November 15, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 34
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Before
we get started, apparently the tally lights for some Members are not working.
They're in the process of trying to get it fixed. They are for MHA Joyce, MHA
Lane, MHA Wall, MHA Forsey, MHA Dwyer and also the Clerk. Once you get
recognized if your light doesn't come on, just give it a few seconds and
Broadcast should be able to pick it up.
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Member's
statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Placentia - St.
Mary's, Humber - Bay of Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands and Ferryland.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
today I would like to recognize the volunteer efforts of Arthur W. Langdon of
Botwood.
Mr.
Langdon has dedicated most of his life to volunteering in the Town of Botwood.
He has devoted 37 years to the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 5 in Botwood and to
the Botwood Lions Club, where he has served as president on three occasions,
along with several other executive positions. Art has also spent 10 years
volunteering with the Masons.
In
November of 2020, Arthur was awarded the Melvin Jones award by Lions
International, which recognizes outstanding individuals for their exemplary
service to his club and the community for which it serves. This is the highest
honour a fellow Lion can receive.
Speaker,
I would like for all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in thanking
Mr. Arthur W. Langdon for his many years of volunteer service and congratulate
him on his honour.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia - St. Mary's.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Speaker, 14 years ago, after
a solider served and lost his life in Afghanistan, his photo proudly looks out
at visitors to the Private Kevin Kennedy Memorial Garden in St. Vincent's.
The
garden is meant to be a place to visit, to reflect and be at peace as one
remembers those who served with ties to the St. Vincent's, St. Stephen's and
Peter's River area. It is where people gather to pay their respects on
Remembrance Day and a site that is toured by many visitors. Established by the
Fisherman's Museum Committee, it has become the focal point of the community.
Private
Kennedy was 20 years old when he was killed by a roadside bomb, with five other
soldiers, on Easter Sunday in 2007. He gave his life – the ultimate sacrifice –
trying to make the world a better place for others.
The
garden is home to a memorial plaque bearing the names of 38 soldiers; benches
dedicated in memory of loved ones; memorial items, flowers and shrubs. As you
walk through, you feel a serene sense of peace and pride.
I
encourage all who visit St. Vincent's to embrace the opportunity to visit the
Private Kevin Kennedy Memorial Garden.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Today I recognize an athlete
from my district, Simon Park of Meadows.
Simon
recently competed in the Eastern Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press
Championships held in Sydney, Nova Scotia. More than 100 athletes from the four
Atlantic provinces took part in a three-day event with hopes of qualifying for
the National Championships which will be held in St. John's in March 2022.
Simon
started training in powerlifting about six years ago and has competed in three
competitions, two before COVID-19 and now the Eastern Canadian competition. His
goal has always been to compete at the national level and with hard work and
determination his goal is coming true. Simon's final score at the championship
was 529.1 pounds qualifying him for the nationals.
What
makes this accomplishment more impressive is that Simon does not have a coach.
He trains in his family's garage which has been set up as a gym with the
necessary equipment. When Simon is not training, he's attending Grenfell Campus
completing his final year of the Bachelor of Nursing Program.
I ask
all Members to join with me in congratulating Simon on his success and wish him
the very best in all his future endeavors.
Great
job, Simon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
While
Mount Pearl may be known for its tremendous programs, services and top-notch
infrastructure, it is actually its amazing sense of community that makes it such
a wonderful place to work, live and raise a family.
This
sense of home and love for community is so evident in many of our citizens.
Today I wish to acknowledge the contribution of two such individuals. This
husband and wife team, Chantelle and Dave Keene, created a true Halloween
spectacle within our community known as A Haunting on Whiteley, at a time when
we all needed an escape from the tough realities of living with COVID-19.
This
spooktacular display contained everything you could imagine from a creepy
graveyard, zombies, ghosts, ghouls, a tribute to Tim Burton's
The Nightmare Before Christmas, as
well as a life sized Headless Horseman.
Not only
did this amazing initiative bring smiles to many faces of all ages and provide
for plenty of photo opportunities for those wishing to get into the Halloween
spirit, but it was also was used as a means to collect non-perishable food items
for local food pantries in the community.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating this amazing couple on this wonderful
initiative.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I want
to recognize and congratulate the organizers of the 11th Annual Calvert Masters
Charity Golf Tournament. The event was held on August 18 at The Wilds and was
organized by a great group of volunteers.
The
event was a huge success with a total of 120 participants this year. The first
five years the charity of choice was the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care
Foundation, and the last six years have been the Janeway Children's Hospital
Foundation.
This
year, the committee raised $47,085 in total; $45,085 was donated to the Janeway
foundation and $2,000 was donated to the community of Calvert for community
projects. The last 11 years have been a great success; organizers have raised
over $612,000 since the beginning of this annual event.
Thank
you to the community of Calvert for choosing to support children's health care
and cancer care charities in this province. The committee is hopeful that this
successful fundraiser will continue for years to come as golfers compete for the
coveted green jacket.
Speaker,
I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the organizers of
the Calvert Masters Golf Tournament on another successful tournament.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
on November 4 representatives from municipalities across the province gathered
in Corner Brook for the 71st Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador Annual
Conference and Trade Show. It was a huge success. There were many important
discussions. A highlight for me was, certainly, the women's leadership summit.
There were great networking sessions and an opportunity to remind municipal
leaders just how important they are to their communities and to the province as
a whole.
During
the conference, delegates also gathered for the annual Premier's Forum on Local
Government and we discussed regionalization. The overwhelming sentiment is that
regionalization and increased sharing of services are critical to ensure
communities are sustainable and take full advantage of economic development
opportunities and to attract new residents. I look forward to receiving
recommendations from the Joint Working Group and to develop a plan of how we
move our communities forward.
These
are exciting times for municipalities, Speaker, not the least of which is Come
Home Year 2022. At the MNL Conference, Premier Furey announced over $4 million
to help communities and cultural partners prepare for the celebration. This will
support municipalities, the tourism and arts and culture sectors as well as
community organizations as we celebrate everything this province has to offer.
We want to energize Newfoundlanders and Labradorians no matter where they live.
We want to welcome them home and we want to invite newcomers to visit, perhaps
inspiring more of them to make this beautiful province their permanent home. I
encourage everyone to take full advantage of the funding that's available.
Speaker,
congratulations to MNL, its new executive and all municipal leaders on a
tremendous conference. I ask all hon. colleagues to join me in this recognition
and also help spread the word about the funding that's available under the
Municipal Come Home Year Celebration Grant and the Cultural Economic Development
Program.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
would like to thank the hon. Minister for an advance copy of her statement.
Speaker,
I was pleased to join the minister in Corner Brook for the annual Municipalities
Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Conference and Trade Show.
MNL are
to be congratulated on a first-rate conference with many educational
presentations. It was certainly a very informative and enjoyable weekend.
Speaker,
MNL provides a unique opportunity to come together to discuss the many issues
facing municipal leaders. Having attended these events in the past as mayor of
my hometown of Pouch Cove, I can speak first-hand to the benefits of joining
with other municipal leaders from around the province to discuss matters of
mutual concern and regional solutions.
Regionalization, as the minister does note, has been talked about, Speaker, and
I am looking forward to seeing this definitive action come forward as we all
work towards the betterment of our communities.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement.
I, too,
congratulate MNL on their 71st annual convention – that's a huge milestone. With
the continued discussion on regionalization of services, we must also make sure
that this discussion also involves the supports and tools that regions will
need. We can't download services onto regions without the tools to keep the
regions going. Rural communities deserve a fair shot at success so we must
discuss that, too.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
First, I
would like to welcome the Premier back to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
It has now been 17 days since
our province was rocked by a cyberattack that wrecked havoc across Newfoundland
and Labrador. I know many health care workers and IT specialists have been
working hard over that time and I wish to thank them for their service to our
province; however, thousands of tests and procedures have been cancelled and the
list grows daily.
I ask
the Premier: When can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect a 100 per
cent return of services in our health care system?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Member opposite knows, the hard-working women and men behind the scenes are
doing everything they can to get the systems up and going as fast as they can.
And I'd echo his sentiments, frankly, and thank them for their hard work and
their extra-long hours that they're putting in in the face of adversity to get
the systems up and going as fast as possible.
The real
answer is we don't have a definitive answer because, as it's been explained, as
the systems come online there may be issues, and to give a definitive date when
things will absolutely return to normal would be irresponsible. We also have to
make sure that we're being incredibly balanced and nuanced in our communications
on this. I'm happy with where we are right now, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We
recognize that this is an extraordinary situation, but the people need for
health care doesn't stop and wait. These disruptions are expanding the already
large wait-list for tests and specialists in our province.
What
specific initiatives will be introduced to help the health care system deal with
another increase in wait-lists?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
realize the stress and strain that is currently on the hard-working women and
men in the health care system, in addition to the IT sector, are under right
now. This was an unanticipated event and I can appreciate the strain that
they're under. I know many of them first-hand. I have worked with many of them.
I have worked with some of them just recently. They are doing their best to
maintain the system in these troubling times.
We are
looking at all options to see exactly what impact this will have and how we can
affect making that up, Mr. Speaker, but right now it's premature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We
already have a health care system in crisis and the thousands of procedures that
have been cancelled are playing havoc with the citizens and their need for
health interventions. The health care system in Ireland is still experiencing
some disruptions six months after a similar but less sever cyberattack on their
health care system.
Based on
what government have learned over the past two weeks, can the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador expect a full return to services in weeks or in
months?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr. Speaker, again, we're not
sure exactly when things will return to absolutely normal, it would be wrong to
suggest otherwise. I'm not sure how the Member opposite would know it was less
or more severe than some other attack, Mr. Speaker.
Right
now, we have to be incredibly balanced and measured in our approach to this,
given the security issues for the province, Mr. Speaker. We have committed and
we will continue to commit to get the system back and running as fast as
possible, as safe as possible and as confidently as possible.
As to a
definitive timeline, I think it would be irresponsible to give an exact one. I
know full well that hard-working women and men in that system are doing their
very best and we are as well, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
people of Newfoundland and Labrador who rely on our health care system need some
reassurance that everything is being done to ensure that they have access to
proper health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Every other jurisdiction in
the world who have experienced a cyberattack have provided greater public
disclosure than this government. Ireland called it a ransom attack on day one.
It has been over two weeks and we still don't exactly know what happened, who
may have our personal health information and how many people may be involved.
Why is
government refusing to be more open?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you for the question.
Speaker,
this government have been very transparent about this cyberattack issue as we
gather information. We committed last week to advising the public when we have
the most accurate information available to us. We did press briefings on Tuesday
and Wednesday. Our investigation revealed some additional facts that we were
able to reveal to the public on Friday.
What
this government is not going to do is guess and speculate as to what's going on.
We want the cyberexperts to continue to do their investigation and when the
information is confirmed that is when – and only then – we provide that
information to the public.
Facts
are important; guesses are not going to happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It has
been confirmed that personal information was taken in the cyberattack.
I ask
the Premier: Why wasn't the data encrypted?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I think,
in line with comments the Premier made earlier and in line with my previous
comments, the nature of data, the architecture of the systems are not a subject
for discussion in public. I do not think any answer to that question would do
anything except give the next hacker a guidebook as to how to do it better.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
people of the province need a fully functional health care system. Yes, this is
an extraordinary event, but the need for health care doesn't stop or wait.
Because this is an extraordinary event it needs to be understood in full.
Will the
Premier commit to launching a full commission of inquiry into this attack within
the next 12 months?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we've
already said, we need to be very balanced and nuanced in our approach here with
respect to language. There already is an active RCMP investigation, Mr. Speaker.
The Privacy Commissioner has also agreed to do a third party independent
investigation. We will have plenty of time in the rear-view mirror to see what
went wrong and what we can do better and to install more robust systems moving
forward, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
On
October 21 the minister stated that 193 people were waiting for critical cardiac
surgery in the province.
With
additional surgeries cancelled in the past two weeks, how long is this list
going to grow, and what is the plan to catch-up?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
impact on wait-lists for surgery is yet being quantified through Eastern Health.
Restoration of cardiology services, in full, is dependent on background activity
in lab areas and in diagnostic imagining. As yet those are not completely
restored within Eastern Health to the point where the clinical care team in
cardiology feel confident that they can resume routine operations.
Each
person on that list is being examined by their clinician to determine whether or
not it is safe to wait and they're being done at a reduced rate in the priority
determined by the physicians themselves. When I have an update I'll be happy to
provide it to the House.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said, on October 21 the minister said there were 193 people waiting, yet it's
not quantified.
Speaker,
cancer patients and their families are on edge as appointments and treatments
continue to be cancelled. How many chemo treatments have been cancelled since
the cyberattack and how will the health care system catch-up?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I'd like
to thank, again, the people in Eastern Health in the cancer program, as well as
the IT support from various sectors, for being able to work so diligently to
restore chemotherapy. Chemotherapy services across the province have resumed.
Again, the full capacity will be determined by laboratory work, particularly in
Eastern Health, that has yet to be completed.
The
priority of who's getting treated in what order is solely determined by
clinicians. They are working extended hours into the evening and into the
weekends, and once capacity increases that will deal with the backlog. An exact
timeline awaits restoration of complete services in Eastern Health. I'm happy to
provide it to the House when I have it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
We have
heard from couples whose IVF cycles out of the province have been stopped
because critical appointments and ultrasounds have been cancelled. Families are
now out thousands of dollars in travel expenses and medications, and couples
have been waiting for a travel package for months.
Will
government be compensating these families?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
In terms
of diagnostics that have been deferred, this again is due to circumstances that
were outside our control. Priority is and always will be determined by the
clinicians looking after those patients. Ultrasound has been available for
urgent and emergent cases.
In terms
of the specifics mentioned by the Member opposite, if he has information I would
be happy – with consent of the parties concerned – to look into the specifics.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It would
be wonderful if the minister had the information to start with, rather than
depending on myself over here.
Speaker,
November is Diabetes Awareness Month. Last year, MUN medical students presented
to me on the health benefits and cost savings from continuous glucose monitoring
devices. Government says you want solutions – they've presented a real solution
to health care.
When I
questioned the minister on the potential financial assistance for residents to
access these devices he agreed to have a staff review and report back to the
House. Twelve months later: Can the minister provide the results of that review?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
Insulin Pump Program had significant increment in funding. In budget last year,
I believe, we added $3 million a year to that and removed any age criteria
around it. We certainly altered, significantly, the way it was structured and
over the course of this year we have been looking, with clinical direction, at
how best to source the equipment.
With
respect to clinical decisions about what kind of equipment and what kind of
glucose monitoring, we have not received a recommendation to change the nature
of the equipment and the nature of the glucose monitoring from the clinicians.
Should that change, we'll be happy to look at it again, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL stated that people should
regularly update security questions and passwords, which is something that
government employees are asked to do regularly. An engineer with Microsoft has
called this practice an ancient and obsolete mitigation of a very low risk.
I ask
the minister: What is being done to bring the government's IT security into this
century?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
ask the Member to indicate when I said that. It doesn't sound like something
specifically, exactly that I would say. I, myself, use a password keeper, Mr.
Speaker, which I would recommend that everyone use, and have a one-time password
for each thing that they use, which is long and has a range of characters in it.
So that's certainly what I recommend to everyone in the province to do: have a
password keeper.
We are
looking at our systems, we are implementing two-step authentication across our
systems and I'd recommend that everyone at home do that as well for any system
or online service that they use.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, is this actually
going to work if you just change passwords? I can do that today. Is it actually
going to work? That's the question.
Speaker,
it's been revealed that data taken by malicious actors in our health care system
was unencrypted.
I ask
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL: Has she directed a review of
core government to determine how much of the public's data held by government is
unencrypted?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can't
speak specifically to the situation at the moment, but as the result of the
attack that occurred recently, we are monitoring our systems very closely. We
have a lot of national experts helping us do that and making sure that the data
that core government has for the people of the province is protected. But this
is always a threat; threats are ongoing.
We take
our responsibility very seriously, Mr. Speaker, and we have a range of services
and products in place to do our best to protect the information of the people of
the province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, we're not asking for
specifics, we're just asking: Has there been a review? Yes or no? That's what
we've been asking since we started here two weeks ago.
It was
reported by the media this morning that motor vehicle registration in Mount
Pearl put a sign on their door this morning saying: On break. The gentleman who
raised the issue stated that he arrived at 9:45 for a 10 a.m. appointment and as
of 10:25 he was still waiting with 20 other people standing outside.
When
will the minister show leadership and finally address the mess at motor vehicle
registration?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
Member's preamble, we review our cybersecurity practices regularly. That's an
ongoing practice, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of MRD, we were alerted of the issue this morning. That was a mistake. That was
an error on our part. There should not have been a closure of that office during
a break. Some of our smaller offices that might have one or two staff do close
for breaks or lunches, but our larger branches should not be closing for a
break. I apologize to the resident and residents affected.
We've
corrected that across the province, Mr. Speaker. I am working to improve
services at Motor Registration.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We've
asked many questions on this and it still seems to be the same issue. We have to
get those doors open and get the public back in there to get this straightened
out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, the next appointment
available in Mount Pearl to get a licence plate replacement is December 20. We
were pleased to see the minister this morning make an announcement to unveil a
new Come Home Year decorative licence plate for 2022.
While
this is good news, I ask the minister: When will she address the long wait times
to access services at motor vehicle registration?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of improving services, we have a range of options available at different
branches across the province. I agree the wait is too long in some of our
branches, but in more than half of our branches, Mr. Speaker, you are able to
get an appointment the same week.
We are
adding more digital services, we looking at efficiencies. We're looking at
improving workflow at our offices, including ticketing systems or getting a text
when you're in your vehicle waiting, Mr. Speaker. We also have kind of a mix of
the appointment model with –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. STOODLEY:
– but also dropping in. We're seeing 30 per cent to 60 per cent of walk-ins
across the province.
Our
doors are open. We had a mistake this morning. That was our error. Doors are
open and we are working to improve things, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
not even three months into the school year and the NL Teachers' Association have
spoken out today about crowded classrooms, inadequate resourcing and challenging
class composition.
Speaker,
when is the long, long, promised review of the teacher allocation model going to
take place?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the Member for his question.
The
Independent Appointments Commission has provided names to government. The
appointment of those names, that committee, will happen in the very near future.
The process, Mr. Speaker, for a review – and a proper review – of the teacher
allocation model will start shortly thereafter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Speaker, the review has been
promised for years, but will not help teachers struggling in the classroom as of
today with teacher burnout and exhaustion.
Will the
government add additional student assistants to relieve the crisis in the
classrooms?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
government has done quite a bit to improve the teacher allocation in schools,
through the Premier's Task Force on Education. We've added 350 permanent hires
over the last three years, Mr. Speaker. We've added term contracts for
substitute teachers; we've added additional administrators and additional
guidance counsellors.
Mr.
Speaker, we've taken this issue very seriously. The next step in this is a
review of the teacher allocations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Premier said recently that tough decisions need to be made and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador want us to keep making them.
So I say
to the Premier: Now is the chance to be honest with the people of the province.
What tough decisions are coming? When will you provide the public of the
province with the analysis you've done to support them?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
appreciate the question. The people of the province are fully aware of our
fiscal situation. I know that they are supportive of us making sure that we
address the financial concerns.
As the
Premier's Economic Recovery Team indicated, we are about $47 billion in debt
across all the different entities within the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We do need to get that under control.
We have,
in Budget 2021, laid out a course and
a path of modernization and transformation of government. We've laid out a
course of getting our fiscal house in order. We've put before this House of
Assembly balanced budget legislation and the development of a future fund.
I think,
for the Member opposite, our course and our path is clear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
I still don't believe, Speaker, that the people of the province are fully
informed of exactly what those, quote, tough decisions are.
Last
week, the minister named the assets she's going to be selling, including Marble
Mountain, oil and gas equity shares and the Liquor Corporation.
I ask
the minister: How did you decide which assets to sell?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I'll remind the Member opposite again, we wouldn't be in such a financial
devastating effect if it wasn't for Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
I will say, in
Budget 2021, we laid out to the people of the province –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
Sorry, Speaker, I will –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I will
say to the Members opposite and to the people of the province, we did lay out a
path and a course in Budget 2021 where
we talked about some of the assets we could possibly look to review. We are in
process of reviewing those assets, of considering the reward of so doing and the
benefit or not of so doing of asset monetization.
Should
we move –
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I just
have to say, if the minister wants to make political jabs from 2012, that's
fine. But I can tell you the people in my district and the people of this
province are more concerned about access to health care, getting a family doctor
and getting their cancer appointments than they are about political jabs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
I'd like to focus on the oil
and gas assets. The Minister of Finance very specifically referenced selling our
shares in Hebron, White Rose Extension and Hibernia Extension. Yet, on June 15
the Energy Minister said: Right now, there are absolutely no decisions that have
been made. One minister is lining up buyers while the other is saying take a
wait-and-see approach.
Who is
in charge of selling our assets?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say to the Member opposite, if we didn't have $16 billion in debt because of
Muskrat Falls, we wouldn't have as many challenges in this province to provide
the services that the people of this province so need.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
I will say to the Member
opposite: What we said in Budget 2021
is that we're going to consider the selling of assets, to monetize those assets,
to pay down some of the debt that we have in this province. I said that we are
going to do a review – which is currently what we are doing – to consider some
of the assets that we have.
We'll
continue to look at those; we'll continue to add to the analysis. I didn't say I
was selling them, Mr. Speaker. I said we were considering looking at what's in
the best interests of the people of this province, unlike what they did with
Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, if the minister
spent half her time on her portfolio worried about that as she does on petty
political jabs, maybe our province would be in a better place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I'm concerned that
the minister may sell assets for short-term cash instead of yearly cash flow.
These assets are public assets. They are not owned by the minister or the
Premier, they're owned by every single resident of this province.
Will the
minister commit to holding a public debate in this House on the sale of any
assets worth more than $50 million before they're sold off?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I will
say to the Member opposite and I'll say to the people of the province that I
think it is prudent and responsible for this government to consider what assets
we have, what assets may be working on behalf of the people of the province and
what assets may be better if the timing is right. If the circumstances are
right, Speaker, we'll consider selling those and taking that money and paying it
down on debt. Or on making investments so that we can improve the situation in
the province economically.
I will
say to the Member opposite we have had the Premier's Economic Recovery Team; we
have had public consultations on that. There was a lot of discussion in that
report. We're reviewing those consultations and we'll continue to do so as we
analyze what assets we may monetize.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm
keeping track of the time for Members.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Equinor is revamping its development plan for the Bay du Nord Project
and is now looking to proceed with the conceptual work for the FPSO.
Given
this positive news for Bay du Nord and given the framework agreement between
Equinor, Husky and the province was agreed to in 2018, I ask the minister: Are
amendments to the framework agreement being considered?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
absolutely happy to speak to this question, which is indicative of good news in
our industry or, certainly, optimism in our industry.
What I
can say is we have not progressed to that point. We still haven't seen Equinor
reach a decision point on that. But he is correct in that the decisions that
have been reached previously were prior to changes in development. So what I
would say is that as we move forward there will be further conversations with
the partner to determine the province's interest, how we proceed and how the
benefits agreement between everybody would shape up, depending on the changes in
the amount that is out there and how they plan on proceeding.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
I'm just looking for a simple
yes or no, Minister: Is the agreement from 2018 the plan to move forward right
now?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
I appreciate the question
from the Member, but I will point out that it is absolutely up to me how I
answer it and, certainly, I'll take my time in answering the question that's put
forward to me. Because the reality is that it's not simple yeses or noes to a
lot of this stuff. They're just not that simple.
I would
point out to the Member that right now the answer is just not known because
we're still dealing with the prospect that, as exciting and optimistic as it is,
we still do not know where it's going to go.
I would
point out that the head of Equinor was in the office last, has met with us, I
spoke to the VP –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
A. PARSONS:
– and, again, we look forward
to further conversations in ensuring that this resource that does belong to the
province will be developed to the best interests of our constituents.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
going to repeat a question here. Earlier today, NLTA President Trent Langdon
held a news conference to address the teaching and learning conditions in our
schools. You might remember that I've asked questions earlier about the EAL
supports for refugee and immigrant students. Large class sizes which ignore the
composition and diverse needs of students are contributing to burnout and having
an impact on the ability of teachers to meet the needs of their students.
Now, we
know what the minister has invested so far, but I'm asking specifically: Will
the minister, as has been requested by the president of the NLTA, exercise his
discretion to provide additional allocations to address large class sizes,
additional instructional resource teachers and student assistant time in
schools?
SPEAKER:
The Minister of Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
it is important to point out what we have invested over the last three years and
that is 350 permanent positions, Mr. Speaker. Positions such as additional
administrators, additional guidance counsellors and additional in-class teacher
positions.
It is
important to point that out, Mr. Speaker, because it's a reality and it's what
this government has done to respond to the teaching positions in the province.
Even though we've had a declining student enrolment we've added additional
teacher resources. The Independent Appointments Commission has recommended
names. We will be doing a teacher allocation review which will determine whether
or not additional positions, in addition to that, are required.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
The reality, Mr. Speaker, is
that regardless of resources if you're not taking into account the composition
of the class it does not make for a constructive, conducive or effective
learning environment and teaching environment.
Mr.
Speaker, the recent cyberattack on our health care system has shaken the
confidence of the public and we understand the sensitivity in releasing too much
information at this time. It's why last week we called for an inquiry into the
cyberattack when we're past this immediate crisis. We're glad to see that the
Official Opposition has joined us in this request.
I again
ask the Premier: Will he commit to an inquiry at a later date to determine what
led to this breach in cybersecurity and identify the measures to make it more
difficult to happen in the future?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you for the question.
As the
Premier said earlier this afternoon, there is an ongoing investigation by the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner has committed to doing his own investigation. There will be
investigations done that will review what, if anything, could have been done to
prevent the cyberattacks.
Of
course, as I've said publicly, we do choose our words carefully in this
situation. If we say certain things that aren't true or if we jump to
conclusions or speculate there will be unintended consequences of that. I'm sure
the Member can appreciate that the public safety is more important than
political jabs here in the House of Assembly this afternoon.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, asking for an
inquiry is hardly a political jab.
Recent
massive salmon die-offs at Mowi aquaculture sites since September due to low
dissolved oxygen levels and sea lice infestations have raised grave concerns
about the viability of the industry. The measures employed by Mowi aren't
working. Other than announcing the establishment of an advisory committee for
the aquaculture industry, the silence from government has been deafening.
I ask
the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture: Will he bring in meaningful
measures, such as sea lice limit protocols, penalties and fines, effective
protocols relating to maximum stocking densities and location of sea pens?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you, Speaker, and thank
you for the question.
It's a
great opportunity to bring some great notice to that industry, the aquaculture
industry, to the South Coast and the Southwest Coast of this province. It's
vitally important, Mr. Speaker.
We are
working with industry, Mr. Speaker, to do everything in our power to mitigate
anything they have when it comes to these issues. We have an expert staff that
we go out and we meet on a regular basis. We're out, we're doing what needs to
be done.
It's
unfortunate what happened to Mowi right now, Mr. Speaker. They had an oxygen
situation and they had a sea lice situation, which is being monitored. The fish
are being harvested, they're being processed right here in the plants of this
province. Every fish that's harvestable comes out of the water and is done right
here in this province and we're proud of that because it's giving much-needed
work to the South Coast of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
SPEAKER:
I do have one.
In
accordance with section 214 of the
Elections Act, 1991, I hereby table the
2021 Provincial General Election Report.
Any
further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
The Provincial Court Act, 1991, Bill 44.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1),
that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 2021.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion:
THAT
notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with private
Members' Day on Wednesday, November 17, 2021, but shall instead meet on 2 p.m.
on that day for routine proceedings and to conduct government business;
AND THAT
if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.
SPEAKER:
Any further notices of
motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows: As a result of the need for
additional energy generation in Southern Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro examined several options for consideration by the regulator, the Public
Utilities Board.
As the
PUB seeks the lowest cost alternatives, the option identified is a regional
diesel plant to be built at Port Hope Simpson. This proposal would exceed $70
million in capital construction costs and provide electricity to Southern
Labrador.
WHEREAS
Labrador is rich in both existing and potential hydroelectric wind and solar
energy; and
WHEREAS
there is growing alarm about the climate crisis facing the world and the need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to this most serious
problem; and
WHEREAS
our communities want to move away from diesel generation and towards renewable
alternatives; and
WHEREAS
the Public Utilities Board seeks only least-cost solutions when identifying
energy solutions;
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon this House of Assembly to urge the
government to revise the Public Utilities
Act so that the cost of pollution is included when evaluating energy
solutions. In the meantime, we are asking for the rejection of the super diesel
plant option.
Speaker,
this has taken and attracted a lot of attention in the media, particularly in
Labrador, which is trying desperately to move our communities off diesel. But as
a result of the way the PUB is structured right now, the only option that they
can entertain is the cheapest, or as my mother in law would say, the least
'expenseful.'
What I
really want to point out here is that we have to start considering the
environmental consequences. As per the PMR that I recently tabled, I've
calculated that the annual cost – the five million litres of diesel that would
be burned there – would represent some $2.2 million-plus worth of pollution at
$170 a ton. This is not even being considered. We are just racing ahead to a
very backward program.
I look
to the Premier and others. He was just at COP26 talking about the importance of
trying to find a solution for future generations. Here we are stuck with the
situation that's allowing us with no other option other than to continue to put
diesel into our system, continue to use diesel and continue to shorten the
generations that are to come after us in terms of a habitable environment and a
habitable planet.
For a
place like Labrador, where we are facing in just 29 years a temperature increase
in Nain alone of 7.3 degrees, in the community where I live, of six degrees
warmer – it's going to be warmer in Nain than it is going to be in St. John's.
But right now we are watching the PUB proceed with an option that's going to
contribute to this problem, not solve it.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
reasons for this petition are as follows: Many families and residents of the
province are struggling with increased costs of living in the province, as
demonstrated by the September 2021 customer inflation rate of 4.4 per cent.
Gasoline prices are at an all-time high. The cost of home heating oil has
increased to the point that some seniors are forced to choose between heating
their homes and buying groceries. Food prices continue to increase, resulting in
an increase in food bank usage in our communities.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
study and implement a plan to address the rising cost of living experienced by
the residents and families in the province, including the rising cost of
essential goods and services such as gasoline, home heating fuel, groceries and
essential dry goods.
Mr.
Speaker, we have a big problem here in Newfoundland and it's boiling down to
what people can afford to do and what they can't afford to do. Last week, we
listened to the Premier say people are ready for the belt tightening and adding
that people are ready for the tough decisions yet to come.
Well,
I'm not sure that the Premier understands the tough decisions that the average
man and woman in this province has to make. He doesn't understand that people
make a decision on whether they're going to turn their heat on or go to the mall
to stay warm. He doesn't understand that they make a decision about going to a
waiting room for eight or 10 hours, waiting to see a doctor, or going home and
continuing to be sick. He doesn't understand the choices that are made between
healthy food and junk food.
Yet, we
still tend to implement sugar taxes; the cost of fuel has gone through the roof.
The unemployment rate in this province right now is twice the national average –
twice the national average, think about that. Yet, we don't hear a peep about
jobs. Mr. Speaker, something has to be done. Government has the power to look at
a way to empower people to do better. Instead, all we do is talk about the
increases in taxes.
You look
to the Greene report. They talk about an increase in personal income tax; they
talk about the increase in HST. They talk about the increase in the gasoline tax
by 1.5 cents per litre; the provincial government should increase payroll tax by
0.5 per cent; and the provincial government should increase tobacco tax by 5.5
cents per cigarette.
Mr.
Speaker, government doesn't get it. It's time for the government to do something
about the cost of living here in this province and implement a plan to get us
out of this hole.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development for a response.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, just briefly, I
thank the Member for the petition. We'll certainly be looking at the issues he's
raised.
In terms
of my responsibility as minister, we – and our department – are monitoring all
the factors impacting the cost of living here in the province. We are compiling
the information to allow us, as we review the Poverty Reduction Strategy, to
consider all of those components and to make recommendations to government at a
future date as to how to address those factors.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition:
WHEREAS
in the District of Harbour Main there are many residents who are concerned with
the deteriorating cell service that they have been experiencing in recent
months. There has been a significant decline in the cell service throughout the
district, where calls are being dropped and residents are unable to get their
calls to go through for no apparent reason;
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 work and partner with the various cellular
providers to stabilize and improve the cell service within the region so that
citizens have a reliable service that they can count on.
Speaker,
modern telecommunications are fundamental to economic prosperity. They're
fundamental to the residents of the District of Harbour Main, as well as I'm
sure throughout the province. We do know that many constituents have been
contacting our office with very much levels of frustration. We've heard from
constituents across the district.
One
constituent from Conception Harbour said the cell service had been fine and then
it started to decline over a short period. It appears from reports we've been
having it's been since the spring. One constituent had thought it was her
cellphone. She purchased a new phone thinking it was her device – not the case.
She still had the same issues with the new device. She made complaints to her
service provider – no resolution, no success. Another constituent from Colliers,
the same thing. Nature of the problem: Calls are being cut off and disconnected
for no reason.
I've
heard from so many throughout the region; in fact, one of the constituents
started an online petition. I have the petition, Speaker. In the petition, they
had indicated that many of the residents are feeling the same frustration; their
calls are being cut off. They're having dropped calls and terrible cellphone
service. I've heard this from constituents in Holyrood, CBS, Avondale,
Conception Harbour, Harbour Main-Chapel Cove-Lakeview, Colliers, North River,
Marysvale, Georgetown, Brigus and Cupids. Those are just some of the areas.
Some of
the comments say – one, for example: I just decline the calls until I get out of
the area I'm in, in Harbour Main District. Another said I pay almost $400 per
month for a cellphone and it sucks, the service sucks. This affects their daily
life. We need better service for the big bucks we pay. These companies, Speaker,
are making a lot of money. They're very successful; they're very profitable. If
they're going to provide a service for their customers, then they have to invest
in the infrastructure.
We call
upon government – they have made, I believe, it was $25 million for broadband
and cellular over the three years, that was indicated in their last budget. They
have to ensure that this is being addressed. People need adequate cellphone
service.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
reason for this petition: Newfoundlanders are very proud of the personal
sacrifices, heroic commitment and contributions of the Blue Puttees, otherwise
affectionately remembered as The Fighting Newfoundlanders. There is never a time
when we should relax in our remembrance of their sacrifices and harrowing
experiences. We, as Newfoundlanders, are ever so proud of The Fighting
Newfoundlanders, the only army unit in World War I to receive the distinction of
Royal.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to enact legislation in the creation of veterans'
vehicle plates, starting with the Blue Puttees to further highlight the
accomplishments of these and other veterans henceforth.
I think
this was spearheaded by David Gill. I think, first of all, we do need to
acknowledge that we do commemorate the veterans with plates, and I think great
plates in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. His intent in this petition
is to include the Blue Puttees when there is a change in them that we can
highlight some of these distinctive groups that we remember for their
outstanding sacrifice going forward.
I
attended the Remembrance Day ceremony in Trinity Bay North and I think there
were hundreds spaced out on Thursday, safely, in the rain and, yes, maybe
surprising, but it was cold as well. But it was a great service of remembrance.
Several
conversations that occurred there like Albert Taylor, who was a well-decorated
veteran in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. We had a councillor in Little
Catalina whose father distorted the truth of his age so that he was able to
enter into World War I. We have a great history in our province; the Blue
Puttees are a significant part of this history.
I would
say that if the plates – and we looked at rejigging the veterans' plates that we
could have the Blue Puttees – this is what Mr. Gill and the signees that are on
this petition would like to have. We can start with that and when we do make
plates henceforth and new plates to come in, then we can certainly look at
acknowledging some of those groups in addition going forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
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 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. 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, this is still an ongoing issue in the district. It's been there ever
since 2019 when the previous premier promised to open a 24-hour emergency
service – looks like it was based on election promises again because the
minister himself has committed to opening the 24-hour emergency service only in
the 2021 election again.
The
candidate for the Liberals in the 2021 election went on
NTV News and told everybody they will have their 24-hour emergency
service. He put pamphlets out in the mail, announcing that they will have the
24-hour emergency service open.
Mr.
Speaker, that has still not happened. The minister has promised to match service
to needs. Well, the service that they need is their 24-hour emergency service
and we expect the 24-hour emergency service to be given to them, as promised.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
We, the
undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our
leaders to ensure that Labrador high school students will not have to continue
to sacrifice their in-class lecture time in order to attend Centre for Distance
Learning and Innovation (CDLI) courses online.
Our CDLI
students in Labrador are burdened with the loss of Atlantic time slots – that's
our local time zone. A decision was made to offer all CDLI courses in
Newfoundland time slots only. We feel that is unacceptable because this decision
was made without ensuring that Labrador students would not have to sacrifice
their in-class lecture time in order to attend CDLI courses.
It is
unacceptable because now our Labrador students have to leave their in-class
lectures 30 minutes early to attend their CDLI online courses and arrive 30
minutes late for their next in-class lecture.
As our
students' reliance on distance education grows, we only fear that having to
juggle two schedules, offset by 30 minutes, will deter many Labrador students
from enrolling. Our Northern Labrador students are already burdened with slow
Internet speeds averaging approximately 0.2 to 1.9 megabytes per second. We feel
that the additional burden of sacrificing one hour of class time for each CDLI
course is not acceptable and must be addressed.
Therefore we call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the Newfoundland and Labrador English
School Board to ensure that Labrador students have access to CDLI courses that
line up with their in-class time slots.
Speaker,
I'm just going to actually read a quote from Brianna Wolfrey in Rigolet – a CDLI
course – regarding what's happened to her with the removal of these time slots.
I quote her. “This isn't fair to those who have to leave their in-class classes
a half an hour early and miss important instruction just to log onto their CDLI
courses. It also means that we miss half of our dinner breaks which isn't fair
either. Hopefully some changes will be made to accommodate for us Labrador
students! Not acceptable at all.”
I just
have to say in this House of Assembly, in what world, in what universe is it
acceptable that they would switch the time slots so that Labrador students would
not have access to their full lecture? Right now, Labrador students, when
they're doing online courses, they have to leave their in-class a half an hour
early so they can do the CDLI course, then they have to show up to their next
in-class –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I sit
here today to present a petition on behalf of the residents from Humber - Bay of
Islands, Corner Brook, Massey Drive, from all the way up to Deer Lake and down
the coast to Pasadena concerning the regulations concerning helmets for
factory-sealed vehicles, Mr. Speaker.
These
petitions – 100 of these people signed this again. This was just last week;
delivered at my house. This issue is very real. This issue is still a concern
for a lot of people. I know the minister made the commitment that she will give
it serious consideration, very serious consideration when it comes to the
regulations, but these people have asked me to keep this issue alive with these
petitions. I'm presenting them all today. There are more to come. My
understanding is the House may close later the week, but there are more to come.
So I'll present them hopefully in the spring session.
This
issue is a major concern to a lot of people. I would give the minister credit
for making some friendly amendments in the bill that address some concerns that
people had, mainly with the size and also reaching the floor itself. So there
was movement in it and the minister has to take credit for that for
understanding concerns.
As I
mentioned before, I understand the concern that the minister has is that if you
don't put the safety part with the helmets in the regulations, if you need to
make a major change for some reason, you would have to come back to the House.
That's cumbersome and that takes time. So if it's in the regulations and there's
a need for a major change she can make the change – she or he, whoever – very
quickly in the regulations.
So I'm
calling upon the minister; here are hundreds of people who have concerns about
it. This is a real issue. I ask that when the consideration is given that
factory-sealed vehicles will not be required to have helmets used. I present
this today on behalf of the people who have major concerns.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows: Eastern Health has recently
repositioned one of the ambulances from the Trepassey area to the Cape Broyle
area. This has left only one ambulance in the Trepassey area. Residents of
Trepassey and the surrounding area are at least two hours from the nearest
hospital.
Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to ensure the residents of Trepassey area have accessibility to an
ambulance in a time of emergency by repositioning a second ambulance back into
the Trepassey area to ensure the safety and the well-being of local residents
and to meet the national standard for response times.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm after presenting this petition probably three or four times and I
think it's time for the government to start listening to what the people want.
This is not about money; this is about geography where this ambulance. It left
Trepassey; it went to Cape Broyle. They call it Ferryland.
So last
weekend or the weekend past I had a resident call me. They had called for an
ambulance, and the ambulance – the only one they had in Trepassey – left and
went to Ferryland. In Cape Broyle, 20 minutes away, there are two ambulances. I
guess they might be gone, not responding, or whatever the case, but the
ambulance actually came from Trepassey. So now they're left without an ambulance
and it's definitely six to eight hours.
Another
call today of an ambulance needed in Cape Broyle, a thousand feet away from them
is an ambulance just sitting there, not manned – two ambulances gone and a
gentleman had to wait an hour and a half for an ambulance to come get him.
It is
time for the government to start looking at this ambulance situation and start
listening to the people and get this rectified. It is not acceptable what's
going on here with this ambulance issue. It is not acceptable and it is time for
the minister – I'd like to know who's running this department; is it the
ambulance owners or is it the government? Because it is not acceptable what's
going on and it's time for the government to get down and look at it.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
just like to respond to a petition that was read into the House earlier today
about the diesel plant in Mary's Harbour. I want to thank the Minister of IET
for meeting with the Town of Mary's Harbour a few days ago. I want to thank the
CEO of Hydro who has met a number of times and who has agreed again to meet with
all of the communities in the area. The PUB have agreed, based on Hydro's
request, to hit the pause button as we move forward with further consultations,
Speaker.
I just
want to say I was really, really taken that the unaffiliated Member for Lake
Melville would bring a petition to the House with three signatures from Topsail
Road. That is not representing or on behalf of the people of Labrador.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) that this
House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Monday, November 15, 2021.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 6, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The
Corporations Act, Bill 24.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 24 be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Corporations Act. (Bill 24)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass as its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Corporations Act,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 5, third reading of An Act To Amend The Automobile
Insurance Act, Bill 23.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 23, An Act To Amend
The Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I just
wanted to make a little comment here and it's a bit of a personal one. I think
there are at least three Members of this House of Assembly who will recognize,
but during second reading I spoke to the team and the staff that have been
involved in this bill coming forward and a lot of people need to be thanked, but
there's one person I overlooked and I did want to introduce her name to the
record and that's Madonna Pitcher who served as the administrative assistant to
the minister through all that. I would say her calm demeanor and her
professionalism through some very challenging times actually contributed greatly
to the success of this bill. I wanted to introduce her name to the record.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 23)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 4, third reading of Bill 24.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 22, An Act Respecting
Off-Road Vehicles, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to speak for a few minutes on this, on the off-road vehicles. I've been
asked by the constituents I represent to bring it up as many times as I can, and
this is another opportunity speaking in third reading.
I won't
take the full hour to speak about it, but I'll just again raise the concerns. I
just presented a petition to the House on behalf of the residents. It's not just
the Humber - Bay of Islands; I have petitions here from all over Corner Brook,
all throughout Pasadena, all through Deer Lake, down the Northern Peninsula on
this also.
This is
just not an issue concentrated in the Humber - Bay of Islands area; it's an
issue all throughout the province. Their concerns, two of them have been
addressed but the third one, they asked me again as I presented a petition today
with hundreds of names on the petition saying yes, they are from the Humber -
Bay of Islands – you don't have to go check them, but they are from the Humber -
Bay of Islands.
The
concerns that they have is more of a safety concern when you have a helmet on.
Their vision is obstructed, the heat, noise, the hitting off the top of the
roof, Mr. Speaker. What you find is there are a lot of people, older people –
some younger people but mainly middle age and older – went out and bought these
vehicles just for that reason, for safety. That's why they went out and
purchased those vehicles is to be safe and to get the safest vehicle.
I'm not
sure, and I don't know if the minister can respond to this, but I had a couple
of emails to this. Mainly with the factory-sealed vehicles, they started coming
out in 2015-2016 and they advanced on from there. In the minister's statement,
the minister was saying that a lot of the review went back to 2015-2016 when, by
that time, a lot of these vehicles – the improvements had been made over time
for these types of vehicles.
That's
something that was brought to my attention. They asked me to bring it up in the
House of Assembly and I will. I'll let the minister respond if she feels there's
a necessity to respond to it, but they asked me to bring it up and I will.
I'll
just end there, Mr. Speaker, just to again reaffirm that there is a major
concern with the use of helmets throughout the province in factory-sealed
vehicles. There are safety concerns that were brought to the government's
attention. I know the minister has received many emails; I know the Premier has
received. I was copied on a lot of emails and I know the Members opposite on the
government side received a lot of emails also on this, as I was told by numerous
people who sent emails.
It is a
major concern. As I said before, if it's in the regulations I take the minister
to the word that she said she will give it serious consideration in the
regulations not to include the helmets. The most you can do is take that and
trusting that the information that was brought forth and with the number of
people who have concerns about it, with the factory-sealed vehicles as a safety
feature. This is why a lot of them bought these vehicles. A lot of these
vehicles aren't those fast vehicles that you see in the movies; these are
slow-moving vehicles.
Like
they said they purchased these vehicles, very expensive vehicles, which is great
for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. They purchased these vehicles to
be safe.
I just
take the minister to her commitment that she will give it serious consideration
in regulations. People ask me – and I can only give a timeline; the minister can
answer this if she feels – when do they expect to have the regulations completed
because it is an extensive bill. Like I mentioned to people, usually in a
smaller bill – regulations, but this is pretty comprehensive. As we all, on this
side of the House – I know myself, except for that part, it's a great piece of
legislation. There was a lot of work done on it.
I just
wanted to recognize that there was great work done on this bill. It is very
extensive; it will make it safer for the people of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador, except for those helmets that were raised on numerous occasions.
So I
don't know if the minister can, or if it's possible to give any timeline when
the regulations will come in. But I did tell the many people who asked me about
the timeline for the regulations that it will be hard to determine because of
the size of the bill and how extensive this bill was. I usually say it's six
months to a year, somewhere in between or later, because of – and it depends on
how extensive the bill is. This is an extensive bill.
I don't
know if the minister can shed any light on that now or we'll just wait for the
regulations to come out. I thank the minister for her serious consideration of
removing the helmets from the factory-sealed vehicles.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting
Off-Road Vehicles. (Bill 22)
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and it's title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 16.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 16, An Act To Amend
The Securities Act, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Securities Act (Bill 16)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act,” read a third time, ordered
passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 18.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 18, An Act To Amend
The Lotteries Act, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
really pleased to be able to speak another time with respect to this important
legislation. I'm only going to speak for a brief period of time, but I do want
to – just by way of summary and review – indicate a little bit of the history in
the last couple of weeks, how this act has worked its way to where it is today.
We, in
the Official Opposition, in particular the Member for Stephenville - Port au
Port, who initially started in response to the Minister of Finance's
introduction of the bill; he made some comments. As well, the Member for
Conception Bay South and I, as the particular critic for Justice and Public
Safety, had some interesting, I think, points that we had to make in debate with
respect to the concerns about this legislation.
This Act
to Amend the Lotteries Act, some of the themes throughout this act that were of
real concern to us in the Official Opposition primarily involved the limiting of
rights that the bill could impact, the rights of individuals with respect to
class action suits. With respect to that concern, we don't like to see
individuals and groups of individuals who want to access the courts, have their
right to do that being limited as it was. That was one of the big issues for us.
I know
in response the Minister of Finance had indicated each individual has rights to
sue. To me, that's really a limited right because many of the individuals who
are impacted by this particular amendment are people of limited means because
they suffer from gambling addiction. They don't have the ability; they don't
have the funds to launch an individual lawsuit. As we know, it can be very
expensive. That really isn't a legitimate response. Now, I know there's also the
avenue that an individual could go after the manufacturer. That, again, is still
of limited ability.
That is
one of the biggest concerns that we had but I guess what really, in addition to
restricting individuals' rights in the courts, we know that there is a judiciary
that has already addressed this issue. The judiciary with respect to the
Babstock case, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of the land, has
already addressed that issue and stopped it basically in its tracks, so that
there was no means for this class action to be certified.
With
respect to the government saying we had to protect the rights of the taxpayers,
that they could be exposed financially, I'm not sure that really is a persuasive
argument, given we know that the lawsuit was stopped. Now, maybe there may be
other means by which other lawsuits could be launched, but I'm not sure, I'm not
an expert in terms of class action lawsuits. Maybe that's a risk but, again, we
don't know what that is.
As the
act started to move through in debate and everything, we, as the Official
Opposition, were concerned and said: Well, we need more information about this
and we need to understand this just in terms of that piece. That's just with
respect to the legal piece. We're a Legislature, we are legislators; we're not
the judiciary. The judiciary has a very important role to play in our
government. There are three branches in our government: it's the judiciary, it's
the Executive Branch and it's the Legislature. So let's let the judiciary do
their job. Let's not try to intervene or interfere in that. We have our role to
play here as legislators and I think that's what we should be doing, what we're
doing now, debating the legislation.
One
other really important piece that was brought out, it was initially raised by
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port and then the Member for Conception
Bay South, with respect to the impact that this kind of legislation, the
Lotteries Act, has on individuals in
our community. That's what we want to understand better and that's why we need
to have more public education and more debate. Let's involve the public, let's
involve other stakeholders, whether they be people that work with individuals
who are suffering from gambling addiction. Let's hear from all of these
different people in our society who can better inform about this legislation,
the Lotteries Act, and that's what our
concern was.
We're
rushing through, almost, this legislation without really having a careful
analysis, a critical analysis. We don't expect every piece of legislation to
have that kind of rigour in terms of debate; that's not what we're asking for.
But when we're asking for a piece of legislation, like the
Lotteries Act, that impacts so many people – we know in the Babstock
case there were 30,000 individuals who joined in that class action suit. These
would've been individuals that were impacted by gambling, that perhaps suffered
for gambling, that perhaps lost their livelihood and lost their savings. If
nothing else, people in that situation deserve to have us, as legislators, look
at this very, very carefully.
I
recognize what the Minister of Finance said, you know, the majority of people
can game, they get involved in gaming and they can do it responsibly and perhaps
they're not impacted. But I don't know what that statistic is and if we look at
this closer we'll find out, we'll find out really what the impact is. We're not
saying that gambling is not something that can occur in our society responsibly.
I mean, there are many people that enjoy it and want to have that choice, but we
need to ensure that there are safeguards and ensure that there's help there. I
know we have helplines and there are mental health supports out there. But,
really, what's there for gambling? I mean, I think there's a lot more that can
be done here for people who suffer from gambling addictions.
I know
that perhaps every one of us, the 40 of us here as elected Members in the House
of Assembly, have been impacted and knows someone – if it's not in their family,
their friends or neighbours – that really, really are left very destitute and in
a very bad way because of gambling. We owe it to them and we owe it to the
people that we represent that we really do a good analysis. That's why we in the
Official Opposition are very, very pleased that the government has agreed to
look at this and agreed to an all-party Committee.
I think
that really needs to be emphasized. It was our suggestion here in the Official
Opposition: Let's look at this, let's really look at this and let's get all
parties, the unaffiliated Members, Members from the Third Party, Official
Opposition and government, all representing our province. They can each bring
their own perspectives, the people that they represent and the experiences that
people have had as a result of gambling to better enhance and better improve
this legislation.
We were
really pleased and I think that's one of the things I, as an MHA, am very
pleased about throughout this whole session. If there is anything to be proud of
is that we were able to work together to come to a common ground as people that
represent individuals in our province and we were able to agree on that. I think
that's what the people we represent want to see. They want to see more of that.
That's
not to say that we in the Official Opposition – we have a very important and
necessary function as critics to challenge government. That's why we have
Question Period, to ask the important, legitimate questions and to keep the
government's feet to the fire, if you will. That is a very important role. It's
one that we have to and do take very seriously here in the Official Opposition.
But there are times, and especially in these difficult times, when we see in the
health care and what's happening with our health care crisis that I think the
public and the people in our society want to see us work together to improve the
conditions of people that we represent.
This
amendment to the Lotteries Act, I
think it was really good to see something very positive come out of it because
now we will have an opportunity as an all-party Committee, and there will be
representatives from all of us, to inform on this, to educate and we will have
an opportunity to hear from people that are affected and that suffer from
gambling addictions. They are the best people, perhaps, to tell us. I mean, I
spoke to someone just this week, while I was at constituency week, who told me
about VLTs. I've never played a VLT in my life; I don't know what it's about.
But they explained to me how addictive and some changes have been made over the
last number of years that are not good. We can hear from people, not only
experts, but people who experience the machines to try to improve so that we're
helping people that are negatively impacted by gambling.
Again,
in conclusion, I just want to say I think it's a step forward because I know a
lot of work goes into an all-party Committee, and so we're really pleased that
the government agreed to that. A lot of work is going to go into that. But you
know what, it's going to mean that we are performing the function that we have,
the democratic process of having a Committee where we're working together. It's
not as adversarial as it sometimes is. It's working together, collaboratively,
to make something better, to make legislation more responsible, worthwhile and
representative of the needs of the people that we represent.
On that,
I'll close and thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm glad
to have the opportunity to speak to this bill again today. I would also say that
it is good to hear that there are some plans for what has been referred to as an
all-party Committee. I certainly hope it will be a Select Committee, given the
fact that there are actually twice as many unaffiliated Members as there
actually are in the Third Party. No offence to my colleague, but it is what it
is. I certainly hope that it will be a Select Committee and that there will be
some independent representation.
With
that said, Speaker, I just want to again reiterate some points that I did make
during the debate a week or so ago. While it is fine that we're going to look at
this issue, going to look at possible changes and concerns as it relates to
gambling in the province – and that is a good thing – it does nothing to change
this particular bill.
I
cannot, in good conscience, support this bill, given the fact that when you look
at the damage that has been done by gambling to so many people in this province
– including Mr. Babstock, who I know personally. He was a former constituent of
mine and long-time family friend, I would say.
There
are many other people like him that found themselves in desperate straits as it
relates to gambling, particularly as it relates to VLTs. Again, I have to say
for the record I find it very hypocritical of us to support a measure that would
strip away the rights of somebody with a gambling addiction while, at the same
time, we are party to a class action lawsuit of our own against tobacco
companies for creating an addiction.
Just
think about the irony, Speaker, around that. We're saying that tobacco is an
addiction. It is causing harm to our people and it is creating a cost to our
health care system. Therefore, we're going to jump on board a class action
against that. But at the same time that we're doing it, we're going to have
another group of people who likewise have an addiction that is doing them
irreparable harm – no different than cigarettes is to smokers – but we're going
to shield ourselves because, in this case, we are the tobacco company. We're the
ones who are making all the profits from this, so heaven forbid we can't have
anybody who becomes addicted to this and their lives are ruined and we can't
have them have the right to participate in litigation in the form of a class
action, but we can be involved in it against the tobacco companies. It's total
hypocrisy – total hypocrisy. I just can't be part of it. I can't be part of it;
I won't be part of it.
I
understand the minister talking about trying to protect the public and that's
what makes it somewhat of a moral quandary. I do get that. But I look at the
harm that has been done and will continue to be done. I also look at the fact
that people's rights are being stripped away. I know my colleague from Harbour
Main talked about it and we talked about it last week or week before last, the
minister's commentary that individuals still have the right to sue. And they do;
I accept that. I accept that they do, but the reality of it is they may have the
right to do it on paper, but do they have, from a realistic point of view,
somebody who is down and out now, who's lost their house, who's racked up all
kinds of debt, where are they getting the money to pay for a lawyer to sue on
their own. Someone could say maybe they'd do it pro bono or whatever. What
lawyer out there is going to take on a case with one individual trying to sue
Atlantic lotto when you look at the returns that that lawyer will get?
The
reason why lawyers take on class action is because then they can sue for
millions and millions and millions of dollars and then their 30 per cent or 40
per cent is substantial and it's worth their while to be tying it up with the
courts for two or three or four years, however long it takes, because the reward
at the other end is great, the money they will receive, their share. But no
lawyer is going to take that on for years, to sue on behalf of one individual
pro bono. It's not happening. It's just not realistic. That's why I find it so
difficult and I can't support it.
I will
say this as well – and this is a new point because one of the things that got
kept thrown out the last time we were talking about this: repetition,
repetition. This is something now that I didn't raise before. I don't think
anyone did, which I feel is absolutely new and relevant, by the way. That's the
fact that right now that ability is there to sue in a class action – albeit,
it's been tested by the courts and the court said that Mr. Babstock's class
action was thrown out, didn't meet the criteria or whatever it was required to
do. It was thrown out by the courts. I understand that maybe if there was
another attempt and it was worded in a different way or there was different
information, perhaps the fear is next time it could go through.
But one
of the comments that were made and the minister did respond to is the fact that
we talk about fair gaming. The minister talked about these fair gaming practices
that are being used. I think there's an argument to be made whether how fair is
fair gaming. But let's just say that by whatever standard, whatever that
yardstick is, we have fair-gaming practices and that there are warnings about
the addictiveness of gambling. I don't play the machines, so I don't know if
there is or not. I never saw anything. I had suggested there should be a big
sign there, warning you the same as the black lung on a cigarette package. But
someone did say, oh, they do warn you. So maybe there's something pops up on the
screen for a second that says that this is addictive. I don't know if there is
or there isn't. Maybe there is.
But the
point is, regardless what is in place right now – and I heard the minister, I
think, talk about the limits, like $2.50 is the maximum you can bet at a time or
whatever. Fair enough, right? But if we removed the right for class action
lawsuits – so let's say that happens. Let's say this gets passed; it gets moved.
So what's to stop, then, the lottery corporations who maybe – I'm just saying
maybe because I don't know – in the past said, well, we have to adhere to these
fair-gaming practices or these responsible-gaming practices because if we don't,
we will cross that threshold where someone like Mr. Babstock would be successful
in his lawsuit.
But now
that we've put in legislation to remove that deterrent, what's to stop Atlantic
lotto, then, six months down the road saying, you know what, instead of $2.50 a
bet, let's up it to $5 – nah, let's do 20 bucks a bet. Instead of having the
games going for four hours a night or at a time or whatever the rule is on it,
let's go 24-7. Instead of having four machines in the club –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. LANE:
– let's have 104 machines in
the club.
I'm not
saying they're going to do it, but the point I'm making is that one of the
arguments that was presented was the fact that Atlantic lotto has responsible
gaming practices in place and my only point is if you remove the deterrents of a
class action lawsuit and now you can't sue them, then what is to stop them in
six months from now to change those practices and start having more machines;
having the machines operating longer periods of time, allowing you to bet more
often, taking any warnings that might be on the machines, removing all that and
having a free for all, given the fact that we know that no matter what they do,
we can't sue them anyway?
I'm not
saying that's what they're going to do. I'm just saying that that's being
removed. Unless I'm missing something. Perhaps there's somebody here – the
Minister of Justice over there is listening intently. He's a lawyer, so he
understands all this stuff. I see him nodding his head in agreement and very
engaged in all this. So perhaps he might be able to comment on that.
But I
think it's a fair point. I think it's a fair point to say that if we currently
have fair gaming practices in place, which may indeed be due to the deterrence
that exists that somebody could sue and be successful in their lawsuit, if it
was shown that fair gaming practices were not in place. Well, if we remove that
deterrence, what is to stop them after the fact to say: Do you know what? We
can't be sued; we can do what we want, and make them even more addictive.
Because,
again, I heard someone talk about you could sue the manufacturer. Now, I'm no
expert on these machines, I'm really not. Again, I could be wrong, I stand to be
corrected, but my understanding is that the person who's making the machine can
program that machine whatever way you want it programmed. They're not the ones
who are programming it, for example.
I can't
say for certain how it works here in Newfoundland and that, but I know, for
example, I can remember I was in Las Vegas a couple of years ago and talking to
one of the guys there at one of the places we stopped into and asking him about
it. They had the machines at the bar, built in to the bar top, type of thing.
Buddy was telling me, at least down there and it might be different here, that
they could program those slot machines or whatever to allow you to win more
often.
So some
places, in order to keep people drinking at the bar, they could program that
machine so that you're winning more often. You lose in the end because the
machines, obviously, they wouldn't make money if you were winning. Obviously,
the house always wins, ultimately. But they could program those machines so that
you could win more often or you would lose more often.
Certain
businesses, depending on if they were trying to – if it was a wildly popular
location and there are lots of people coming in gambling and whatever, they
would have it so that you wouldn't be winning a whole lot, as long as people
kept on going. But then you had other places where business was slowing down or
whatever or they were kind of off the beaten track, they could program their
machines so when you played you would win more often than you would lose;
therefore, the locals would keep going there to that bar buying drinks because
they were winning a bit of money or not losing as much money.
That
wasn't the manufacturer who made the machine like that. That was them being able
to program the machines, to adjust them in terms of wins, losses and so on. I'm
assuming that that same idea would apply to Atlantic lotto machines in terms of
those things.
Of
course, we know that there have been all kinds of studies done on these machines
in terms of the flashing lights, the bells or whatever that go off. Sometimes
you hit the button and you think you're winning because the machine makes a
(inaudible) kind of sound, which makes it seem like you're winning and you
probably did. You bet $2.50 and you won 50 cents, so you actually lost $2. You
didn't win anything but the machine gives the impression by the bells and the
flashing lights as if you're actually winning something, when you're actually
not winning.
These
are all things that are in these machines and are done. There have been people
who studied these machines to try to make them as addictive as possible,
actually, to attract people and to keep people playing.
There
are some controls on this stuff that can be controlled by the owner of the
machine or the operator of the lottery and so on. Again, I would submit that
having it in the back of their mind that: B'ys, if we're not being responsible
here and we're not careful, we could open ourselves up that a lawsuit would be
successful against us. That is a deterrent. Now, we're going to take that away.
I think that's an important point.
Anyway,
Speaker, those are the points I wanted to make about it. I still have that
concern. I can't support it. I will, again, conclude by saying that gambling is
a very sensitive topic, very controversial with some. There are people who
gamble responsibly and so on. They don't have issues. There are people who have
suffered tremendous loss, whether it be financially, have lost their homes, have
gone into debt. Marriages have been broken up. There's been all kinds of issues,
right to the extreme of – I think I spoke a couple of weeks ago about it – a
person who actually committed an armed robbery; lost his job, went thousands of
dollars in debt and actually committed an armed robbery to get money because of
the gambling addiction. So that's how extreme some of this can go.
While I
won't be supporting this bill, I do support the notion of having Members engaged
in a Committee, a study, whatever you want to call it, looking at these issues
and trying to ensure that the practices that we have here in Newfoundland and
Labrador are responsible and protect everybody.
I hope,
once again, that it will be actually a Select Committee and that there will be
representation from the independent Members here as well, because nobody reached
across the aisle to anybody here – check with all my colleagues – about this. So
this is kind of news to me. Perhaps not surprising, but, anyway, it is what it
is. I hope that all Members are going to be included.
I will
conclude my remarks with that, Speaker, and again just say that I do understand
that government is trying to, I suppose, protect the province from any potential
litigation. The fact of the matter is, is that it has been tried. It was turned
down by the courts.
My
biggest point, my biggest moral dilemma here is that I feel that to be part of a
class action lawsuit against tobacco companies, while at the same time
preventing people from suing with gambling addictions on the other hand, would
be totally, totally hypocritical. So I can't support it.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Any other speakers to the
motion?
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
First of
all, I want to thank my independent colleagues, Members of the Third Party and
those others who have spoken to their concerns around this bill.
When
this bill was first tabled I thought I was going to be the only one speaking to
it during second reading and I was very pleased to see the various comments and
the various, frankly, reflections of what so many of us are feeling as an MHA
with many constituents who are battling with this problem. That was good to see.
On the
particular Thursday that we were speaking to it I had to leave early for a
flight to Ottawa, but I want to thank my colleagues for continuing to make the
point to government of the unfortunate decision to proceed in this manner with
this bill. It's going to be difficult for us to stop what's happening here, but
we certainly are going to take this opportunity to make our points.
As my
colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands just said, there's no problem here in
finding ways to avoid any repetition because I can tell you my office has been
filled with comments, whether it has been people calling, sending me emails or
people I've met on the plane in the last week or so since this bill has come and
their stories, and that's some of what I wanted to read into the record here
this afternoon and point out some of the problems.
I did
want to reference my colleague from Harbour Main and her comments. I had
reference to it and I compliment her on the comments that she had made during
second reading. I just wanted to read a couple of them into the record. She
said: The legislation is of grave concern to the Members of the Opposition. From
a legal perspective, the legislation, in essence, is an attempt to legislate
away rights, the rights of individuals to join in a class action lawsuit. In
essence, it is restricting access to justice that basically is a very, very
concerning violation of one's fundamental right to have access to the courts.
I've heard others speak about the executive, the Legislature and the judiciary
and the importance of us not losing track of what we are all doing. We are here
making laws; we're not interpreting them. I'm very concerned, as she rightly
pointed out, that we are denying justice.
One of
the reasons why I'm fixated on this problem and wanting to continue to speak to
it is that as I speak to those who are either battling this addiction or who are
family members and loved ones of those who have a gambling addiction, especially
when I'm talking about video lottery terminals, there is something going on here
that is, I will just say, sinister. When you hear people talking about these
happy tunes, these happy music, the little jingly sounds that are going along
with you as you're watching your paycheque disappear at essentially one sitting.
The addictive nature of someone driving by any kind of building, frankly, which
has a VLT in it and just the draw, the lure and the attraction that they can't
even drive by the place. There is an element to the addiction here that maybe we
don't completely understand it, but I can tell you I've had people sit in front
of me and talk about it.
Because
of that I am very concerned that passing this bill is going to deny an
opportunity for us to really get to the bottom of it. As with tobacco, as with
OxyContin and as with some of these other situations that, frankly, our
government has been involved in in the pursuit ourselves, science, health
experts and others have identified a clear link between – perhaps an unintended
or maybe not; I'm not sure – the consequences of us being a part of this whole
institution of organized gambling. It's just something I feel we really need to
think about in terms of limiting the ability of people to be able to ever seek
any kind of recompense for what has happened.
As some
who have reached out to me said, if people lose $200 or $500, that's there
fault. Well, perhaps, and that is also not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm
talking about people who, from paycheque to paycheque, find themselves at a VLT
and sometimes playing more than one VLT. Frankly, many of them are playing
several VLTs at a time if they are able to. The day in, day out drain on their
own finances, and now what's happening and as I've learned – and I'll just go
through and I'm going to be very, very careful about some of the parameters
around these, but I do want to bring it into the record.
There is
a woman, I'll just describe her, she's in the District of Cape St. Francis and
her family contacted me. She's spending up to $100 a day on scratch tickets.
They've just discovered this. Just discovered her entire life savings are gone
and now they're having to step in and pay bills. I'm not sure of their own
means, but it was just one of the personal stories that somebody took the time
to reach out and tell me. So many of the others, frankly, are on the VLTs, but I
did have that one on scratch tickets. It's the same addictive nature.
What I
feel is going on I think through so many of us is that it's like a
below-the-radar problem that is so much more serious than we are giving this
credit to. If we really think about it, some of the numbers I had was $406
million a year is spent by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on gambling. That's
over a million dollars a day. I get this, (inaudible) again some addiction to
our own situation. We receive, on the bottom line, $130 million towards the
revenue of the budget that we operate on – $130 million. Man, you can do a lot
with $130 million. But guess what those families could've done with $130
million. Yeah, people put the argument out and they say: Well, maybe those folks
would just spend it on some other kind of online gambling system and so on. Yes,
perhaps; perhaps they would. But all I can tell you is that at least we would be
out of this business. I don't believe this is a way for the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to operate, by essentially setting up and being a part
of a system that has ruined so many people.
Back in
2009 – that was the most current numbers I could find. I'm not sure through the
debate; I've tried to catch as much of it as possible. In 2009, we had some
2,800 problem gamblers. Some of them I have, personally, as the MHA for Lake
Melville, helped to get some of these people to treatment at our own addictions
treatment facility here in the province. I just wonder: How many others are in
need of that support and, frankly, are not receiving it? That $130 million,
that's not tied to help victims, that's tied to everything else that we've got
to deal with as a government.
I'm not
going to belabour the point, Speaker, but I wanted to get in there and I wanted
to again express support for those who've spoken about this, spoken without any
kind of political lens other than to represent the people who've been most hurt
by this horrible addiction that we are unfortunately a part of.
Commenting about the all-party Committee that's coming and what it's going to
do, I would ask that this party also put on its agenda: What can Newfoundland
and Labrador do to get out of this racket? Because it is a racket. I'm also
going to be opposing the passage of this bill because, frankly, I want to be
able to look people in the eye and say: I did everything I could to stop it. I
can only hope that you get the support that you deserve if this all-party
Committee can actually do any of its work.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm not
going to say a lot. We spoke the other night on this. I think I spoke five
different times that night just trying to draw attention to the fact of what was
so wrong.
When I
got elected to be an MHA, I was under the delusion – and I think a big part of
it is the way I was raised. I was raised to look at the greater good. I was
raised by my parents to make sure that people who were vulnerable were
protected.
I saw
that in my daily life, and I'm disappointed with this bill. I was really proud
the other night when we stood and basically rallied to try to make this
government accountable. We were called on everything. We were shut down and at
the end of it; we were basically stopped from continuing to raise this issue.
I was
talking to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands earlier today and we were
talking about harm and we were also talking about residential schools. He asked
me why was I –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
One of the questions he asked
was: You seem to be doing pretty good; so what's different for you compared to
other people who have a lot of issues such as addictions and things like that?
One of the things I talked about is both my parents went to a residential
school. They were in a situation where they were vulnerable, without parental
guidance and parental protection, and that's one of the things that they
instilled in us.
I
believe when you are the government, you have to make sure that your most
vulnerable in the province don't fall through the cracks. With addictions, even
good people become criminals. Good people spend all of their money. Good people
actually neglect their children because of addictions. The biggest problem I
have with this is they are removing the ability for a class action lawsuit. Why
is that?
If you
look at what's the purpose of a class action lawsuit and if you google it –
because everyone has access to electronics now – this is one of the definitions
that pop up and they're all basically the same. I'm not a lawyer. I don't need
to be a lawyer. Class action lawsuits allow groups of people to seek justice
against a defendant who is accused of causing loss or harm to others through –
and they list off all the things.
So I go
back to a class action lawsuit allows groups to seek justice against a defendant
accused of causing loss or harm. So why would we want to remove the ability for
our people to seek justice? We're basically preventing them from seeking justice
by removing this class action. And you want to know something? That is shameful
behaviour on a government.
Then,
you know, what was talked about a lot here today and the other night was about
the class action lawsuit that was brought forward against Atlantic lotto.
Douglas Babstock was named here many times as one of the people that put forward
the class action lawsuit and it was about the potential of VLTs causing harming.
More than 30,000 players had signed on to this class action lawsuit. They didn't
succeed, but it was a very, very narrow margin that they lost. It was actually a
narrow 5-4 decision that allowed the Supreme Court to side with the Atlantic
Lottery Corporation.
One of
the things that I think is important to mention and I didn't hear it before, in
that class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs who were bringing forward talking
about harm, claimed the VLTs are inherently deceptive and are electronically
programmed to create cognitive distortions of the perception of winning, which
is what my fellow MHA was talking about: the cognitive distortions.
We hear
a lot of about that; but do you know what this is all about? It's about taking
money from the pockets of people – families, citizens. Talking about ruining
lives. At the end of the day, we all know that class action lawsuits is there as
a deterrent from causing harm or loss. When you look at these lawsuits, why
remove it?
Also,
they narrowly lost at the Supreme Court but the claimants won their case at both
trial and the Newfoundland Court of Appeal, only to lose. So is this government
worried about – in actual fact, do the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador
have a legal right to sue and win because of the harms done? Is this a cover up,
really, honestly? Is this a way to cheat the citizens from having access to the
legal right to seek justice?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. EVANS:
Do your point of order,
buddy; I don't mind if you kick me out because, at the end of the day, somebody
got to speak up for the vulnerable people in this province. We can't allow the
government to do this to people. And do you know something? Remove it for
gambling, what's the next thing? Against automobiles, against manufacturers of
drugs? This is a slippery slope. That's why we spoke the other night.
I've got
to tell you, it was really disappointing to hear the words shouted at us that
what we were doing – standing up for the people – was shameful, shameful
behaviour. That was actually directed at us because we were challenging the
government on this.
At the
end of the day, who is going to look after the people if the government turns
their back on our vulnerable people? And how much money is this government
making on the backs of people who are gambling, $120 million –?
AN HON. MEMBER:
One-thirty.
L. EVANS:
Yeah, $130 million. In actual
fact, at what cost? When you have a family that's raising kids to be productive
future citizens of our province, to have all that thrown away, to have them lose
their houses, have them lose everything because of the system that's rigged
against them. At the end of the day, people have to speak against it.
The
minister actually did say 0.7 per cent is problem gamblers. So does that mean
only 0.7 per cent are problem gamblers? Because in actual fact other provinces
quoted up to 1 per cent. At the end of the day if somebody is a problem gambler,
everybody suffers. They suffer, their families suffer, their children suffer,
their parents suffer, their relatives suffer and their friends suffer.
It goes
back to Judas money. At the end of the day when you're stealing money from the
most vulnerable, it's not right. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to end it there.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
assume, Speaker, if we're removing protections, there should be adequate
protections in place. So this weekend, I checked out the Atlantic Lottery
Corporation and saw their site. Of course part of their mission is that they're
pleased to fund non-profit or charitable organizations promoting responsible
gambling initiatives in our communities. You can see what the purpose of the
Atlantic Lottery Corporation is. It's to promote responsible gambling. Gambling,
nevertheless, is what it is.
What I
found difficult to track down are actual supports for those with problem
gambling. Now, they do have a small section there: gambling support resources.
If you or someone you know has a problem with gambling, help is just a phone
call away. We've heard that one here in the House of Assembly for a number of
departments.
I called
the number, which I understand is also on the side of the VLTs. What I got was
the crisis intervention team wondering how I got that number. I told them where
I got it – how I ended up calling them. They gave me the number to call, which
was the same number I just called.
Now, I
had a wonderful conversation, Speaker, with the gentleman there but he could not
direct me to anything with regard to gambling, support for problem gambling or
if I was suffering a gambling addiction. But he did recommend that I contact the
Recovery Centre, which I called on the weekend and again this morning.
At that
point, really, the person who answered, a very helpful person, said, no, we
really don't deal with gambling counselling or for addiction, along those lines,
but they did recommend that maybe I go to Adult Central Intake or call DoorWays,
which I did. Of course, you have to leave a message. Sounds familiar. I asked if
there is a gamblers anonymous and the person was unable to tell me.
So
here's the issue I have, on one hand we are basically promoting and supporting
an organization that its function is indeed to promote gambling, but it's doing
a pretty thin job of protecting those who might be problem gamblers or providing
the support resources. Actually, when I checked out some of the sites of the
other provinces, Speaker, with regard to gambling supports, the other websites
seemed a lot more robust than the Newfoundland and Labrador website, that's for
sure.
On one
hand – and this is the concern you've heard me speak about here – it's great for
the people who can walk into a casino, can walk into the VLTs, who can buy the
lottery ticket every now and again and walk out, but the cost to individuals who
have that addiction or who are dealing with other issues are far-reaching. They
are the unprotected. They are the vulnerable.
If
indeed a person felt that they had been victims of gambling; that they were
played upon; that they lost their home, their family, whatever, what is the
protection they have to take on the case themselves? In many cases, that's going
to victimize them again because they won't be able to do it, which is why, for
the most part, class action lawsuits do exists.
If you
look at some literature on it, Speaker, class action is often considered to be
an effective means of policing corporate behaviour and the assurance that the
injured victims will be compensated in the most efficient manner.
Why
corporate behaviour? The Atlantic Lottery Corporation, because they have at
their disposal huge sums of income that they can use to defend themselves, they
have experienced legal teams, you might say the game is tilted in their favour.
So, to me, a class action at least levels the playing field.
It is
interesting, in a CTV article on this in 2019, it's here that in Ontario the
loser pays the legal cost of the defendant. Here is what they found: In that
process, there are many community groups that said they probably would have
launched class actions to advance anti-poverty or human rights matters but they
just couldn't take the chance of paying costs. I would suggest that for someone
who is filling an individual lawsuit, that would be the risk as well, that they
would be on the hook as well.
So think
about this then, we're going to allow individuals to take court action, put them
on the risk of – if they can afford it to begin with, but they are going to find
themselves possibly on the hook, not only for the legal costs of their own
lawyer but for the defendant as well.
In the
end, I won't repeat too much but I will emphasize this, for many people there
are other issues at play: Mental health issues maybe related to poverty, maybe
related to food insecurity and housing insecurity. There are many people who,
for whatever reason, will find in that gambling a source of, I guess,
forgetfulness that they lose track of time; that for the moment, they live in
that moment; what some people call the dark flow of becoming totally engrossed
in the VLT or the gambling in front of you and forgetting everything else in
your life. If you're dealing with some other issues, then, yeah, I guess
gambling is going to become a drug of choice.
Again,
I'll go back to – I've said it before here – many school counsellors I would
speak to would often say that underlying just about every addiction, there's a
mental health issue. The drugs or the addiction is a way of self-medicating.
It's not always drugs. In this case, if you're going into and you get hooked on,
as a result, the slot machines or the VLTs, yeah, you will forget your problems.
But, in the process, you might very well ruin yourself, financially. You might
very well destroy your family, you name it, your job and so on and so forth.
At some
point, we've got to recognize that that is a very real consequence, just as much
as we realize the consequence of smoking to our health care system, of drugs to
the health care system. In many ways, if we can recognize it and how that
affects the province, I think we have to recognize and offer protections to
those who are vulnerable.
What I
can see, Speaker, is that calling the 1-800 number on the side of the VLTs or on
the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is a pretty weak-kneed response by the
government and a poor excuse to say that we are actually looking after – we've
got measures in place. Because from what I can see, the chances of winning at a
VLT are probably greater than finding the help they need by calling the number.
So, in
many ways, let's make sure that whatever we do here – this will probably pass.
But, to me, I look at the people who I help in my district. They are vulnerable,
a lot of them, the ones who call in. In many cases, yeah, it's related to
gambling and there is a reason for it.
I just
cannot support legislation that basically takes away protections in the form of
a class action for those people.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm just
going to spend a few minutes again to speak on this bill. We spoke on this
several times before, but I just wanted to pass on my concerns about the bill.
Also, as I heard a lot of people speak about, is why the need to take away the
rights of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador if a class
action is so available to them.
It was
mentioned earlier that the Supreme Court of Canada already stated there's a very
small chance of even succeeding, even if there is a class action, even though it
was mentioned in this House that people can sue the manufacturer of the
machines. I know if anybody went to buy any piece of equipment today, they can
say, here's what I want. They'll make it up. It's disingenuous when you say you
can sue the manufacturer when the manufacturer adheres to the specifications of
Atlantic lotto.
I won't
repeat all the comments that were made here today, the great comments about a
lot of the people are vulnerable, that operate the machines, and the ones that
aren't that become addicted will soon be vulnerable to a lot of other loss of
income, loss of home, loss of marriage. So it is a devil in disguise because it
does help the province, as the minister mentioned, about $130 million in revenue
in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We could
always discuss how the money is spent. It was always an issue back when it first
started and then you get used to the funds coming in from Atlantic lotto. But
the big issue here today is taking away the rights of individuals to have a
class action lawsuit against the Atlantic lotto. I heard the arguments made
across: Well, the other three provinces did. I also hear the argument on many
occasions that we should be the leaders.
I just
find it strange that sometimes when people use the argument that the other three
provinces are doing it, therefore we have to join in; but when we do something
that's a bit different from the rest of the Atlantic provinces or Canada, you
say, oh, we're leaders.
So why
not be leaders in this? Why can't we stand up for the rights of individuals in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? That's the concern that I have with
it: We're taking away the basic fundamental rights of any person in Newfoundland
and Labrador who feel – we know how the machines work. We hear it all the time
on how gambling addiction becomes prevalent. We know it. We just heard from the
Member for St. John's Centre calling in, just seeking what kind of help is
available. I don't need to go into that discussion.
The
basic thing for me is taking away the rights of individuals because the other
provinces have done it. That is the bigger issue for me. If we, as a Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, can't defend the reason why we're involved with
Atlantic lotto – so if we can't defend it, we're going to take away the rights
so they can't go to court, I disagree with that totally. It's a fundamental
issue for me and I'll be voting against it.
The
other thing I heard that there's going to be an all-party Committee set up.
Again, I mentioned there are four independents here. We are independent,
absolutely no doubt, but I'm sure that we can come together to say who's best
here to get on this with the best skill set to be on this to sort of keep the
other people informed of what's happening and our concerns.
During
COVID when there were issues and there was an all-party Committee on COVID, I
know the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands we chatted every day before a
meeting about concerns that I had that I could bring up at that meeting.
It do
work because instead of trying to say everybody should be on it, all of us
should be a part of it, I'm sure that as four individuals here and as four
responsible people that we can come to a consensus to put one on it to ensure
that all of our views of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is
what an all-party Committee is supposed to do is hear as many views as possible
throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to take all views into
consideration, take all facts into consideration. We can definitely use that
avenue and would be great.
I call
upon the Government House Leader to ensure that there is a person from the
independent group here to be on that. If not, there will be four districts here,
somehow, that will not have their concerns raised. Then if you take that a step
further, it would be hard for the government and whoever to come out and say we
have a consensus from the all-party Committee when actually it wasn't an
all-party Committee.
That's
just something else I'll throw in there. The reason for that, Speaker, is to
ensure that we get the best information possible for all the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that when we supply information to an
all-party Committee that it reaches every corner of Newfoundland and Labrador,
that every spirit that it possibly could reach and that we can ensure that when
the legislation comes back to the House, anything we can do, that it's going to
be the best piece of legislation possible. So that we all could stand in
agreement and say we did the best we could.
But
right now, as it stands, to go ahead and take away the rights of individuals, I
can't support that, Speaker. That is a fundamental issue for me. I just hope
that the government, before this is enacted, will have a very extensive
consultation on it and we'll come to a consensus that we can hopefully not take
away the fundamental rights of people of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We want to ensure that we keep the rights of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
This is
very addictive. We all know it. We all hear the stories about it. I don't know
if there's a person in this Legislature that hasn't had a story about it or know
somebody who's been affected by it. I don't say there's a person in the
Legislature didn't have a call on it.
So we
must give them that option. I know the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands also
brought up the point about here we are suing the tobacco companies because it
was harmful. Just on a point on that, and I'll bring that a bit further for the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands. It took almost 50 years to finally get it
proven that tobacco was addictive, what they were putting in tobacco. Took
almost 50 years, or even longer.
I
remember back when all that started probably in 2002-2003 when we joined in it
and going to do it, they finally had the information going back 40, 50 years.
All the documentation then when you the emails and what was put in the
cigarettes to make it addictive and things like that, that's how far you go
back.
So if we
take away these rights of these individuals, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
if 10 years down the road we find out the information that was given to us was
inaccurate, they're left high and dry. So if we're going to use the same level
and the same degree of thought if we're going to sue the tobacco companies when
we know there's 40, 50 years of information that people were being misled and
we're going to take away the rights of the people now for about less than 20
years, it's fundamentally wrong. It's fundamentally wrong for us to do that,
because there may be information come out in 10 years' time, five years' time
that we didn't know as legislators.
The same
thing with the tobacco companies. Information came out that people didn't know
at the time. When they go to the committees, there were a lot of committees that
were held at the time and the information wasn't even presented to the
committees. You can see the fallout of that over the years on that where people
were called back to membered committees in the US and Canada about information
that was presented years prior. We should not take away that right for
individuals.
I heard
the Member for Torngat Mountains talk about the underprivileged. A lot of times
it's the underprivileged and many times we see people losing their homes and
losing their jobs over this, and it soon becomes a situation which is very sad
financially and personally for them all. The kids suffer, the family suffer and
we're taking away that right. I just can't support it. So I will not be
supporting this bill. I look forward to the all-party Committee with the Member
from the independents on the Committee so we can express our views.
Just
remember, Mr. Speaker – I'll close with this here – the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador has joined lawsuits to sue the tobacco company for
addictions, yet we're taking away the rights from Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to sue Atlantic Lotto for addictions. If you want to talk about
something that's a bit hypocritical, this is a prime example in this Legislature
how hypocritical this is.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
I'm seeing no other speakers.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Call in
the Members.
Division
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, please rise.
CLERK:
Andrew Furey, Steve Crocker,
Lisa Dempster, Gerry Byrne, Tom Osborne, Siobhan Coady, Pam Parsons, Sarah
Stoodley, Andrew Parsons, John Hogan, Bernard Davis, Derrick Bragg, John Abbott,
Brian Warr, Elvis Loveless, Krista Lynn Howell, Paul Pike, Scott Reid, Sherry
Gambin-Walsh, Lucy Stoyles.
SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
David Brazil, Barry Petten,
Craig Pardy, Tony Wakeham, Chris Tibbs, Loyola O'Driscoll, Helen Conway
Ottenheimer, Lloyd Parrott, Joedy Wall, Pleaman Forsey, Jeff Dwyer, Paul Dinn,
James Dinn, Jordan Brown, Eddie Joyce, Paul Lane, Perry Trimper, Lela Evans.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 20; the nays: 18.
SPEAKER:
I declare this motion passed.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Lotteries Act. (Bill 18)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act,” read a third time, ordered
passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 40.
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 discuss said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
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 (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 40, An Act Respecting The Protection of Adults.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults.” (Bill 40)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
In
clause 1, how does this act function if a resident of the province is
temporarily living outside of the province and it becomes evident that they are
in need of assistance through this act? Likewise, how does this act help people
who may be temporary residents of this province?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, in terms of invoking
the legislation, a referral would be made to one of the health authorities and
if the individual is a resident in the province at that time, an investigation
would commence.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
This act applies to adults 18
years of age and older. There is another act which provides youth services to
youth who are in need of them.
If a
person is about to age out of being a youth but it is evident that they need the
supports of this act, can proactive supports be put in place before their 18th
birthday to come into effect upon turning 18?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
The act is specific in terms
of the age requirements. Obviously, if the child, or in this case 18 or younger,
was in care of the department or we knew there were some issues from that
perspective, we would certainly work with that individual, that family, but
would not necessarily be able to invoke this act because of the age limits.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Chair, my following questions
have to do with outside of clause 1. Will I wait until you call subsequent
clauses or continue?
CHAIR:
You can ask all your
questions in clause 1.
J. DWYER:
Okay, thank you, Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
In clause 4, it notes that
this act does not apply to an adult who is the subject of the certificate or a
community treatment order issued by the
Mental Health Care and Treatment Act.
Can the
minister please explain why not?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
In those cases, those
individuals would be already, basically, in the care of the state and particular
orders would have been affected for their care. So it would be – my term here
now – redundant to include them in this legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
Section
5 outlines that an adult is in need of protective intervention if they lack
capacity with respect to one or more areas and then list these areas. The
definition of capacity or lacking capacity is then included in section 5(b).
Mr.
Chair, I have two questions about this section. First of all, how was the list
of areas where an individual could lack capacity created, for example, health
care, physical, emotional, et cetera?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
The legislation, different than before, we were trying to be more specific in
the areas where, what we call domains of protection – and those were done based
on the experience we've have with the previous legislation and in consultation
with the clinical staff – that would be working with individuals that would
potentially need to come into protection. It is reflected of best practice
across the country.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
So who was consulted in
creating this list?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Any of these provisions and
the act or the legislation overall, we consulted widely across the province,
but, particularly, with the health authorities who are the folks that are most
familiar with and use the act on a quite regular basis. We worked with the
Seniors' Advocate office and we worked with other stakeholders including
Indigenous groups and governments across the province.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Section 5 also contains the
definition of capacity. Why is this contained in section 5(b) and not in the
definitions?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
There is the definition
section and then capacity is really, in this case, sort of a clinical definition
to determine when the act will come into play for an individual. This is the
first element. Then the second element would be what is the potential risk and
the individual's capacity to understand that risk.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
In clause 7 of the bill it
talks about a person's right to be heard. It notes that a person can be heard
through a spokesperson.
Can the
minister outline who a spokesperson may be? Can an adult have two or more
spokespersons? What provisions are in place to ensure the spokesperson is, in
fact, accurately representing the adult's views?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, that would be – in terms of the individual to support the adult needing
protection or potentially needing protection – somebody that would be known to
the individual, recognized as that by the social workers who would be involved
in any particular evaluation or investigation. It also involves the ability to
have and instruct counsel in that same provision.
So there
is a possibility that there could be more than one person involved, but the norm
would be it would be one individual that would be trusted, somebody known to
that individual, again, based on our social workers that are involved doing
their due diligence to make sure that, to your point, I think, that the right
person is, in fact, involved in the case.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Can the person apply for legal aid to obtain counsel?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
That's a good question. I would say the answer is yes, if needed, and we would
make sure that counsel, if necessary, would be provided.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
In clause 8, it outlines the service principles of this act. I am glad to see
these policy statements in legislation instead of regulations or policy. I have
a couple of questions about them.
How were
they determined? Was the Seniors' Advocate consulted on this section and was the
Privacy Commissioner consulted?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, the service principles, again, were done based on consultation, working
with the health authorities, in particular, and our director of adult protection
who are constantly involved in adult protection matters.
In terms
of the consultation, the bill certainly has been shared and response provided by
the Privacy Commissioner. The Seniors' Advocate's office would have been
involved in the general consultation, not necessarily on the wording here but
subsequently would have this legislation as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
What
recourse is available to a person if they feel that one of these service
principles was not applied to their case?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Then the appeal would be to
the health authority and/or the director of Adult Protection with the
department.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
In clauses 9(4) and 9(5) it
notes that the provincial director may delegate their authority to another
person in the department. In what circumstances would this occur? To whom would
authority be delegated?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, on a practical level,
if the provincial director was on leave, on holiday, in those circumstances,
then the staff in his office, one of his staff then would be delegated the
authority to act on their behalf.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
In clause 12 it notes that a
report can be made to a director. Am I correct to assume that this is a director
appointed under this act, and not a director within the department or an RHA?
What happens if abuse is reported to a health care worker, or a health care
worker suspects abuse?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, there are four
directors. There would be a director in each of the health authorities, along
with the provincial director that a potential case could be referred to. It
would be on the onus of any social worker or police officer or else in the
community to refer – any referral to him or her to the appropriate director in
the region.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Clause 15 indicates that a social worker will be the investigator. If a social
worker is not available, another person may be an investigator. Who is this
“another” person? What qualifications must they have? Why would a social worker
not be available?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
I think it would be rare that
there wouldn't be a social worker available in the region, but to cover all
contingencies, we've developed this particular clause. In the event there is not
a social worker, then it could be an occupational therapist, it could be another
health professional in the health authority that could assist that director
and/or social worker to begin the process. Before an evaluation went to an
investigation, then a social worker would definitely be involved at that point.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
In section 30 it outlines
that a service plan is put in place and that an adult has the right to
participate in the development of the service plan. Is the family of an adult or
any community organizations in which – has been supporting this adult
consultation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, the whole concept of
the service plan is to allow the social worker assigned to the case to work with
the adult in need of protection, but to work with all their supports: family,
community, community agencies – whatever resources can be brought to bear to
support that individual to the degree that they can to remain in their own home
with the supports around them, and drawn from the community where that's
possible.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
My last
question is about section 31. It outlines the review committee who will review
the service plans of every adult who is in need of protective intervention. Will
this review committee meet with the adult if the adult wishes?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
The review committee will
obviously conduct a review of any of the service plans in any of the cases,
where it's appropriate and necessary to do so – absolutely. Because, again, the
fundamental part of this legislation is to support and retain the independence
of the adult, potentially in need of protection, right through the whole
process.
We want
to make sure that their rights are fully protected. That's why the act is as
comprehensive as it is in terms of where we were before to reflect that. If that
requires support appearing before a court or before a review committee or before
anybody through this process, then that opportunity will be provided.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I note
that this Protection Act essentially is an act of last resort and applies to
anyone 18 years of age or older. Just a question here: What was available or in
place prior to this act to protect those in that group?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
This legislation incorporates
a lot of previous legislation in terms of ages and what have you, but is
certainly more comprehensive. Again, as I said earlier, it was to – and is to –
allow to retain, to the degree that is literally legally possible, the
independence of the adults potentially needing protection from 18 onward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you.
I look
at how the act works. There is a report and it's accepted or it's screened out.
What would constitute a report being screened out?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Based on the social work that
we do in the first instance, it may be the need to – assessing all the
information at that point to determine that this is really not so much an adult
protection issue, that it is needing some other supports that can be provided,
that the information as initially presented wasn't as supportive of further
action. It would engage the individual and, if needed, family members to have
that initial discussion.
If the
social worker determines that the matter can be addressed at that point, then
there it would lay unless we needed to and they needed to bring that into the
investigative stage.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
You may
have already touched on this question. So a social worker would determine who
screened out of that. So who determines the mitigation measures that need to
take place? Is it solely the social worker? Who is involved in that process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, really what we're
dependant on is the clinical judgment of the social worker at any point
throughout this process. They will always talk to their colleagues, their
director to make sure that – quote, unquote – all the bases are covered before
any investigation stops at one point or advances to the next stage.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I guess
somewhat related, the act talks about cultural sensitivity and talks about a
cultural and community connections plan. My question is twofold: What would be
included in such a plan and who would be involved in developing it?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, harkening back to a
previous question around the service plan, this is where all those pieces would
come together for the person – that may be an Indigenous adult. Then, their
community supports, the supports of their government, whatever is available
would be brought to the development of that service plan. It would be started
and basically organized by the social worker involved in the case working with
the adult needing protection, and as I said working with family and any other
supports in and around the community and/or provincial supports where they
exist.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
I'm just looking at the
section on temporary orders and it says it's important to note that legislation
requires a hearing must be held within five days of filing an application.
What
happens during that? Is there protection or anything that takes place during
that five days?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
The temporary orders are really one of the new features of this legislation
because we did not have that before and the services needed by the adult were
not consistently applied. So the adult would be supported by the health
authority waiting for the conclusion of that temporary order.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I think
this was touched on earlier from a question from my colleague. But I'm just
looking at when an individual may be in an abusive situation and rolls over to
the age of 18. So what happens when a person rolls over from one other piece of
legislation into becoming an adult, we'll say?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
So if I understood the Member's question, Chair, in that case, if there was an
issue and evidence of abuse or neglect for the under-18-year-old person, he or
she would then be within the ambit of our
Children, Youth and Families Act.
Once
they move to adulthood and move out of that system, then their case and file
would be transferred over to the Adult Protection division both in the health
authority and then monitored by our provincial director.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Just
going back to when we had earlier discussion on this last week or the week
before and we noted that this certainly takes into a large consideration
individuals 60 and over, so seniors and older individuals. So I just ask the
question then – because I'm assuming the Seniors' Advocate would be an important
role in this, and I know it remains vacant – when will we see the Seniors'
Advocate position filled?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
The Seniors' Advocate
wouldn't have any operational role in these cases. If there was any reference to
the Seniors' Advocate by an individual in the community as to a particular case
or really systemic issues around adult protection, that's more when the advocate
would be involved.
As to
the question on the filling of that position, I cannot answer that. That really
is going to rest with the House, I would say, in the near future.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Chair.
With
respect to the new clause that has been added, section 7(b), the right to retain
and instruct counsel, the question was asked by the Member for Placentia West -
Bellevue, specifically, can the person apply for legal aid to obtain counsel.
Your response was that, yes, if needed. You also qualified it and said we would
make sure counsel would be provided.
So my
question is: How exactly would you do that? What steps would you take to ensure
that counsel is provided for the adult?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
On the assumption that the
individual needs legal counsel, then we would work with Legal Aid to make sure
that counsel was provided.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
The only other question I
have is: How many adults are currently in care pursuant to the
Adult Protection Act?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
At the present time, Chair,
we have two under investigation; one under the evaluation process; and two
applications waiting for a decision by the court.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 48
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 48
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 48 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 Respecting The
Protection Of Adults.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 40.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 40.
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.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 40 without amendment.
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 40 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,
by leave.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 7, third reading of Bill 40.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 40, An Act Respecting The
Protection Of Adults, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Protection Of Adults. (Bill 40)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 40)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 16, second reading of Bill 42.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology that Bill 42, An Act
To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.” (Bill 42)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm very
pleased today to speak to Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Law Society Act, 1999.
This act authorizes the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador to regulate the
practice of law and the legal profession in the province. The Law Society is the
sole regulatory body for lawyers in the province and it's important to note that
its mandate is to regulate the law profession in the best interests of the
public. The Law Society is fully funded by lawyers, who are required to pay
various fees in order to practice, and is governed by benchers who act as a
governing body.
The Law
Foundation is established in accordance with section 64 of the act and is a
not-for-profit organization. The Law Foundation is administered by a board of
governors that includes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety or his/her
appointee, a person who is not a member or bencher and five members of the Law
Society that are in good standing.
The
proposed amendments were requested by the Law Society and the Law Foundation.
Department officials consulted with both groups on the proposed amendments to
ensure the requested changes were reflected in this bill. The amendments
proposed include: establishing a fitness to practice committee; mandating
reporting of suspected criminal activity; modernizing the mandatory publication
requirements; allowing the vice-president of the Law Society to conduct initial
investigations before referring an allegation to the complaints authorization
committee; allowing the VP and the complaints authorization committee to
delegate certain investigations to staff; clarifying that honorary benchers are
not permitted to vote at convocations; creating a mechanism for visiting lawyers
practicing under the National Mobility
Agreement to collect fees and have their accounts taxed; and clarifying that
lawyers or professional law corporations cannot deduct service and banking fees
and administrative fees from interest earned on trust accounts that must be
transferred to the Law Foundation.
The most
significant change to the act is the creation of the fitness to practice
committee. The Law Society requested that a committee be established to deal
with capacity-related allegations or concerns that may arise with respect to a
member. Capacity-related allegations or concerns often relate to a member's
individual mental health and the Law Society believes it would be better dealt
with through a targeted process that would address these concerns on a
case-by-case basis. The fitness to practice committee will oversee a voluntary
process that aims to address the unique circumstances that may arise from
capacity-related allegations.
The
addition of this committee will allow the Law Society to approach
capacity-related allegations in an individualized way and it may require a
participant to enter into one or more agreements with the committee. Agreements
may require a member to submit to a medical assessment, complete a treatment
program or have restrictions or conditions placed on their practice. Lawyers who
wish to engage the fitness to practice program, in the absence of a
capacity-related allegation, may raise a capacity-related concern with the
vice-president who can refer the matter to the committee.
The
introduction of a fitness to practice program does not mean that allegations
will not be dealt with; rather it allows lawyers, who may be the subject of a
capacity-related allegation, the opportunity to deal with those circumstances
through a specific individualized process that focuses on the specifics of the
capacity-related allegation or concern and aims to support the lawyer. As the
fitness to practice program is voluntary, a lawyer may choose to go through the
regular discipline process, which remains unchanged in the act.
Fitness
to practice committees are relatively new across the country. The Law Society
intends for its program to mirror that of Nova Scotia whereby it operates as an
alternative stream to the formal disciplinary process. Amendments to the
mandatory publication requirements, such as alerting two media outlets of a
summary of a decision or order and the requirement that the Law Society publish
a summary of a decision or order on their website, will increase public
awareness of disciplinary proceedings under the act. Clarifying that honorary
benchers are not permitted to vote at meetings will ensure that there will not
be a situation where honorary benchers may outnumber other benchers and
materially affect the decision-making process at the bencher's table. Allowing
the vice-president and Law Society staff to conduct investigations will provide
for a better use of resources of the complaints authorization committee and a
more streamlined complaints process than is currently contained in the act.
As
currently set out in the act, members are required to provide interest earned on
trust accounts to the Law Foundation. The proposed amendments to the act will
clarify that members or professional law corporations are not able to deduct
banking or administrative fees imposed by a financial institution from interest
earned on these trust accounts. This amendment will ensure a consistent approach
is applied to all interest earned on trust accounts in this province.
I would
like to thank the staff of the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the Law
Society and the Law Foundation for their work on this bill. I understand a
briefing was provided to Members of this House and I hope that it was
informative.
On that
note, Speaker, I look forward to the progression of this bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I must
say that reviewing Bill 42, the Law Society Act amendment, I think that this is
a progressive bill and I think there are many positive changes that will be
made. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the most, perhaps, significant
change is with respect to the fitness to practice committee mechanism, and I'll
get to that in a minute.
First of
all, the minister identified the Law Society and the Law Foundation, and he gave
a brief summary of what those bodies are; I'm not going to repeat that. I think
it's significant and it's important that both of these bodies did reach out to
ask for these changes. To me, that means that they are in the best possible
position to understand the changes that need to be made, the procedures that
need to be put in place and the process that needs to be modified to make their
bodies more streamlined and more efficient. It is noteworthy that both of these
bodies were the ones that reached out to government to recommend these changes
and so I think it's a good thing that government has responded with these new
initiatives.
The
minister also went through the different changes in detail of what this
amendment will put in place. I guess they can be grouped into four categories:
the first is governance and structure, then there are disciplinary proceedings,
the fitness to practice committee and the Law Foundation. I would say that, in
essence, these changes or these modifications are really more administrative in
nature, at least as it applies to three of the categories. The fitness to
practice committee, as the minister has pointed out, is a new initiative. It is
relatively new, he indicated, in jurisdictions across the country; although,
it's my understanding that Nova Scotia has something in place akin to this and
so that is well important to note.
I'll
just make a couple of quick comments with respect to the governance and
structure category of changes. Those changes are fine, and, really, what they
are is basically there are elected, appointed and honorary benchers. Now, that's
basically a way to ensure that – currently honorary benchers, as a practice, do
not vote at meetings, which are called convocations, but now there's an
amendment in place or a change in place to legislate this practice. So it's
already in place, but now it's going to be legislated to prevent, I guess, a
possible future situation where there may be more honorary benchers than elected
benchers.
When we
look at the benchers, just by way of background, benchers are like a board of
directors. So the Law Society is governed by these board of directors, but they
are actually called benchers and some are elected, some are appointed and some
are honorary. The elected ones are elected by other lawyers – they have to be
lawyers – by their colleagues. Usually, there's regional representation across
the province. So each region will be represented by benchers after they're
elected. Then there are appointed benchers. They are created by a committee.
Then, you have the honorary benchers as well, so there's no problem with that
change.
One
interesting change with respect to governance and structure is the role of the
president. Basically, it removes the chief executive officer title from the
description of president. The society has an executive director on staff, so
what's going to happen is this change will basically reflect what's been
happening anyway.
One
other interesting thing I think is a fair change, with respect to the structure
of the Law Society, is there will now be legislative authority to allow visiting
lawyers who are in Newfoundland and Labrador, who are practicing under the
National Mobility Agreement – basically, they can tax or sue to collect their
fees. To me, that seems fair.
With
respect to governance and structure, that's the first category. There are also
some others with respect to disciplinary proceedings. I think the amendments or
the suggestions that are in place here seem to be common sense. They're going to
make it a more efficient procedure. It seems like I think they're expanding more
of the investigatory powers of the vice-president. They're going to be
increasing some of the powers of the vice-president to delegate to staff so that
staff have increased powers. That's okay because it's all done in the interest
of making the whole process more efficient and tightened up. I don't think that
is a bad thing.
I'll get
to fitness to practice later but the Law Foundation; again, those
recommendations seem to be in order as well. What I would like to say about the
fitness to practice, that is a significant change. What it does is it relates to
capacity issues, when you have a lawyer that has capacity issues, maybe mental
health concerns. This initiative will basically initiate a new fitness to
practice process at the Law Society. It will create a fitness to practice
committee too.
This was
requested by the Law Society and it was requested because it was seen to be less
confrontational. It was seen to be more of a positive way to address
capacity-related complaints that are laid against lawyers. I personally think
that is a good thing. It has a more compassionate approach.
It
doesn't mean, from what I understand – people who have complaints against
lawyers could still proceed through the normal complaint process. But this is a
unique provision because it will focus the process to help the member from a
more compassionate way when the person is suffering from mental health issues or
other challenging emotional needs as a result of the practice of law.
What
also is interesting about the fitness to practice piece is that the
vice-president can refer the member to the fitness to practice process. The
member themselves, the lawyer themselves can self-refer themselves and say,
look, I need help. Can I get some support here to help me through this? I think
that's a good thing.
The
fitness to practice as well, and the complaints authorization committee, they
can refer matters back and forth to each other, too. So the fitness to practice
committee can say, okay, we're going to refer this on to the complaints
authorization committee and vice versa. So that allows that flexibility, which I
think is also a good thing.
With
respect to that, I think that's all I wanted to say. I look forward to Committee
because I do have specific questions to ask with respect to this legislation.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any other speakers to the
motion?
If not,
if the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now, they'll close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
greatly appreciate the contribution of my colleague, the Member for Harbour
Main. Certainly, she pointed out that these amendments were proposed by the Law
Foundation and the Law Society themselves, who, of course, would be the ones who
know it best. We appreciate them coming to us with their input on how to make
this act better.
Having
said that, I look forward to Committee.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 42 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 42)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
42)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 42.
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.
It is
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
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 (Trimper):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.” (Bill 42)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Clause 1.
Shall
clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Chair.
First of
all, as we highlighted earlier, there are elected, appointed and honorary
benchers. Basically, as it's been stated, the legislation is being changed to
prevent a possible future situation where there are maybe more honorary benchers
than elected benchers.
It's my
understanding there are approximately 17 elected benchers and four appointed
benchers. I'm just curious about the honourary bencher piece. Do you know,
Minister, how many people are entitled to honorary bencher status?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you for the question.
Unfortunately, I don't have that number here in front of me, how many honorary
benchers there are. We can certainly get that information for the Member.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
It is our understanding
that the change being considered in section 3 is already in practice but is now
being legislated. So, basically, with respect to the honorary bencher piece, is
this practice enshrined in the Law Society's bylaws or by another governing
document? I know that it has been in practice but it actually hasn't been
legislated, so is there any other governing authority for that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
No, this would be the
governing authority, which, if it's been done in practice by benchers at the Law
–
AN HON. MEMBER:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
J. HOGAN:
– Society, I can only assume
this is why they came to us to request this amendment to make sure it is
specific in the legislation.
I have
no idea who's talking or whatever, but go ahead.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
I am
just wondering: How many staff persons or full-time employees does the Law
Foundation have? Because I know that the legislation is being updated to remove
the CEO from the roll of president because the Law Foundation has an executive
director who basically performs all the duties and responsibilities of an
executive staff person: I'm just curious how many staff persons are at the Law
Foundation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
At the Law Foundation, there
is just one staff member.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Section 8 of the bill
adds additional definitions to the Law Society Act as it relates to the
discipline proceedings. So most of those are related to the fitness to practice
committee, and I am referring (inaudible) so with respect to those definitions,
capacity and medical assessment, who was consulted on the creation and the
drafting of those definitions?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So the consultations with
regards to this act would have been – those are specific to the Law Society
amendments, we would have talked to the staff and the executive director at the
Law Society. Again, not that we talked to them; they came to us.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
With respect to the
definitions, how do they compare in the scope of fitness to practice to other
provinces? I know you referenced Nova Scotia, I would assume their modelled
after Nova Scotia or are they comparable to Nova Scotia?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I'm sorry; I'm going to have
to ask the Member to repeat the question. I'm just having a bit of difficulty
hearing.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
Can I
have a bit of quiet, please, so we can hear the speakers?
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
I am
experiencing the same problem he is, too, with hearing here today.
Thank
you, Chair.
With
respect to the two definitions, the capacity definition and the medical
assessment definition, I know you referenced that Nova Scotia was consulted and
modelled perhaps after. Were these definitions used in Nova Scotia or other
provinces?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you.
Yes,
those definitions, as you said, the concept was modelled after Nova Scotia and
the definitions would mirror Nova Scotia very closely.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Section 9 of the bill
details the composition of the fitness to practice committee as two members of
the Law Society, not elected benchers; one person appointed by the minister
who's not a bencher or a member of the Law Society; and there will also be
alternates to the committee.
My
question is: What background, academic background or professional background,
will the non-member appointed by you, the minister, have?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I'm fortunate enough to have
served as a bencher. I was elected twice, on two occasions. Unfortunately, I had
to cut my second term short as a bencher because I decided to come here instead.
I do have some experience dealing with benchers and lay members is what we call
them at the bencher table. That experience would actually be something I would
say, now in the minister's role, someone who does not have legal expertise.
That's the role of the benchers and the members who sit at that table.
The
point of those lay benchers is to give a perspective from the general public. It
could be anything; nothing specific that we're looking for, but I would say it's
not legal capacity expertise that the lay benchers would represent.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Will the
appointment go through the IAC?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you.
Yes,
they do go through the IAC.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
With respect to section
11, the section of the bill which brings in most of the language regarding the
creation of the fitness to practice committee. Can you, the minister, confirm
that the creation of the fitness to practice committee was requested by the Law
Society? I know you've already done that, but are you aware of their rationale
for requesting it? I'm just wondering what the basis for it was.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Chair.
The
rationale would be – and I think the Member for Harbour Main did speak to it –
that people can have capacity issues. Capacity would be different than a conduct
issue. People may, as a practicing lawyer, do something in their practicing time
as a lawyer that would be deserving of sanction or deserving of some sort of
reprimand from the Law Society. All kinds of different things that could happen.
But as
we know – and this is not limited to the legal world – everyone out in the world
could have addictions issues, mental health issues, physical issues that could
affect their capacity, meaning their ability to practice law. People in those
situations, we don't want to necessarily sanction them and punish them; we want
to help them. So we put them in this stream. Right now, the only stream that
exists would be a punishment/sanction stream.
So the
reason is to create a separate stream to deal with them, to help them; sanction
them if necessary. As you said, we can put them in and out of the different
streams. But that's the reason for creating the separate fitness to practice
committee.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Minister, you mentioned
that Nova Scotia has been a model to follow. Are there other provinces in Canada
that have fitness to practice committees?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I believe it is just Nova
Scotia that has formalized their fitness to practice committee. But I do
understand that the Law Society of British Columbia has recently approved a
three-year pilot project that addresses where there's a mental health substance
abuse or health issue that has contributed to misconduct.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
The language contained in
the bill implies that the fitness to practice committee will compare a member's
capacity to practice law against a standard or a benchmark. So how exactly are
they going to determine if a member's capacity is sufficient, if it meets that
standard or that benchmark? Is there a standard they will be using?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Yeah, so there is a
formalized definition in the amendments. Capacity would mean a member's ability
to practice law with reasonable skill and judgment that is not substantially
impaired by a physical, mental or emotional condition, disorder or addiction.
That
would be the standard, their ability to practice law with reasonable skill and
judgment. Unfortunately, that does involve some interpretation, but most things
in the law do.
So the
reasonable skill would be the lawyers, the benchers on these committees would
ask the question: What would a reasonable lawyer do in this situation? That is
the standard. It would be different for certain different areas of practice of
law.
Probably
not clear to give any specifics further than that this afternoon, but that is
the standard that has to be applied: reasonableness.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Minister.
Yeah,
the reasonably prudent person or the reasonable standard is very commonplace in
the law for sure.
I think
my final question is with respect to the fitness to practice process. We're told
that participation in it is pretty much completely voluntary. So what happens if
a member signs an agreement with a fitness to practice committee but then later
decides they no longer want to participate? Can they withdraw without
punishment? When I say punishment, would there be that, not threat but fear that
then they're going to be referred on to the formal complaints process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So I'm not sure I exactly
understand the question. Once they've gone into that stream of fitness to
practice, the fitness to practice committee may find that that's not the
appropriate stream for them and then refer them into the conduct stream.
So there
has to be an assessment. You can't just sort of put your hand up and say I don't
want to be sanctioned. I want to go in the fitness to practice stream. There
does have to be an assessment of that person's capacity and ability and whether
they meet the definitions to fall within that stream, if that's what you're
asking.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Can the member
voluntarily withdraw from it – from the process – once they are in that stream
of the fitness to practice?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I believe that's the case that they can. They do not have to go into that stream
if they don't want to. They can choose to go into the sanction group.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers to this
bill?
Seeing
none, shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 29
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 29
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 29 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.'
The motion is carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Law Society Act,
1999.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill carried
without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Deputy Government House
Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 42.
CHAIR:
It has been moved that the Committee
rise and report Bill 42.
Shall the motion carry?
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.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 42 carried without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of the
Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to
them referred and have directed that Bill 42 be carried without amendment.
When
shall the bill be received?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
L. DEMPSTER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House do
now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House do stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.