected us.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll just stop now but just to let you know if I get another
opportunity again, I will raise these issues and concerns. I wanted to thank the
ministers and you know who you are, that I've been dealing with and helping out
along the way. I thank you for that. I know it's difficult times but I can tell
you through these difficult times, working with a lot of ministers here, there
have been a lot of accomplishments made in the District of Humber - Bay of
Islands.
I just
want to recognize that. This is not all back and forth; this is just concerns
that I've raised. There is a lot of dialogue there, Mr. Speaker, with the
ministers and some ministers have taken the time to phone people that I asked
them to; they did. There are some concerns that I had through a few businesses;
they were called by staff or the ministers themselves, so I have to recognize
that.
This is
not a confrontation between myself and the government right now. These are
health care concerns that we were asked to raise – and I will. I make no
apologies. I will raise it every possible opportunity I can. Because if I didn't
do that, the confidence that the people of Humber - Bay of Islands put in me, I
would be neglecting my responsibilities and duties.
I've
been at this now for almost 30 years, 29 years. I have no intent to stop now
representing the people of Humber - Bay of Islands because for some reason I was
denied an opportunity. And my colleague for Mount Pearl - Southlands who tried
to straighten this up last week, denied an opportunity to speak and ask
questions on health care.
As I
said earlier, and I'll say it once more before I leave, Mr. Speaker, before I
end my speech here, I'll say to you, if I'm accused of co-opting this House,
accused of hijacking, if I'm accused of a publicity stunt to raise the concerns
in this House and to the ministers here involved, guilty as charged, and I'll
continue to do it as long as the great people of Humber - Bay of Islands put
their confidence in me.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader,
does she wish to speak to this motion?
MS. COADY:
Just for a quick moment, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think there are other
speakers, and I think if the Government House Leader speaks she maybe closes the
debate.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to echo the concerns of the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands and the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands. I think what we have here is we have been
recessed since the beginning of March. Normally, our House of Assembly would sit
through March, April, May and well into June. So this is not about having ample
time for Question Period. This is about our responsibility to the people of our
province and of our district.
That is
irrespective of our political stripe or lack of affiliation whatsoever. There
have been a great many things that have happened and have been enacted since the
House has risen that we have not been able to address, and I do believe that
everybody in our province deserves many of these concerns to be addressed. Not
only are we talking about health care wait times, but we are also talking about
a variety of other things that we would normally do.
Throughout the course of March, April, May and June we would normally pass
multiple pieces of legislation and we would have a budget debate in addition to
Question Periods, in addition to ample opportunities to raise a variety of
different points. What we have now is, at the end of this week, the next time we
are expected to sit is November. That leaves us a very long period of time
before we can address anything that might have been a concern that happened in
April.
I do
believe that the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands raises quite a valid point
in suggesting that we need more time to debate the issues at hand that are vital
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do recognize the importance. I
will stand by him and advocate for more debate in the House. In fact, if we were
to propose additional sittings of the House of Assembly, I would encourage that
because I imagine that through March, April, May and June we have missed an
awful lot of legislation and an opportunity to pass a great deal of legislation
that many people may well be waiting on.
I do
believe that we, the Members of the House of Assembly, that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador deserve ample time to address their issues and
concerns in the House of Assembly. That ought not to necessarily mean changes to
our Standing Orders, but it does mean that we all have ample opportunity to
bring up the concerns of the people of our district and question the actions and
decisions of government.
I can
appreciate where everyone is coming from. I can also tell you that the room
right now feels an awful lot like when I taught a class from 4 to 5 on Friday
evenings, and at about 4:45 I guarantee you it was very difficult to capture
anyone's attention. However, this is important, and one of my favourite things
to do is at 4:46 give them a question that will appear on their final exam.
So this
is rather important. I do believe that this is going to be a final exam
question. I would encourage us to try and accommodate as much opportunity for
debate on the issues that are important to us as long as we possibly can.
Thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader, if she speaks now she will close debate.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That was
a good 40 minutes of discussion, debate. I really appreciate hearing the
concerns again of the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, Humber - Bay of
Islands and now, of course, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
Mr.
Speaker, we could continue into the evening if we so wished, that is the option
of the House to do that, but I would say that we have been very diligent and
we've worked very hard to ensure that we had legislation before this House and
we wanted to make sure we had Question Period.
Before I
ask you to move to the question, I would ask for me to be able to read first
reading of a bill, so that we have that first reading made forward so that we
can continue on with business. We wish to do so, Mr. Speaker.
Am I
allowed to do first reading of the Animal
Health and Protection Act?
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the minister have leave?
MR. JOYCE:
There's a motion on the
floor, so I'm assuming that you (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
No, I think the minister is
asking for leave to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
We have to do the motion
first.
MR. SPEAKER:
No, the motion is to adjourn.
My understanding is that as soon as a motion to adjourn is voted on and
accepted, then we adjourn. We don't deal with any other business.
The
minister, my understanding, is asking for leave of the House to do this before
we vote on the adjournment motion. That's my understanding.
MR. JOYCE:
I have a few words on their
request.
MR. SPEAKER:
I don't think this is a
debateable sort of request. It's either you grant leave to do this or not. We
don't usually have a debate on that type of request for leave of the House.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the Member on a point of
order?
MR. JOYCE:
I'm just trying to get
clarity. Is the Government House Leader asking leave for the House to bring
first reading on a bill on bees so that we can continue the House tomorrow, and
we can't bring up issues on health care? I just need clarification on this.
MR. SPEAKER:
The minister has asked leave
to do first reading on a bill. The question before the House is, does she have
leave?
Does the
Member have leave?
MR. JOYCE:
Again, I'm asking
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
It's not a debateable item.
The Member either has leave or not.
I'm
going to ask once again, does the Member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Hearing no objections, the
minister has leave.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources for leave to introduce
a bill, An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act, Bill 39 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 Bill 39, An Act To Amend The
Animal Health And Protection Act and that the 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.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Animal Health And Protection Act. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 39 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now we're back to the
Government House Leader.
It is
moved and seconded that this House does now adjourn.
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.
This
House is now adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.