May 27,
2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 33
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Wiseman):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
We are very pleased today to have some special young
guests in our House. Today we have
thirty-three students from Persalvic Elementary in Victoria, and they are
accompanied by their teacher, David Barrett.
Welcome to our House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
As
I speak, walking into the galleries is another group of very special guests.
We have – the same number, actually – thirty-three members of the Gambo
senior citizens' group.
Welcome to our galleries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Well, we have sitting on the same side of the House today a group of individuals
who have made a major contribution to our past and created what we are today,
and then on the other side we have our future leaders of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of St.
John's North; the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for
the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Port de Grave;
the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi; and the Member for the
District of The Straits – White Bay North.
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to Ted Blanchard – a well-known musician,
rower, labour mediator, and public servant.
Mr. Blanchard had quite a distinguished career in the provincial public
service. He was chief negotiator for
Treasury Board, and held the positions of Assistant Deputy Minister and Deputy
Minister in the Department of Labour.
After being elected MHA for the District of Bay of Islands in 1985, he
ultimately served as the Minister of Labour.
He was very involved with the Royal St. John's Regatta
as a committee member, a rower, a coxswain, and a coach.
He was also an accomplished musician, playing on radio programs such as
Saturday Night Jamboree and
Happy Valley Gang and the television
show All Around The Circle.
He played with several musical groups including The Three Strings and
Crooked Stove Pipe.
Mr. Blanchard also volunteered his fiddling talents at
seniors' residents throughout St. John's for twenty-five years.
He received a number of awards recognizing his work, including the Folk
Arts Council Lifetime Achievement Award and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Seniors of Distinction Award.
I ask all hon. members to join me in celebrating the
life of Ted Blanchard – a true renaissance man who lived life to its fullest.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I had the privilege to
participate in a wonderful initiative within my community.
At 10:00 on Saturday morning in the City of Mount Pearl, a number of
council members and city employees, service groups, community-minded businesses
and tremendous community volunteers put words to action and descended upon a
natural, regional gem which runs through our community: the Waterford River.
Fitted out in rubbers and gloves, with garbage bags in
hand, this fine group of individuals took the initiative to do their part in
working towards a goal of seeing the Waterford River become the most pristine
urban river in the country.
This year marked the fourth annual cleanup blitz in the
City of Mount Pearl and while sadly, there was a significant amount of garbage
and debris required to be collected, the good news is that it is getting less
and less each year; bringing us closer to our goal.
This was a very upbeat experience for all those involved and was topped
off by a barbeque at Centennial Park.
I would ask all members of this hon. House to join me
in congratulating the council and dedicated employees of the City of Mount
Pearl, the Mount Pearl Lions Club, the Rotary Club of Waterford Valley, the
corporate sponsors, and all community-minded volunteers who participated in this
very worthwhile initiative.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR.
LITTLE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Honourable colleagues, I rise today to recognize and
congratulate the members of the Discovery Collegiate Destroyers hockey team, who
won the sixteenth annual Confederation Cup High School Hockey Invitational
Tournament tier two championship.
The tournament was held in the St. John's metro area.
There were sixteen teams that participated in this hockey tournament.
Discovery Collegiate won two games and lost one in the round robin play
and dominated the next two teams by winning 5-1 and 7-1.
The team advanced to the finals with a 5-3 victory in the semi-finals.
The Destroyers faced the Laval Cavaliers from Placentia in the
championship game and won the tournament with a 3-1 win.
This marked the second time the Discovery Collegiate has won the
Confederation Cup tier 2 championship.
Teams members of the Bonavista Discovery Collegiate are
as follows: Colin Collins-Faulkner, Matthew Fisher, Nathanial Duffett, Brad
Paul, Mark Butler, Matthew Ryan, Riley Baker, Ryley Ellis, Johnathon Pilgrim,
Ethan Street, Conal McNamara, Andrew Smith, Jonny Cooper, Blake Way, Brent
Monks, Jeremy Freake, and the coaches were Wade Mouland and Sheldon Stringer.
Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in
congratulating the Discovery Collegiate Destroyers on their victory, winning the
Confederation Cup.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR.
LITTLEJOHN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this hon. House to recognize a young
writer from my district, Ms Allyson Ricketts of Upper Island Cove.
Allyson participated in this year's Arts and Letters Awards where her
short story White Out, was selected in the Junior Prose Category.
Allyson is a fifteen-year-old Grade 9 student at St.
Peter's Elementary. Her teacher,
Mrs. Lynch, submits written pieces each year to the competition which is open to
youth twelve to eighteen years of age from across our Province.
She wrote the story when she was in Grade 8.
The story is about a snowmobile race where a boy and a ghost have an
encounter that goes south fairly quickly.
Her story earned her a $350 prize and was one of eight selected out of
fifty-one entries in her category.
Allyson encourages other students who like writing to
enter the competition and says: it's a really cool competition.
I ask all members to join me in applauding this
talented young writer who is inspiring others to write and create their own
story.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last Friday, I had the great pleasure of attending the
2014 Excellence in Visual Arts awards.
The EVAs are presented by VANL-CARFAC, the provincial affiliate of the
national advocacy group for artists, and celebrate local visual artists and the
visual arts.
The Long Haul Award goes to a senior artist who has
made a substantial contribution to the visual culture of the Province.
This year's recipient is Pam Hall.
Pam's work is exhibited across Canada and internationally, and in
collections that include the National Gallery of Canada.
Her Houseworks exhibit, featuring miniature paper houses from all over
the world, runs until September at The Rooms.
Pam makes art, builds installations, plays with
language, and does film, video and performance art, often collaborating with
others. She is based in Signal Hill
– Quidi Vidi but travels extensively to create and present her work, and to
teach graduate students.
While she has received awards and prizes in other
places, the Long Haul Award was Pam's first award in her home Province.
Her pride and joy were obvious as she accepted it.
I ask this House to join me in congratulating Pam Hall,
winner of the VANL-CARFAC Long Haul EVA award.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate St. Anthony Basin Resources Incorporated
(SABRI) as a visionary social enterprise that advances our fishery, enhances
transportation links, tourism, preserves our history, and fosters economic
development for seventeen communities on the Great Northern Peninsula.
Friday's AGM highlighted SABRI's long-term employment
at St. Anthony Seafoods and Cold Storage and $15.9 million in infrastructure
investments which help diversify our local economy.
SABRI invested in specialized medical equipment, assisted youth
organizations, contributed to a boat lift and port improvements for cruise ship
visits. Additionally, L'Anse aux
Meadows saw the unveiling of a Leif Erikson statute.
SABRI is a model for others to follow.
It is clear, when communities partner they have greater control of their
public resources and in turn make better decisions; the profits stay in the
community to build a stronger tomorrow.
I extend gratitude to the staff Sam Elliott, Glenda
Burden, Alicia Shears, and board members Wayne Noel, Paul Dunphy, Roy Taylor,
Todd Hedderson, Dale Colbourne, Wilfred Alyward, Carl Hedderson, Sterling Dawe,
Dean Patey, Alvohn Pilgrim, Trudy Byrne, Eric Boyd, Lester Bessey, and Peter
Hughes.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating
SABRI for its continuation of outstanding accomplishments in the region.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to celebrate the completion of the
benefits agreement for the Kami Iron Ore Project in Western Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
This agreement is great news for Labrador and raises the bar for operators
looking to do business in the Province.
We have set high standards so that industrial and employment benefits
accrue directly to Labradorians and Newfoundlanders.
This is in keeping with our government's commitment to ensure natural
resource development is maximized for the people of the Province.
The Kami Iron Ore Project will create direct employment
for 800 workers at the peak of construction and approximately 400 during the
operation phase. In addition, the
project will contribute at least $18 billion to provincial GDP and $2.6 billion
in taxes and royalties –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
–
to the provincial government over its anticipated thirty-year life.
The agreement establishes a process to ensure
Newfoundland and Labrador's participation in the project.
Residents of Newfoundland and Labrador will be provided
first consideration for employment during all phases of the project and a
Labrador first hiring priority protocol has been established.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
Suppliers in the Province will also be provided full and fair opportunity and
first consideration for procurement opportunities during all phases of the
project. A Labrador first
procurement priority protocol has also been established.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this Province, the
benefits agreement features firm commitments to hire a minimum number of
registered apprentices for all phases of the project as part of its
responsibility to maintain a supply of skilled tradespersons.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
The
partnership commits to a minimum of 15 per cent of the skilled trades workforce
to be apprentices for the construction phase of the project, and a minimum of 25
per cent of the skilled trades workforce to be apprentices during the operations
phase.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
The
gender equity and diversity plan developed for this project is the latest
example of government and industry's commitment.
We continue to be a leader in Canada with regard to gender equity and
diversity in the natural resource sector.
Qualified women, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal persons and
visible minorities will have equitable access to the many employment and
business opportunities associated with the project.
One of the many initiatives includes the provision of a forty space
employee child care centre.
We are looking forward to construction of the Kami Iron
Ore Project, expected to begin this summer.
The first phase of the project will produce 8 million tons of concentrate
annually and has a potential to expand to 16 million tons.
Labrador West has a well-established mining industry
that has brought considerable economic activity to the region for many years.
This project positions the region for continued growth over the long term
and will bring economic and other benefits to businesses, residents, and the
region as a whole.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of
his statement. I, too, want to join
government and congratulate Alderon and government for completing this benefits
agreement that was announced this morning.
As we all know, this is a very important project for the residents of
Labrador West, and indeed the entire Province, especially in light of the recent
idling of Wabush Mines.
As the minister said, thirty years of the project will
contribute $18 billion into the GDP, and $2.6 billion in taxes and royalties.
I am certainly encouraged to see the inclusion of the commitment set out
in the agreement, especially around apprenticeship hiring, gender equity,
Aboriginal employment, as well as persons with disabilities, of course.
I have often wondered why even in our own contracts – we have known for
quite some time now that we are going to be looking for a skilled workforce,
70,000 people, mainly due to retirement by 2020.
I have often wondered why it has taken so long see benefits like this
included, especially in our own government contracts.
We could have done this a long time ago.
I am also encouraged to see the commitment to the
protocol around businesses in Labrador, and a Labrador-first hiring policy.
So this is all important. In
particular, that stood out to me today, was the child care spaces.
On the many trips that I have made to Labrador West this is something
that has always come up, and indeed, this is an important component of all of
this. The use of power from Muskrat
to actually create economic development in Lab West is something that, as the
Opposition, we have been calling for and supported with the December
announcement of the third line.
All in all, this announcement this morning, we see this
as being encouraged and positive, and I look forward to seeing the benefits
agreement when it becomes publicly available.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. There is no doubt that
this announcement is good news, but there are concerns that I want to raise.
I am uneasy about the fact that the company has yet to
find the funding that will actually lead to the final sanctioning of the
project, and I do not think we can breathe easily until that occurs.
I certainly hope government will ensure that people get the required
training they need to be apprentices on site.
I am really delighted with the information about apprentices, in that we
have them both in the construction phase and in production phase.
That is extremely important; but government will need to ensure,
especially for the construction phase, that local and Aboriginal people who want
to get training in order to become apprentices will be able to access that
training to ensure it to happen.
Another concern, which is related in a broader way, is
government's inability to ensure that properly trained and compensated
occupational health and safety officials are living and working in Labrador
West. As industrial activity ramps
up in these regions, this is a problem government has to solve with employees
living in the region, and this is something that I put to the government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak about the continuing work of the Department of
Advanced Education and Skills to foster the inclusion of persons with
disabilities. This month, I had the
great pleasure of visiting the Independent Living Resource Centre to provide
details on $600,000 in provincial government funding to continue Accessible
Vehicle Funding and Inclusion Grants.
Accessible Vehicle Funding provides up to $25,000 to
eligible individuals or families to purchase or modify personal vehicles,
removing barriers and increasing transportation options for individuals with
disabilities. I am pleased to note
that this year the eligibility criteria of this program has been broadened – if
you purchase a vehicle that has already been retrofitted, you are now eligible
for funding for the value of the retrofit.
Mr. Speaker, during my visit to the Independent Living
Resource Centre, I met Laura George, a young woman whose van is equipped with a
ramp that enables her to travel wherever she needs to go.
I had the opportunity to watch her demonstrate how her newly accessible
van operates, and hear first-hand how this has impacted her life, giving her the
freedom to travel – an activity many of us take for granted.
We are also continuing to support accessibility through
Inclusion Grants of up to $25,000 for non-profit, community-based organizations.
These grants support enhancements such as the installation of ramps and
visual fire alarms within buildings, playgrounds and other facilities.
Up to $5,000 is also available to make events more accessible through
enhancements such as sign language interpretation and assisted listening
devices.
Mr. Speaker,
Budget 2014: Shared Prosperity, Fair Society, Balanced Outlook includes
$12.6 million to advance inclusion and support employment opportunities for
persons with disabilities.
Accessible Vehicle Funding and Inclusion Grants will continue to make a real
difference in people's lives and are a part of our strategy to enhance inclusion
and accessibility all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement.
Mr. Speaker, we are happy to hear the vehicle
modification program is continuing this year.
The minister referenced the freedom of travel that many of us take for
granted, and funding the retrofitting of vehicles for persons with disabilities
is a positive initiative.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, we asked several times in
this House about the enforcement of Blue Zone regulations and parking lots with
insufficient parking spaces for persons with disabilities.
We feel government has been entirely too passive on the enforcement of
these regulations and part of the freedom to travel, Mr. Speaker, is accessible
parking.
Mr. Speaker, we
have so far to go in making public spaces more accessible.
I know in my district, and I would venture to guess all MHAs see the same
challenges, many government workers in buildings that are inaccessible to
persons with disabilities. There are
many examples I could give in Coastal Labrador communities.
What strikes me as
odd is despite granting up to 25,000 to organizations to support accessibility,
this same department eliminated the $14,000 grant for the Coalition of Persons
with Disabilities to maintain their accessible office space just one year ago.
These inconsistencies, Mr. Speaker, call into question this government's
commitment to inclusion.
I hope we can look
forward to an announcement on those organizations and projects receiving
inclusion grants this year.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the
minister for an advance copy of his statement.
I am glad to see
the continuation of the inclusion grants that help places and work of non-profit
groups to be more accessible. I am
also glad that government decided to renew the Accessible Vehicle Funding
program that helps remove some of the physical barriers to employment for people
with disabilities, but I would like to see some of the non-physical barriers to
employment removed as well, Mr. Speaker.
I note that last
June in Estimates the then Finance minister said he was not satisfied with the
government agency underutilization of people through the Opening Doors Program
and promised a review. Mr. Speaker,
I have not heard of this review and I would like the minister to let us know at
some point whether or not the review has happened and that we will soon see
public agencies employing more people with disabilities and tapping into the
valuable labour resource.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The President of the Surety Association of Canada says
that government's remarks on the surety bonds on the cancelled Humber Valley
Paving contract were completely preposterous.
He went on to say that the minister clearly does not understand surety
bonds nor does he comprehend how they work.
I ask the Premier: How can you claim that your
government handled the situation properly when the National association says the
minister's comments were completely irresponsible and just plain wrong?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr.
Speaker, I also heard coming from the opposite side of the House some
misinformation on bonds, a lack of understanding on bonds, talk about cash going
back, different things like that.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the President of the
Canadian Surety Association also indicated that there may have been other
factors that dealt with the minister's decision.
The minister, as a minister from Labrador, as the Minister Responsible
for Transportation and Works, would want to see this project continued and
completed on time and on budget.
He took advantage – we had a very exceptional and
unique circumstance here with these particular fires.
If we had gone the other way, if we had gone out of the bond, the
president of the association, yes, said there would be delays.
Delays are sometimes unavoidable.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition would then be up blasting us (inaudible).
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we said as the Opposition is that the bonds have a
value of $19 million, which was something completely different.
Premier, you have to admit the first day the minister did not even get
that. The value of the bonds – the
insurance was at a value of $19 million.
The project has already been delayed by one year.
You have offered that extension.
The Surety Association points out that government's decision to cancel
the contract and release the bonds will mean increased costs for taxpayers in
our Province.
He went on to say that the cost of escalation that
comes from re-tendering the project would normally be picked up by the
performance bond. The incoming Premier
has already admitted that he was a guarantor on this bond, but government chose
to release it.
I ask the Premier: Why did your government choose to
let the option and let the incoming Premier off the hook while adding more cost
to the people of the Province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit astounded by the
comments yesterday in that article.
If you read down through the article when you got down to paragraph five, you
would notice that Mr. Ness made the comment that he said there were extenuating
circumstances that he did not know about, so he really could not comment; he was
being very cautious in his comments.
I was on the ground, Mr. Speaker, in June of last year
when the fire came through and burned 27,000 hectares.
I was on the ground when Wabush was in a state of emergency and
evacuated. I was on the ground when
12,000 people did not know where they were going to go.
I was there when those trucks were stopped on the side of the road and
did not know what was going to happen.
I saw what was happening.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all saw that.
The minister was not the only one on the ground at that time; many people
were. That is the reason why the
company asked for an extension to the contract.
That is the reason why you gave the extension to the contract.
That contract was supposed to be finished by July of
2013. You granted the extension to
be finished July of 2014, this year.
Now on May 6, Mr. Coleman said that he had no personal benefit from government
by cancelling this contract, yet last week he admitted that the government's
decision could have benefitted him personally.
I ask the Premier: Now that Mr. Coleman has admitted
that his decision could have benefitted him personally, do you still support the
minister's decision to cancel the contract and release the bonds?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continues to put information out on the
floor of this House of Assembly which is not correct.
He said there was going to be a loss.
There has been no loss incurred to date.
We do not know there is going to be a loss.
That remains to be seen.
The Auditor General has been called in to the House.
He has been called in to look – he is doing his work now.
He is talking to the people who may have been involved in this.
He is getting out the facts.
I think rather than prejudge what is happening, we should have the decency to
allow him to do his work, and then the facts will be out and then the people
will be able to judge who is really telling the right thing here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, this government was very cute in the way this new
tender was released. If you
remember, this contract was indeed bundled with a larger contract so we will
never know what the completion rate for the sixty kilometres (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
BALL:
Government has said that Humber Valley Paving approached them to get out of the
contract because they were losing money on it; however, the incoming Premier has
recently said that the company had options and could have finished the work
under the contract.
I ask the Premier: If Mr. Coleman is correct and Humber
Valley Paving could have finished the work, why did you cancel the contract and
release the bonds?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when this was first brought up in the
House of Assembly during Question Period, I made it very clear that the
department had options. The options
were, when we sat and negotiated with the company, that we could have forced
them to continue with the job. That
was an option that they could have decided; they were going to or not.
As a department we had to make choices, and I had a
choice to go down a legal road or go down a road to make things happen.
I had a small window of opportunity, as you just heard the Leader of the
Opposition say, to bundle work together.
For the people who are listening out there, we do not all live in the
metro and we are dealing with an area here, a sixty kilometre piece of highway,
that is in the middle of a 650 kilometre isolated area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We recognize that; that was one of the reasons why you
granted the extension.
The government has run out of excuses for cancelling
the Humber Valley contract. At first
they said it was cancelled because of a forest fire; that was the reason for the
one-year extension. Then they said
it would protect the finances of the company, not the other subcontractors, I
may add; but Mr. Coleman has already said the company had other options.
Thirdly, they said it was to ensure the project was completed on time and
on budget. The Surety Association
clearly says that timing has nothing to do with it.
I ask the Premier: What is the real reason that this
contract was cancelled?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, the Leader of the Opposition needs to decide
which one it is. We have stated that
the fires were a very significant reason for the delay in this job.
We looked at the circumstances and that was the reason we gave an
extension. That was not the reason
that we agreed to mutually terminate the contract.
After the fires were over and they continued with the
work, they realized they had lost too much money and it was not fiscally
responsible for them to continue with the project.
Then they asked to go into a mutual termination agreement, which we
entered into.
Mr. Speaker, what we have done here is – we will still
get the job done. For the gentleman,
Mr. Ness, who sits in a tower in Mississauga, he does not realize the geography.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just ask the minister: What other options did
Humber Valley Paving and what other options was Mr. Coleman referring to?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for Mr. Coleman, I will
speak for the Department of Transportation and Works.
We sat down, as I have stated here many times, we had a legal option and
we had an option to get the job done.
We are still hoping to have this project finished in the summer.
We may be a month late, but we are hoping to have this project finished
in the summer of 2014.
When I talked to the people in Labrador, their major
concern is to get this sixty kilometres finished.
Spread in the middle of a 650 kilometre area, and that is there in the
middle, I have to try and get that contract finished.
I think the best option was to bundle it with this other piece of work
and that way we will see it done on time and on budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I talk to a lot of people in Labrador too, and
their major concern is to get paid for the work they have done.
This government has taken the option of the mechanics' lien off the table
for many of those subcontractors.
Yesterday, I asked the minister about the second
contract with Humber Valley Paving on the West Coast of the Province.
The minister said that the contract will be finished on time and on
schedule. Those were his works, but
the tender document says that the work will be completed by October 31, last
year.
I ask the minister: Has there been an extension granted
for this work? If so, when is the
new deadline?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Quite often in tenders, as we have all witnessed
especially in the transportation department, we run into carry-overs.
It is something the department does not like and it is something that we
have addressed. It was the reason I
started putting tenders out this year in January, rather than waiting until
April or May.
This job on the West Coast is a carry-over.
It was affected by other jobs that were being done by that company and it
has slowed down the process. Again,
it goes back to some of the stuff that happened in Labrador.
It slowed that down. Now they
are into a carry-over position.
This is what we are trying to avoid, but we are hoping
that work will be done. The contract
is still in place. We are hoping
that contract will be finished this season.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a quick question: Have you given the extension and
did they ask for an extension?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I said it is called a carry-over.
Quite often with a lot of our contracts the work does not get finished.
As I have said many times in this House, we look at every contract case
by case and if there are legitimate reasons they can use it as a carry-over,
then we consider that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a question now: Is it Humber Valley Paving that
will be doing this contract that you are talking about?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Humber Valley Paving does have that contract, yes.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS
C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week the minister said that the new oil royalty
auditing positions – that two new positions were added last year.
That is the same thing the department told the AG in his January 2014
report. You said you added two new
people but you underspent the salary budget by almost $400,000.
The Auditor General continues to ask questions about government's ability
to resource effectively for completion of timely audits.
I ask the minister: Can he explain to the people of the
Province the auditing work plan that ensures that every single cent that is
supposed to be collected through royalties is in fact collected?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite is referring to the royalty process of auditing
where the commitment on government's part to audit agreements between oil
companies and the Province to ensure that we maximize the royalty returns.
I think the Auditor General did a review and I think it is clearly stated
that we were meeting our scheduled targets, some of them were tight.
It clearly indicated that we have not lost any money.
It clearly indicated that the process is working.
However, there are some challenges in terms of resources for auditing.
We had used external consultants to do some of that
work, Mr. Speaker. We have
recognized and respected the Auditor General's recommendations.
We have gone ahead and hired more auditors in-house and we are in the
process of hiring more. It is
obviously a process that is working for government.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS
C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the media the Premier said the Province has a poor
reputation for retaining immigrants and it is an area where the Province needs
to improve. The Premier is not the
only one to recognize the provinces need to do a better job of attracting and
retaining immigrants. The need for
improved retention of immigrants has repeatedly been recognized by members of
this government for the last decade.
I ask the Premier: How can you expect to improve upon
attracting and retaining immigrants when you have cut the budget for the Office
of Immigration and Multiculturalism by 45 per cent since 2012?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Mr.
Speaker, this government's immigration strategy is really important to the
Province. As a matter of fact, it is
important for a number of reasons.
One of the reasons is because of the great economy this government has created
since 2003.
I am proud to stand in my place today to be able to say
to the people of the Province, yes, we would like to see our own population grow
but we too are very proud that now we can attract very skilled labour from all
over the world, Mr. Speaker. We
work, and I have been working with Minister Kenney and working with Minister
Alexander in regard to our strategy and to increasing our numbers, increasing
our quotas in the PMP category, and also in the job growth category as well, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS
DEMPSTER:
Mr.
Speaker, the former Minister of Advanced Education and Skills avoided our
questions last month around Ross Reid's role in the Population Growth Strategy
after he was whisked off to the Premier's Office to grow the population of the
PC Party.
Now that the Premier's Office has been gutted and Mr.
Reid a casualty of that process, I ask the Premier: Who is now responsible for
overseeing the Population Growth Strategy?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Mr.
Speaker, I will tell you one thing before I start.
I will tell you who gutted the population of this Province, it is the
past Liberals. From 1992 to 1993 we
saw a decrease in our population by approximately 60,000 people.
Mr. Speaker, shame on them!
They let them leave our Province, Mr. Speaker.
That is exactly what they did.
As a matter of fact, we have four people in my
department –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
O'BRIEN:
–
who are working on the Population Growth Strategy, and only recently I appointed
an executive director to lead that.
As well, my deputy minister is involved, and various other departments involved
in that strategy going forward. It
is important to this government. The
population is important to this government, not unlike the past, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS
DEMPSTER:
Mr.
Speaker, the member across the way loves to get up and talk about the low
numbers of Income Support but they do not talk about the increased numbers of
out-migration.
Now that he has had his little rant, I will ask the
question again: Who is responsible for growing the Population Growth Strategy?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Mr.
Speaker, I am glad she brought up Income Support.
I am proud to stand in my place in this House and say that we increased
basic rates by 5 per cent this year in our Budget going forward, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
O'BRIEN:
We
are all about supporting the most vulnerable in our population through the
Population Growth Strategy. To
answer her question – I am.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS
DEMPSTER:
Mr.
Speaker –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS
DEMPSTER:
I
am glad we got that clarified after a few questions.
Mr. Speaker, in Estimates last month the Minister of
the Department of Advanced Education and Skills said the Population Growth
Strategy should be finalized in early fall.
It has been eighteen months since you assigned Ross Reid to this
portfolio and held consultations with the public.
Now that we know who is responsible, I ask you,
Minister: What is taking so long?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr.
Speaker, given the number of jobs that are going to be available because of
retirements and because of the new projects – we are creating projects in this
Province that are driving our economy.
We have more people working than ever before.
The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in over forty years.
Mr. Speaker, our employees are now getting paid a lot
more. The average weekly wages were
second to Alberta. That is what is
going to drive population. People
are going to come here for the many opportunities that are going to be here.
In addition to that, we are taking initiatives that are
going to help people who are on Income Support form a more permanent attachment
to the labour force. We are going to
help people with disabilities. We
are going to help parents by making increased investments in child care and
full-day Kindergarten. That is going
to put more people in the workforce.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
I
can see the Oscar now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there are 192 kilometres of gravel road in
this Province that poses a significant health hazard due to the abundance of
dust, all because government cancelled its dust suppressant program as a
cost-cutting measure. The minister's
excuse; he is primarily concerned with the small particles of dust you cannot
see. The larger particles of dust
are also a major health concern.
I ask the minister: Don't you feel that the relatively
small investment to continue this program would be in the best interest of
people's health?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have been talking since this was brought
up last week and actually I have met with many of my Cabinet colleagues.
I have been talking with an awful lot of the municipal people throughout
the Province who have some of that 192 kilometres.
I have been dealing with the Department of Health on it getting
information. I will continue to do
that. Once I decide what way we are
going to go, then I will certainly let you know what we are going to do with
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, the national lung association has clearly stated that the dust problem,
whether it is small particles of dust or large particles of dust, is a
significant health hazard.
I will ask the minister again: Why has he discontinued
the dust suppressant program, knowing that the large particles of dust pose a
significant health risk? Last year
it was because it was a cost-cutting measure.
Will you reinstate the program to protect people's health, until you come
up with something new?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there are many, many different reasons for
dust throughout the Province. I know
in my region alone I have the tailings from the mines, and we have to deal with
that. So this is a problem that is
throughout the whole Province.
There is 192 kilometres that we, as a government, are
responsible for; but I look at communities such as Cartwright in the north coast
– Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. We
own the main road going through the community, but all of the other roads are
gravel, and we only deal with that one road.
So this is an issue that is not going to solve – bringing back the
calcium chloride project is not going to solve the problem.
As I said to the hon. Member for St. John's South, we
are looking at it, the department is getting information, and if we feel it is
necessary, we may (inaudible) –
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
MR.
SLADE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we learned last week that government
signed a deal with Icewater in 2004 that allowed a Newfoundland and Labrador
halibut quota to be farmed out to Nova Scotia.
In other words, government failed to even support its own adjacency
principle. The fish quotas
government repatriated in 2004 included halibut, turbot, cod, haddock, flounder,
and yellowtail.
I ask the minister: Who is fishing the rest of these
quotas, and is any of it going out of the Province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Mr.
Speaker, in 2004 we intervened when High Liner left the Province.
It was our intention to make sure that Icewater could operate – and the
intent of that, in regard to some of those allocations which allows them to
raise royalties and revenues, so that we would have a state-of-the-art cod
facility here in the Province, which we have now.
We have seen the success of that, certainly with cod coming back, it is
even more important that facility is there, and it is state of the art, as I
said.
In regard to quotas being caught, some of those quotas
are leased out for the royalties to return to Icewater; others are being caught
by Icewater. The
Cape Dorset, which unfortunately went down, she was fishing some of
those actual quotes, but I can certainly make that information available to the
hon. gentleman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
MR.
SLADE:
I
thank the minister for that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, not only is the halibut harvested and
landed elsewhere, we understood OCI caught cod is also landed in Nova Scotia,
despite the minister assuring us that in April that Flemish Cap cod shipped to
Nova Scotia was a one-half deal.
I ask the minister: How much of OCI cod quota is being
processed in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, a
number of quotas and allocations are held by particular companies.
The hon. gentleman, I can certainly get him a list of what has been
landed here, what has been processed here.
Certainly, in terms
of Fortune that is a good news story.
What we have in Fortune, we have reached an agreement and certainly had
that operation reopened. When the
critics said it would not happen, certainly it is a good news story.
I was down there for the reopening with my colleague.
As well, there is a
hook and line vessel that OCI has leased that is landing cod in Fortune as well
and sending it into the Eastern Seaboard.
They are starting to explore that market of fresh quality product coming
to Newfoundland and Labrador to be put into the market, which is a good news
story.
In regard to the
numbers, I will certainly be happy to get the numbers for the hon. gentleman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The government has
been silent since last week about the contract negotiations with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association; however, some actions have been
happening behind the scenes.
I ask the Minister
of Finance: Did you speak to the Minister Responsible for Labrador and
Aboriginal Affairs about his attempt last Friday to hold a meeting with the
local NLTA branch in his jurisdiction without the presence of the NLTA
president?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Transportation
and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to clarify for the Member of the Third Party there exactly what
happened last Friday. I was in the
primary school in my district reading to the Kindergarten children – something
that I do every year and I present them with a graduation certificate.
I think that is a great gesture; perhaps you should try it.
While I was doing
that, as the MHA, some of the teachers approached me – like I am sure many MHAs
in this House of Assembly have received letters from their constituents.
They brought a concern to me and they said we were not allowed to
approach you because of the duties that you are doing here in the school.
I made it very
clear to the teachers that as your MHA, I will meet with my constituents
whenever and wherever to listen to your concerns, and that is how the meeting
started.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
It is my understanding from the teachers
that it was very clear to them –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
– that once they wanted their president
present, there was no meeting.
I ask the minister:
Why won't the government go back to the bargaining table rather than trying to
hold private meetings with NLTA members?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the
member just answered the question.
It is really unfortunate and unfair that she continues with misrepresenting what
happened. As he said, as any MHA we
are approached by our constituents and we are more than happy to meet; but,
negotiations need to happen at the negotiating table and we are open any time of
the day, twenty-four seven, to have those discussions, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we value our teachers.
We have a deal with many organizations and we want a deal with teachers
as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest to the minister then that she agree to the
conciliation board that has been recommended by the NLTA.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Finance Minister said that
addiction gambling is only 1.5 per cent.
I presume she meant of the Province's population, but the Province's 2009
gambling study found that 6.4 per cent of VLT users are problem gamblers and
that 72 per cent of problem gamblers use VLTs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister once again: When we
will have a new VLT strategy?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS
JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have been very progressive with our strategy around
VLTs. We have reduced the number of
VLTs in the Province by 26.9 per cent and we have capped that amount.
Yes, when I did reference 1.5 per cent yesterday, that
was of the population. The prevalent
study in 2009 also showed that 92 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
either do not gamble or are not problem gamblers.
This was in response to a question that I was asked.
It is factual and it is there for anybody to read, Mr. Speaker.
Most provinces do a prevalence study every five to
seven years. We did one five years
ago and we are in discussions with the Department of Health as to where we go
with that in the future again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Minister of Finance: How much of the nearly
$80 million in gambling revenue from this Province comes from problem gamblers?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS
JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is important to point out and to be very
realistic about this, gambling is going to take place, Mr. Speaker, and we need
not shy away from that. Online
gambling happens now and that is not done in a regulated environment.
As Legislatures and as policymakers we need to ensure
it is done in a responsible manner.
We need to ensure there are programs and policies in place for people who do
have addictions. Mr. Speaker,
retailers are trained. Retailers
apply 1 per cent of their revenue to programs for people with addictions.
This is top priority for us, Mr. Speaker.
While gambling is going to exist, we need to ensure it is done in a
responsible manner.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
West Coast residents are fearful of the fate of their
environment in the face of short-sighted oil companies interested in fracking
for a fast buck. Already we see poor
corporate behaviour in abandoned drill sites.
I ask the minister, I ask this government: What is
their plan regarding the abandoned drill sites on the Port at Port Peninsula?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DALLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, I really do not know how to respond to such a strong statement.
Again, just to reiterate, the position of the government – I mean it is
unbelievable the comments that come from the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, this government has been firm in the
protection of health and safety and environment with respect to oil and gas,
with respect to economic development.
Mr. Speaker, there are priorities.
All of us have those priorities.
It has not changed. Maybe the
NDP has the same priority.
Mr. Speaker, there is a responsibility here as well,
incumbent on government to recognize economic opportunities, to evaluate all
those opportunities and find that balance.
That is exactly what we are trying to do.
Within that, companies make significant investments.
They employ Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but, Mr. Speaker, let it be
known, our priority is still health, safety and environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
If
it is health, safety and environment, Mr. Speaker, we would certainly like to
see the plan.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to protect water integrity –
because that is the real danger here to this government, the people's water.
The only way to protect water integrity is to not put it in any danger of
any contamination in the first place.
I ask the minister: Will government act to protect all
water sources in the Province with source water protection legislation?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
FRENCH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government, this party I should say,
in 1984 I believe it was, installed the Environmental Protection Act.
It is heralded nationally across the country as one of the best
environmental protection acts in North America.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would remember a little
bit of history of what this party and what this government has done for the
environment. I will just refer to my
friend who represents Hopedale right now, a three-year commitment of $6 million.
We are already after spending $6 million to $7 million there.
I refer the hon. member to Buchans, where we have invested $7 million to
$8 million in environmental protection.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Under Standing Order 11, I give notice I shall move
that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 29, 2014.
I further give notice, under Standing Order 11 I shall
move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 29, 2014.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Are
members standing for Notices of Motion or just looking around?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind members once again; until I call petitions, I would ask members to remain
seated.
I acknowledge the hon. the Member for St. John's
Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court provided
a comprehensive approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully
understood and dealt with the complex issues of domestic violence; and
WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the
most serious issues facing our Province today and the cost of the impact of
domestic violence is great, both economically and in human suffering; and
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was
welcomed and endorsed by all aspects of the justice system including the police,
the courts, prosecutors, defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as
well as victims, offenders, community agencies and women's groups; and
WHEREAS the recidivism rate for offenders going through
the court was 10 per cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and
WHEREAS the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent
of the entire budget of the Department of Justice;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the
Family Violence Intervention Court.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have stood
and presented this petition on behalf of very many people from all across the
Province and anti-violence groups, non-government organizations that deal with
the issue of violence against women.
I keep trying to find, what is the upside?
What was the benefit either economically, socially, or in justice terms?
What was the benefit of cancelling the Family Violence Intervention
Court?
We know it was a court that did exactly what it was
supposed to do. I cannot find – and
I speak to the anti-violence groups.
I have asked the government a number of times, why was the court closed?
What is the benefit? It
certainly cannot be to have saved $500,000, Mr. Speaker, because we know the
economic impact of not dealing with the root causes of domestic violence far
outweigh the meagre $500,000 a year that this court cost.
It costs more to have it closed than it costs to have
it open. The social benefits, Mr.
Speaker, far outweigh – the losses are incredible considering what it has done.
To just read this petition again clause by clause clearly states how
effective the court was. I was
speaking to a member of the RNC the other day and I said: What do you think of
the family violence court being closed?
He said: I do not understand; it was so important.
Mr. Speaker, again, I offer this petition on behalf of
the people and I ask the government to reconsider.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind members again when the Speaker stands, no one
else should be standing. I
appreciate the race to be the first to get up on your feet, but recognize it is
not the first on the feet; it is the first that the Speaker recognizes.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS government has the responsibility to ensure
that Internet access is broadly available so people have the right to be able to
access the Internet in order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of
expression and opinion and other fundamental human rights; and
WHEREAS Bide Arm was bypassed under the Broadband and
Rural and Northern Development initiative, which saw high-speed Internet added
to thirty-six communities on the Great Northern Peninsula in 2004; and
WHEREAS nearly a decade later, Bide Arm still remains
without broadband service despite being amalgamated town with Roddickton; and
WHEREAS residents rely on Internet services for
education, business, communication and social activity; and
WHEREAS wireless and wired technologies exist to
provide broadband service to rural communities to replace slower dial-up
service.
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to
urge government to assist providers to ensure Bide Arm is in receipt of
broadband Internet services in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
This petition is entered by constituents of mine from
Conche, Englee, and Roddickton.
Given the fact that you have a school that services Englee and Bide Arm and
Roddickton, these three communities, and the Town of Roddickton-Bide Arm that
has been amalgamated, you can imagine how difficult it is when you are looking
at passing legislation around creating a level of fairness when we are looking
at technology and how we share information. Councillors
that would be representing Bide Arm are at a great disadvantage when they are
trying to get information out to the residents who live there.
Also, people who are doing online courses, they really
are faced with a difficult challenge, and students.
I think with the Rural Broadband Initiative that is put forward with
close to $5 million in this year's Budget, it would be a great opportunity to
look at adding a community, a municipality like Roddickton-Bide Arm, to see that
type of service.
The technologies exist, the solutions are there, it is
a matter of creating a level playing field for people who live in rural
communities so that we can grow and further prosper.
We need to have the advanced technology in order to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS current government regulations deny busing
services to students who live closer than 1.6 kilometres from school; and
WHEREAS parents have expressed concerns that children
living within 1.6 kilometres of school face dangers in walking to school, such
as congested streets, busy intersections and no sidewalks, especially during
winter weather conditions; and
WHEREAS the $75,000 review of the school transportation
system completed by Deloitte recommended that the Department of Education
consider reducing the 1.6 kilometre eligibility zone for Kindergarten and
elementary students; and
WHEREAS the $75,000 Deloitte report also noted that
only 10 per cent of those surveyed for the school transportation system review
agree that the current 1.6 kilometre policy is reasonable for students and
families; and
WHEREAS parents are continuing to demand more flexible
policies to meet the current needs of school children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to change the
outdated 1.6 kilometre school busing eligibility policy in order to ensure safe
travel to school for primary and elementary school children in the Province.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have presented this petition a number of
times. I know my colleague from the
District of St. John's North has likewise presented this petition.
This is an important petition for many students and many families
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
Certainly, in the metro area for sure, in Mount Pearl and St. John's, it
is a very big issue, particularly given the fact that we have a population that
is growing.
There are a lot more cars on the road now than there
ever was before. Perhaps years ago,
there may have been one car per family; now there are three or four cars.
The streets are very busy; certainly they are in my district.
We have a lot of four-lane roads and we have small children who have to
get to school. In many cases,
perhaps their family may not have a vehicle.
This is made even worse in the winter time if sidewalks are not cleared.
We know that certainly happens.
This is a real safety issues.
It is a real concern.
Again, I could speak to the Mount Pearl school
reorganization. One of the impacts
that is going to be felt there is that fact that students who were going to
their neighbourhood school, for example, in Newtown, are now going to be forced
to go to St. Peter's and vice versa.
We are going to have families impacted there because they are no longer going to
be in their neighbourhood, but they are still going to have to require a new
school.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
LANE:
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the lack of services and supports in the school
system is a serious obstacle to learning for children and youth with autism
spectrum disorder; and
WHEREAS long wait-lists for pediatric assessment and
diagnostic services are preventing many children with autism spectrum disorder
from receiving needed early diagnosis; and
WHEREAS the Intensive Applied Behavioural Analysis
Program is currently not available for children after Grade 3; and
WHEREAS applied behavioural analysis has been shown to
be effective for many individuals beyond Grade 3; and
WHEREAS there is a lack of supports and services for
children and youth with autism spectrum disorder after they age out of the
Intensive Applied Behaviour Analysis Program; and
WHEREAS it is unacceptable to expect parents in
Newfoundland and Labrador to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets
to cover the costs of privately-delivered applied behavioural analysis after
Grade 3;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to extend
eligibility for the Intensive Applied Behavioural Analysis Program beyond Grade
3 in consultation with parents, advocates, educators, health care providers, and
experts in the autism community.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of pages again on this
petition today. I presented this a
number of times before. We have
people from Flatrock, Southern Harbour, Harbour Main, Paradise, St. Mary's,
Hopeall, Bryant's Cove, Blaketown, Outer Cove, CBS, Long Cove, Port Blandford,
Burin, Kelligrews, Fermeuse, Aquaforte, Harbour Grace, Garnish, Gander,
Spaniard's Bay and on and on and on.
People from all over this Province have signed this particular petition.
Every time I talk to parents who have small children
with autism, who have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, and talk to
them about this particular petition, extending the Intensive Applied Behavioural
Analysis Program beyond Grade 3, they always say good idea.
One of the things that I have constantly harped on here is that many
children do not receive the necessary early diagnosis because of problems we
have with not just the length of wait-lists, but because of the nature of autism
spectrum disorder, the way the disorder is, many times children do not get an
early diagnosis. What happens is
they do not receive the level of early intervention they need and that causes
problems later in life. Sometimes
they age out of the program because they do not get the diagnosis…
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS private and community ambulance operators
provide ambulatory and paramedic services to the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador and are compensated for these services by the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS the contract for ambulance operators expired in
March of 2012; and
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
completed a review of ambulatory services in the Province, which review was
completed in August of 2013, and released to the public in October, 2013; and
WHEREAS ambulance operators agreed to hold off from
negotiations with government until the ambulance review was complete and a show
of good faith; and
WHEREAS government's current position in negotiations
has been heavy-handed and will see cuts in ambulance services across the
Province;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House to urge the government to negotiate a fair deal
with ambulance operators that ensures the safety of our ambulance professionals
as well as the patients in our Province.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition I have entered on
numerous occasions in this House, and I am going to continue doing so.
We now know this group has been without a contract for over two years,
and it does not look to be going anywhere fast.
I know government has been employing divide and conquer tactics as they
deal with the operators, and the group they seem to forget about in all of this
is the patients – the patients. All
those individuals out there, all of us who are sitting out there relying on this
service who want to know that emergency service is there, but in many cases that
emergency service is going to be cut.
Again, they talk about making a better service.
That is not what they are looking for.
They are just simply looking to reduce costs.
That is going to compromise the service that is available to the people
all over this Province, not only people right over on that side, people on this
side.
I speak for all members of this House when I say let's
get this government back on track and have a fair deal.
One that does improve the service.
One that does get a better job to not only our operators but the actual
paramedics, and make sure that we have the emergency service there that is
necessary.
They talk about getting a new model.
They do not even have the numbers they need to base a new model on.
They do not even have those collected.
Again, they are trying to strike a deal without having the information in
which to strike that deal.
They talk about: Well, we are trying to make things
better. Right now we have red alerts
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that are not minutes long, we have red alerts
that are hours long. Those are
periods of time when there is no ambulance ready to come and get you.
It is simply unacceptable.
I ask the minister to get on with it, get his
negotiating team back out there, and let's concentrate on a better service, not
one that is just cutting dollars and risking the lives of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS consumers and businesses of Newfoundland and
Labrador pay some of the highest automobile insurance rates in the country; and
WHEREAS part of the recent increases in automobile
insurance is due to uninsured automobile coverage which could increase by 329.3
per cent in 2014 for taxis and limousines insured by the Facility Association;
and
WHEREAS consumers may see an increase in taxi fares and
limousine rates as a result; and
WHEREAS consumers insured by the Facility Association
can see their own auto insurance rates increase partly due to uninsured drivers.
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to establish a
procedure for insurance companies to co-ordinate with police, highway
enforcement officers and the Motor Vehicle Registration Division to remove
unlicensed and uninsured vehicles from our Province's highways.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I received this petition, I think it was
yesterday or the day before, and the concerns expressed are true for all the
taxi drivers and commercial vehicles that are out there.
Already some have seen some exorbitant increases, particularly last year
when Facility Association increased the rates.
Again this year, I am starting to hear from consumers
out there who are starting to get dinged with having the likes of motorcycles,
for example, just putting their motorcycles back on the road now and finding
their facility insurance rates – they have been lumped into Facility Association
merely by the type of motorcycle they have.
One gentleman I talked to the other day ended up with
an extra $600 in insurance rates because he was lumped into Facility Association
because of the motorcycle he had. It
was not a Harley or anything. He was
a careful driver, a very good driver.
He has been driving for the last – I think he said for thirteen or
fourteen years. Still, to see his
insurance rates go up was abysmal to him.
It is beginning to become a cost factor.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the public out there
too at the same time, that we are all being victimized here by drivers who have
uninsured vehicles out there. There
should be a way mandated on the part of insurance companies to make sure they
get in contact with Motor Vehicle Registration.
It should be easy. It should
be an easy fix here so that we can at least tackle the end of it where they are
deeming the insurance rates for an uninsured automobile increasing by 329.3 per
cent. For some consumers that is
unmanageable. I think we can do a
little bit better by this and help the police actually do their work.
We keep hearing it in the news every day, Mr. Speaker,
as regards the number of vehicles that are out there and the number of drivers
out there, dangerous drivers at that, who think they have a right not to have
insurance. I think there is
something we can do about it. It
should be an easy fix. I ask
government to look into it.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition here.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled:
WHEREAS Saint Luke's Cottages has been using the
continuum of care model since it opened.
It entails priority access to long-term care beds, as clearly stated in
the Saint Luke's handbook which was given to all tenants.
Further commitment was confirmed in 1995 under the Single Entry System
established by Eastern Health. This
allowed cottage tenants to join Saint Luke's if they were no longer able to
function independently regardless of their level of care; and
WHEREAS Eastern Health has arbitrarily changed this
practice in recent months, level 2 cottage tenants are being forced to leave and
live in personal care homes when placement is needed.
This breaks the commitment to the continuum of care model; and
WHEREAS we became aware of this change in practice when
a ninety-three-year-old tenant, who lived at Saint Luke's Cottages for thirteen
years, was forced to find other living arrangements after returning from
hospital. This incident has caused
other tenants to worry about their future.
Saint Luke's Home is committed to the continuum of care model; however,
it is being abolished by the decisions made by Placement Services.
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to request that
Eastern Health and the provincial government direct the staff at Placement
Services to continue to honour the existing agreement and past practice to have
the tenants of Saint Luke's Cottages move over to Saint Luke's Home when they
can no long manage to live in their cottages.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, the reason this petition is coming about,
Saint Luke's has always had very much an aging and place sort of care for their
residents, where they go into Bishop John Meaden Manner, from there they would
go to Saint Luke's Cottages, and from Saint Luke's Cottages they would go to
Saint Luke's Home. The tenants were
promised under the Saint Luke's handbook that the tenants of the cottages would
be given first priority to go into Saint Luke's Home.
That has changed in recent months, Mr. Speaker.
This is a situation where people who have lived at
Bishop Meaden and moved to Saint Luke's Cottages together, or lived at Saint
Luke's Cottages for a number of years could count on going to Saint Luke's Home
with their friends and people they know.
They could have some sense of comfort and dignity knowing they were going
to Saint Luke's Home with people they know and they would continue to be cared
for by that administration.
Mr. Speaker, Saint Luke's Homes is certainly one of the
finest homes in the city; there is absolutely no doubt about that.
I am familiar with the home; I am familiar with the staff and the
administration at the home. I
understand the service they give. I
understand the reason for this.
On the same token, I understand why government, because
of a shortage of beds – I know I have to wrap up.
I will have it done in about ten seconds, I say to the Speaker, if I
could.
MR.
SPEAKER:
No,
your time is up, I am sorry.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Moved by me, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, Standing Order 32, I move to Orders of the Day.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved that we now go to Orders of the Day.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House
not adjourn today, May 27, at 5:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, May 27, 2014.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, I move Motion 8, pursuant to Standing Order
11, that the House not adjourn today, Tuesday, May 27, at 10:00 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, May 27, 2014.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time, I move, seconded by the Member for
Harbour Main, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to
consider Bill 1, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Verge):
Order, please!
The Committee of the Whole will resume debate on Bill
1.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is certainly a pleasure to have another opportunity
to speak to Bill 1, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure, otherwise
known as whistleblower legislation.
Again, Mr. Chair, this is something that I think we all support in principle,
but we do have some concerns. I
suspect there will be a few amendments coming forward fairly soon.
Before we would move on to that, I just wanted to have
a couple of more comments on the bill here at this stage.
When I spoke last night there were a couple of points I spoke to, but one
of the last points I wanted to make – I never really had an opportunity to get
into it because I ran out of time.
So, I just wanted to make sure that I made it clear for the record.
Just to reiterate that point.
Currently, as I see this piece of legislation written – and again if the
minister can correct me, that would be great – I am not seeing anything here –
whistleblower is put in place to protect a public employee, if they should
disclose to the Citizens' Representative, give them protection from reprisal
from their supervisor or their manager or director in their department that they
happen to work, should they come forward with concerns and information around
the functioning and the operations of the department or division or wherever
they happen to be working. I do not
see anything in here to say that, even though they are supposed to be protected
here, something to say that should a manager, director or so on take
discriminatory action against this person, that there would be some sanction
against that manager for doing so.
Again, as I tried to compare, I think, last night – and
again, I was kind of rushed for time.
Under the Health and Safety Act, as an example, if an employee refuses to
do what they consider to be dangerous work, they have the right to make that
refusal. A supervisor, manager, or
director cannot take discriminatory action against that employee because they
refused to do dangerous work.
The act goes further to say that should a supervisor or
a director take discriminatory action, then that particular supervisor or
director can actually be charged under the Health and Safety Act for doing so.
There is a penalty against a supervisory person who does take
discriminatory action against an employee for refusing unsafe work.
I do not see anything here in this piece of legislation
which is similar to say that there would be some sanction there against a
manager, supervisor, or director who did discriminate against an employee who
utilized the whistleblower legislation, which they have the absolute right to
do.
When we talk about discriminatory action, it is easy to
say we are not going to be obvious.
They can say: I did not discriminate.
I did not fire the person.
Because obviously, that would be one way that you could discriminate against any
employee. You blew the whistle on
me, so now I am going to fire you.
There are opportunities there where a supervisor could
say: Well, I will be cuter than that.
I will not fire you this week, but I will let you stay on for six months
and I will wait – I will give it a period of time and then I will find some
other excuse to let you go; or maybe we are working the shift work situation, so
now I am doing the scheduling and I am going to give this person all the less
desirable shifts; or there are overtime opportunities and I am going to try to
work it so that you do not get as much as this other person because I am trying
to get back at you; or there are work assignments to be done and there are
certain jobs or whatever that are, perhaps, more desirable and then there are
other jobs that people do not really like to do, well, I am going to give all
the jobs that others do not want to do, I am going to dump that all on this one
person because I want to get back at them.
We do not want to see that kind of thing happen.
If there is something in here that says that a supervisor or a manager
would be held accountable for such conduct, if it is there, then I would ask the
minister, if he could, to point it out; and if it is not there, then I think
that is something that should be there to again enhance what we have here and
protect the employee from any kind of reprisals from supervisors.
The other thing, Mr. Chair, is to speak to the fact of
the July 1 piece, and I know others have talked about this coming into effect
July 1. For the record, I want to at
least get my comments in on that as well.
I share the same concerns others have raised around this that it does not
apply until July 1, but it is interesting – so in six months, let's say December
of this year when it is in force, if somebody can say there was some wrongdoing
that occurred that could have some devastating impact on an individual or so on,
as it could, it could be a health care issue, it could be whatever, and if it
happened on July 2, that incident, then I can report and it is fine.
If it happened on June 28, then even though it could have been a serious
incident and so on, then I cannot report it.
There is nothing can be done about it.
I just do not understand why that would be the case.
Already in this legislation, I think, it is contemplated here – and I do
not have the section, but I recall reading it here somewhere – that the
Citizens' Representative has the ability, if somebody is reporting something in
the past, that the Citizens' Representative now even under this new legislation,
I believe, can say – because we do not necessarily want someone: Oh, I am going
to report some incident that happened with a supervisor or whatever ten years
ago. It might be something that may
not be that serious or may not be relevant anymore; the person could be retired.
There could be all kinds of things of why the Citizens' Rep might look at
it and say: Well, we are not going back there.
We are not going to go back twenty years ago.
That discretion is already there.
I do not know why in July 1, when this comes into effect, if somebody
said here is something that happened in 2013, that is very relevant, I do not
know why the Citizens' Rep cannot go back to 2013 and look at that, especially
if it is something serious and something that would have had a negative or
potentially negative impact on an individual.
Again, for me at least, it is not about an opportunity for employees who
want to witch hunt against their supervisor; that is not what this is meant to
be –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
LANE:
It
is not meant to replace labour relations issues.
It is not meant to replace that.
It is not meant to replace safety issues.
I will go to the example of something that affects us
all: health care. We have seen it.
We have seen it here in Newfoundland and Labrador unfortunately in the
past, whether it be ER-PR or other things.
There have been other things where diagnostic tests perhaps were not done
properly for whatever reason, whether it be lack of training, lack of
supervision, maintenance not done on the diagnostic equipment or whatever the
case might be.
This could have resulted in false diagnosis.
It could have resulted in treatment plans that were inappropriate.
It could result in medication being given to people, like the wrong
medication that they should not have even received, having serious impacts on
somebody's health. It is important
that those things be reported so that it can be dealt with and hopefully get
that person on track on the right treatment regime, if they were not already
there, heaven forbid.
If that had happened today and on July 1 this came into
effect, and even though – whether the legislation came in on July 1 or any day,
that does not impact the fact that I was not properly diagnosed; I am getting
the wrong treatment. That should be
able to be reported. I do not think
that timeline should be put there.
I do have a concern with that as well.
As I said, Mr. Chair, I will probably have more commentary when we get
into the amendments, but that is it for now.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It feels like we never left.
It is good to be back. I
thank the hon. member opposite for his points.
I spoke to the last point he raised, the retroactivity
issue, at length yesterday and on a previous day in the House as well.
I will touch on it again. I
want to answer his specific question that he started with around what happens to
that person who has committed the reprisal.
The Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial entity.
What that means is that the board can hear evidence and make binding
decisions. The purpose of having an
independent arm's-length board is to allow oversight and also to allow
independent decision making. It sets
its own rules, it sets its own procedures, according to the mandate that the
Labour Relations Board has been given.
With respect to anti-reprisal protection in this act,
it states that a person shall not take a reprisal against an employee with
respect to an action under the act.
If a reprisal does occur, the person who takes the reprisal – which is to the
member's question – is subject to discipline, including termination of
employment, in addition to and apart from any other penalty under our law that
may apply.
This is a really, really strong statement of
prohibition against reprisal. There
are consequences for that manager, supervisor, or director who takes a reprisal
against an employee. So, the powers
that are vested in the Labour Relations Board already are very powerful, and
that is one of the reasons why it makes it the ideal entity to deal with cases
of reprisal. Any employee who feels
that they have been a victim of reprisal has the ability to make their case to
the Labour Relations Board, and the Labour Relations Board has the ability to
respond considerably, and it is binding.
So, that should provide some comfort to the member.
I will not talk at length about retroactivity, Mr.
Chair, because again it is a point that I have discussed at length already, and
there is a presumption in our society and in our democratic system that
legislation should not be given retroactive effect.
In fact, retroactive legislation can overturn the expectations that
people have of the law and how it affects them as people, and how they govern
themselves and their behaviour.
Retroactive legislation can sometimes even be perceived
as unjust. Retroactive legislation
is primarily found when it comes to financial and tax provisions, as I have said
previously. The challenge is, even
if it were appropriate to enact retroactive legislation, no matter what date you
choose, there will always be some matters that fall outside that timeline.
No other jurisdiction in the country provided for retroactivity when
their acts were brought it, and that was done for a good reason, I would
suggest, Mr. Chair.
I thank the member for his questions and comments.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am going to take a few minutes to speak to Bill 1, An
Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.
It has been said here a number of times that we have been waiting for
seven years, so we are really happy to see this bill moving forward.
It is good to hear the debate on both sides of the House and to hear the
questions being answered, and I look forward to more as this continues.
I think, Mr. Chair, the main point that you need to
recognize with whistleblower is that people who report a wrongdoing will be
protected. I think we are going to
realize many, many benefits from that as we go forward.
It is very important.
Everyone will understand that we make the workplace as safe and as rewarding a
place as it can be. Many of us that
is where we spend most of our time, Mr. Chair.
Also, I think by implementing Bill 1 and bringing in
this whistleblower legislation, Mr. Chair, we are going to be protecting the
public purse. That is very important
as well, because people who see incidents of wrongdoing will now have that
comfort level. They will know their
job is protected and they will hopefully speak out against wrongdoings that they
do see, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, hopefully, with this legislation coming down
we will see a removal or less of an abuse of power for personal gain and revenge
to fellow workers and supervisors.
It is all very important aspects of things we look forward to with this
whistleblower legislation. I believe
the fact that it is not retro, certainly in my mind, sees the bill as flawed
right now. Aspects of the bill are
good, and we support it in principle, but as it stands right now somebody who
commits a wrongdoing on June 30, there will be no implications from that, Mr.
Chair.
I want to speak for a couple of minutes to rural areas
and as it relates to my district.
The single reporting versus the dual system.
I am just wondering, in rural areas sometimes there might be issues of
lesser importance, I am going to say – but very important to the person who is
involved – that could be resolved with the manager but still necessary to be
brought forward for that person in order to feel safe.
By doing the single reporting system, I am just
wondering right now, especially if you are very far removed from the OCR, how
that process with unveil. Sometimes
it is information that is sensitive in nature.
Will that be done over a telephone?
That would certainly put someone at a disadvantage, Mr. Chair.
I definitely feel, especially when you are looking at
small communities far removed from here, Mr. Chair, there would be benefits of a
dual system. Because as it stands
right now, somebody might see a wrongdoing within their workplace and they
cannot go to their chief of staff with the way the bill is being implemented for
fear of repercussions, or not necessarily just being fired but having a heavier
workload placed on them or things like that, Mr. Chair.
I looked at a number of other jurisdictions we know,
Mr. Chair, that do have a dual system in place.
It certainly seems to be more beneficial having that option, especially
given the dynamics of our Province here with more than half of the Province
being rural. I am just wondering,
too, Mr. Chair, what the cost is going to be and how things are going to unfold.
What the cost will be with the OCR dealing with many of these inquires
that will now come forward.
I was thinking about this scenario just before I came
in, a former government employee, maybe who has moved on with a different
company, and they may have observed many wrongdoings, but as the bill stands,
once they have moved on there will be no provision for them to report back and
be protected. That is sad, because
they may have information that could be cost savings and could certainly make
people feel safer and have a more rewarding workplace.
Those are a couple of questions I had.
How will you be consulting with the OCR, for example, from Coastal
Labrador? Maybe the minister is
going to answer some of that when he does get up.
I think it was in March when we had first reading on this bill, so it has
been ongoing a number of weeks and there are a number of groups that have
weighed in on it. One of the papers
I was sifting through last night, and I just want to share some of that
information, a very reputable group, the Centre for Law and Democracy, have made
a number of very good points weighing in on this piece of legislation that
everybody agrees is certainly long overdue.
I hope the minister has read the document as well and has taken some
notes on that.
We know there is clear public interest, Mr. Chair, in
allowing voices to be heard and ensuring they do not suffer retribution; yet,
there are lots of very good things here that we could follow.
Because while the principle of Bill 1, as I said earlier, is welcomed,
even this group, the Centre for Law, have identified a number of shortcomings
when considering in the context of the International Human Rights Standards, as
well as better practice in Canadian and other jurisdictions.
The most serious shortcoming they identified in this
document was the failure of Bill 1 to protect employees who report wrongdoing in
the private sector. I was thinking,
Mr. Chair, just to use the example of Eastern Health.
You might have a small company that supplies linens to Eastern Health and
they see wrongdoings every day, yet there is no protection for them to speak out
against. That is very unfortunate.
These things will continue because the person would
feel no reason – even though every day they go in and see wrong things, people
being shortchanged and shafted, but there is no protection for them.
At the end of the day, everybody needs to be able to bring home a
paycheque. That is where they will
be very careful in the information they share.
There are often instances where private sector
employees are confronted with extremely harmful behaviour, Mr. Chair, and where
there is an equally powerful moral and social imperative to protect those who
report wrongdoing. That is a very
key piece that is missing from this Bill 1, the protection for private sector
employees who are confronted with extremely harmful behaviour.
That is something that was identified by the Centre for
Law and Democracy. They referenced a
number of rules. Within Canada there
is some patchwork of rules at the federal level that protect private employees
in some instances. The laws do not
apply broadly enough to adequately protect private sector employees seeking to
expose wrongdoing such as for example, unsanitary food preparation conditions.
Mr. Chair, that is something that if these people were
covered under whistleblower, that would certainly protect the population as a
whole when you are talking about unsanitary food preparations, the benefits that
could come, the risk of people eating unsanitary food, and the people who can be
sick. We all know probably stories,
very sad stories of retail chains like this where there might be issues.
Right now there is no provision for these people to speak up and report
any wrongdoing.
Mr. Chair, Bill 1 also employs a narrow definition of
public bodies, further exasperating this problem.
This group identified some concern in that area.
I am running out of time so I am not going to go into some of the other
information I had here.
I do want to say I think it is a very positive thing in
rural communities where I live where you have transportation workers, teachers,
and nurses. They work hundreds of
kilometres away from their supervisors and their bosses, and may see wrongdoing,
and may see where money is being spent needlessly, people wrongfully taking
things. I hope now that they will
have the courage to come forward if they know that they are going to be
protected, their job is going to be protected, that they will under this Bill 1.
So, Mr. Chair, I look forward to continuing to hear the
debate. I hope, at the end of the
day, the bill that we vote on is a bill with some revisions to what is on the
table right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to take a few minutes to respond to some
of the points that the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair made.
The first issue she raised related to if some significant wrongdoing
happens on June 30, it is not eligible to be dealt with through our
whistleblower legislation. If it
happened on June 30 and was definitively concluded on June 30, then that would
be correct; however, if there is wrongdoing ongoing on June 30, there is good
chance that it will still be ongoing, to some degree, in the first week of July.
The point I would like to make is that if a matter is
ongoing, if there is a wrongdoing that is ongoing on July 1 or beyond, then the
Citizens' Representative will have a mandate to receive that complaint and
investigate that disclosure of wrongdoing, and that is clear.
So, there will probably be a number of matters that are ongoing, that
will still be ongoing as of July 1 and, therefore, would still be subject to our
legislation.
The member also raises a good question around single
versus dual disclosure process. I
have already talked at length about the advantages of single versus dual
disclosure, so I will not repeat all of that.
I would say that I believe it is one of the unique features of our
legislation. That is based on
consulting with the other jurisdictions in the country that have had experience
with dual disclosure processes. What
it has taught us is that the single disclosure process to the independent entity
is absolutely the most effective process for employees and for upholding the
integrity of our public service.
I would like to point out that an employee can do both.
There is nothing that would stop an employee in a small rural community –
to use the members example – from disclosing a matter of wrongdoing to their
supervisor, to a director, or to a manager; however, the anti-reprisal
protections which are the key piece of this legislation, I acknowledge, they are
only triggered when a disclosure is made pursuant to the act.
The employee can also seek advice from the Citizens' Representative with
respect to the disclosure process.
I would suspect, Mr. Chair, based on what has happened
in other jurisdictions, that there will be lots of cases where an employee will
suspect that something is not quite right, they will consult with the Citizens'
Representative and the team that is there in the Office of the Citizens'
Representative and then make a determination as to whether it warrants a formal
disclosure of wrongdoing in accordance with the act through the Office of the
Citizens' Representative; or the Citizens' Representative may say you should
consult with the HR person in such and such a department or agency, or you
should speak with your supervisor, or you should speak with another office of
government based on the kind of matter that you are bringing forward.
All of those options exist. I
would suspect that various options will be utilized through the course of this
legislation being enacted.
We do feel that the Citizens' Representative, that
independent office, based on the work that the Citizens' Representative already
does for the people all over the Province is going to be fully equipped; the
team is going to have the skills and the experience and the training and the
expertise to be able to effectively receive disclosures of wrongdoing, and do
the investigations effectively and consistently and in an efficient manner as
well, which I know is going to be really important to the people of the
Province.
The member raises a valid question around how this will
work in our remote, rural communities.
Well, the Office of the Citizens' Representative today serves all of
Newfoundland and Labrador. While the
office may be based in St. John's, in the capital, the Citizens'
Representative's team is quite used to travelling the Province to investigate
matters that are brought to his attention.
That will continue to be the case.
We will certainly, through our Management Commission of this House of
Assembly, ensure that the Citizens' Representative's office has the resources
necessary to carry out the work under this legislation.
The Citizens' Representative has advised that he is
going to take a close look at the performance of his functions and duties under
this act and let us know if he needs more resources.
He will report back through the Management Commission to this hon. House
if there is a need for more resources; but because of what the Citizens'
Representative is mandated to do today, because of what the Citizens'
Representative is required to be set up to handle today, he believes, and he has
assured me and our officials at the Office of Public Engagement, that he is
equipped to deal with this legislation right away without additional resources;
but we are all open to the possibility that more resources will be necessary if
there is a high number of disclosures that require investigation and follow-up,
then we need to make sure that the Citizens' Representative has the resources to
do that work because it is important work and it is a commitment that we are
making through this legislation, through Bill 1.
The member used the example of food safety and what if
somebody in the private sector has a concern around some mishandling of food
that raises health concerns, for instance, in some kind of commercial
establishment. I would just remind
members there are other pieces of legislation that would kick in at that point.
I am not an expert on food inspection, food safety
legislation and regulations, but there are pieces of legislation and regulations
that would kick in. There are
Occupational Health and Safety regulations that kick in.
As I said on a couple of occasions yesterday, there are numerous other
pieces of legislation that have to be considered here when we talk about matters
of wrongdoing.
The whistleblower protection legislation is only one
component. We also have the Criminal
Code; we also have multiple other pieces of provincial legislation that come
into play. I would remind the hon.
member of that as well.
I thank her for her questions and comments.
I look forward to further debate.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 30, inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 30 inclusive carry?
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am happy to stand again here today in the House of
Assembly and speak to this very important piece of legislation.
I appreciate all the commentary from not only the minister, but the
members on our side. It is our job
to ask these questions.
I appreciate the fact that the minister is standing and
answering them. I may not always
like the answers, but I appreciate an answer.
In some cases you do not always get that, so I do appreciate that.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Just by way of direction to the member, we just passed
clause 1 in which we allow wide-ranging debate on the bill.
From here on now we will be asking members to speak specifically to a
clause on the bill.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes.
CHAIR:
If
you would identify the clause you will be speaking to, you will speak to the
clause.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Sorry, Mr. Chair.
I am speaking to clause 4.
CHAIR:
No,
that is fine.
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I
am speaking to clause 4, Mr. Chair.
Clause 4 is wrongdoings to which this act applies.
Just to put it out there for everybody so everybody is aware of this
specific section and what we are dealing with here, “This Act applies to the
following wrongdoings in or relating to the public service”.
MR.
KING:
A
point of order.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.
MR.
KING:
Yes, just maybe clarification with leave from my colleague, are we going to do
them sequentially? Is that your
plan?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR.
KING:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Further to that point of clarification, typically when we do this in Committee,
if there are going to be amendments proposed, for example, then we could vote
the clauses leading up to. If it is
okay with the members of the Committee, we can vote clauses 2 and 3 if there is
going to be no further discussion on those and then go to clause 4.
Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 4.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 4 carry?
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will speak to clause 4.
Just to go back, clause 4 is relating to the public service.
This is what is covered when it comes to whistleblowing under this
proposed piece of legislation, “an act or omission constituting an offence under
an Act of the Legislature or the Parliament of Canada, or a regulation made
under an Act; (b) an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific
danger to the life, health or safety of persons, or to the environment, other
than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the duties or functions of
an employee”.
I will just speak to that one very quickly.
That is a very, very important section when it comes to this piece of
legislation. When you think about
some of the famous cases of whistleblowing in this country and in the world, a
lot of it comes to injury to the environment, or injury to the health and safety
of people. I think that one is really important and I am glad to see that
covered.
4(1)(c) states, “gross mismanagement, including of
public funds or a public asset”.
That one is also extremely, extremely important because we are all charged with,
in the government's case, of the usage of public funds, and in our case, our job
in many cases is to question government on the expenditure of public funds.
We are there to protect the taxpayers' dollars.
When we talk about the possible gross mismanagement, it is important that
be noted.
Obviously (d) is, “knowingly directing or counselling a
person to commit a wrongdoing described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c).”
That would involve somebody telling somebody else to go out and do
something that is wrong, whether it be a criminal act, whether it be to take an
action that may harm the wellbeing of somebody, or to take action that basically
is in the gross mismanagement of the public funds.
These are the acts of wrongdoing which are wide-ranging
and very important. This is one of
the reasons why I just go back to the history of this piece of legislation.
When we talk about whistleblowing and what whistleblowing is for and why
we have it here, this specific section lays out why we are trying to cover it.
One of the things that we have mentioned to the
minister in this debate is the fact that – and I have heard what he has had to
say about the coming into force.
That is section 4(2)“This Act applies only in respect of wrongdoings that occur
after the coming into force of this Act.”
Our point is that we see no reason why we could not
have this amended. What I am going
to do at this point is I am going to just discuss what is should be and then we
will move an amendment to this section.
We are suggesting that you take out ‘the coming into force of' and put in
the words ‘October 9, 2007'. We see
no reason why this important piece of legislation should not cover possible
serious acts of wrongdoing going back.
The only ones who should fear this are those
individuals who have committed wrongdoing.
Those are the only individual who should worry.
Nobody should worry about this or have any issue with this if they have
not done any wrongdoing.
I believe this will not harm the well-being of this
act. I do not believe it is going to
harm the well-being of this Province.
I do not believe it is going to harm the well-being of anyone expect
those who may have committed one of these four types of acts from October 9,
2007.
I am going to put this out there and I am going to move
an amendment at this point, Mr. Chair.
We would move that subclause 4(2) of the bill is amended by deleting the
words ‘the coming into force of this act' and substituting the words ‘October 9,
2007'.
CHAIR:
Does the member have a copy of the amendment?
The Committee will now take a brief recess to consider
whether the amendment is in order.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Committee of the Whole will resume.
We have considered the amendment to clause 4 put
forward by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile and have ruled that the amendment is
in order.
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile to speak to
the amendment.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am very happy to be speaking to this bill, very happy
to be speaking to this section, and very happy to be speaking to this amendment.
I am glad it has been ruled in order.
For those who had not tuned in until now, what we are
asking is that section 4(2) be changed so when the whistleblowing legislation
comes into effect, that the wrongdoings covered not start from that point
forward, that the wrongdoings go back.
I guess alleged or possible wrongdoings, because we hope it is not out
there. We hope there is not one
thing to have the whistle blown on.
We are going back to October 9, 2007.
One of the reasons for possibly doing that would be
this is, as we have discussed, legislation that has been promised for some time.
We are saying why not cover off that period of time from which the
promise was made? I am sure the
minister – to the minister's credit, because he will rise and speak to this.
He has spoken to just about any question we had and to that I give
credit, and I am sure he is going to speak to this amendment.
What I am suggesting is I do not think in any way that
this amendment harms the legislation in one way, shape or form.
I think this amendment strengthens the legislation and the intended
purpose of the legislation. Section
4 covers off what wrongdoings this act applies to.
Section 2 says from what period are they covered?
We are saying the period of time should be October 9, 2007 and moving
forward.
There is the possibility that there is absolutely
nothing comes out. Do you know what?
One would hope that is indeed the case.
However, I feel if we are going to put this legislation in, and it is a
good piece of legislation in the sense it is something that is needed and we
want it, I think this suggestion is going to make it better.
I may have an opportunity to speak to this again after
the minister makes his points because that is the whole point of this debate,
that we have it out there. We have
spoken to the main motion. The
motion is there. Again, we have
proposed amendments. The minister
will get an opportunity to speak to that and tell us whether he likes it or does
not like it, and in those cases what his issues may be with that.
I may do a better job once I hear if he has any questions as to the
purpose of our amendment. I may do a
better job of answering those after I hear that.
I think our reason for putting it out there is if you
are going to put out a piece of legislation, let's cover off the period of time
for which it was promised. Let's
cover off the period of time since – going back.
Wouldn't we want to know of any gross mismanagement that may have
happened from 2007 onwards? Wouldn't
we want to know of any acts that were harmful to people or the environment since
2007? Would we not want to provide
protection to those who may know of these acts if they indeed happened?
Would we not want those individuals to come out and speak?
To me, it is my opinion, if we do not vote in favour of
this then we are implying that we do not want to provide protection to those
individuals who may know a wrongdoing during that period of time.
To that, I would ask a simple question, why?
Why would you not want to provide protection to those individuals?
Why would you not want someone to come forward and blow the whistle,
provide information that is going to protect the people of this Province and
provide protection to those who want to protect the Treasury?
Why would we not want to provide protection to those people who may know
of a wrongdoing?
Again, you look at the wrongdoings here, 4(1)(b) “an
act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life,
health or safety of persons…”.
Wouldn't we want that covered? Why
would we not want that covered?
One of the points that might be used in rebuttal would
be – again, I do not think this is the case.
Well, that is an arbitrary time.
Why did you pick that time?
The main reason I am picking that time – just one of the reasons – is that is
when it was promised. In this way
you can go back and fulfill the promise that was made and allow that protection
from the time you promised it.
Maybe I was wrong.
If the promise was made in 2003, maybe I should have gone back to 2003,
but that is a substantial period of time.
We can still go back and do an adequate job of providing protection to
October 9, 2007. I do not think the
timeline should have any issue there.
The second part, is there any work or expense that is
created by allowing this? I say no.
I do not think we should do anything to prevent our Citizens'
Representative from having an opportunity to investigate these matters or
providing protection to these individuals.
Hopefully this is a piece of legislation that is never used.
That is the whole purpose of it.
We do not want to see this used.
I put this out there.
I will likely have another opportunity to speak to this amendment once we
move forward in this debate. At this
point, I am glad to have brought it forward.
I look forward to continuing on with this.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to stand up in the House here today and
talk about this amendment. I am
quite disturbed that we are actually putting a date on this.
Since when do we put an expiry date on any crime, any wrongdoing?
The amendment says, “This Act applies only in respect
of wrongdoings that occur” – and then it substitutes the words – “after the
coming into force of this Act.” with October 9, 2007.
What happens, Mr. Chair, if something happened on October 8?
I cannot support this amendment – I cannot.
My conscious does not let me as a legislator go ahead, come into this
House and try to speak to something, for example.
My responsibility as a legislator is to look after every constituent who
is out there and probably to correct an inequity that probably happened in the
past. Am I right, I say to the
Members of this House of Assembly right now?
I have no other choice but to speak passionately about
this because putting a deadline on a wrongdoing is wrong.
It does not do any justice to anybody who wants to report a criminal
matter that happened on October 8.
That is what is wrong with this amendment right off the bat.
That is one thing that stands out to me.
I have to ask in all good conscious whenever we bring
in a piece of legislation, Mr. Chair, into the House of Assembly here, sometimes
we reflect on the past in order to pass a piece of legislation and we date
legislation accordingly to that.
Sometimes we come in and we correct a piece of past legislation to correct the
wrongdoings of the past or to correct something wrong that happened.
We come out with amendments and that sort of thing.
It is great the members come out with an amendment that
goes back to the past, but as far as I know, I have never heard of a statute of
limitations on any crime that has happened that is covered under the Criminal
Code of Canada. Most of the things
we are talking about here – and the key word here in this section is
wrongdoings. It is very important to
me.
Like I said, as a legislator if we are going to get it,
we get it right. If somebody wants
to blow a whistle on this because of a wrongdoing – it could be a maintenance
issue that was done twenty years ago in one of our ferry boats, we do not know.
It could be something that was done that was wrong, like wrong work done
on a highway, we do not know. Either
way, if it is something that is covered under the Criminal Code of Canada – with
the possibility that there could be a conviction here as the act also touches on
later on – it has to be covered. I
do not agree with the amendment right off the bat.
I will simply make that point and I will take my seat
again.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to subclause 4.
I just want to make a statement after listening to the
Member for St. John's East saying that they are not going to support the
amendment which was put forward to strengthen the legislation.
The current piece of legislation states that the act – all the
wrongdoings are on a go-forward basis so that only when the act is passed will
you be able to look at any activity of wrongdoing.
This piece of legislation and the amendment that is put
forward is looking at strengthening.
We have had much debate over the number days, when this bill is coming before
the floor, on retrospective and retroactive.
Why we have put forward this amendment, as the Opposition House Leader
has, is looking at previously the history where the House of Assembly had
introduced a piece of legislation on the House of Assembly Integrity Act which
has a piece of whistleblower legislation.
Then this became a hallmark of the PC campaign, a
promise in 2007 that this would be a piece of legislation that would be enacted
within the first year of coming into office.
The government right now came into office after making that promise in
2007 on October 9. We are saying at
this point in time that the promise was made in 2007.
There has to be a period of limitation as to looking back because after a
certain period of time, well then you lose the institutional knowledge, you lose
documents, people pass on, and people leave the departments in the civil
service.
It very difficult for the Office of the Citizens'
Representative, in this case, to be able to conduct a thorough investigation, so
there has to be a cut-off point. We
cannot go back to an infinite period of time because then you are not going to
be thoroughly able to conduct an adequate and sufficient investigation.
There are other mechanisms and avenues to pursue that.
It is not just confined to this piece of legislation here.
They may be able to look at other acts, as is stated in other clauses
going forward. We want to cover off
that period because it was something that was promised to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador in 2007.
People who were working in the public sector were
advised at that period of time. I do
not see why there would be a reason why we would not be able to go back and
protect any whistleblower who is working or has worked in the public service
moving forward, to be able to look back on an action because this looks at
people having the right to disclose.
We had given examples which may have started over a
period of time. This act is supposed
to come in on July 1of this year.
Maybe it is a day or so later than July 1, the last piece – July 1, 2014, yes.
If something happened the day prior – the member in debate had talked
about the minister that if a project is part way through or something is already
started well there needs to be clarity, a definitive cut-off time.
I would like some clarification.
If we cannot have a period of going back into the past, then a number of
things that are actually either gross mismanagement or a defined wrongdoing, as
clause 4 lists – then we may miss an opportunity to really protect the public
interest.
This is why we are putting forward this amendment.
We think that this was something that was promised by government and I
think that they have an obligation to look back.
Other government agencies and entities have a period of seven years where
they go back. If you look at the
Canada Revenue Agency, they have a right to audit for a period of time and go
back and take that look.
I think we should have that in our legislation.
There should be a period of the seven years that is listed here so that
we can protect the public interest.
That is why this amendment has been put forward by the Official Opposition.
I think it is a very good amendment and I certainly welcome other people
to be part of the debate.
I completely disagree with the Member for St. John's
East in his commentary saying that this date is not improving the legislation.
It certainly would be doing so, because right now you can only look
forward. This piece of legislation
is looking at making it stronger, looking back for a period of time, and as I
have stated reasons why you would not go back an extended period of time because
of the loss of institutional knowledge.
There would be other avenues then to pursue that investigation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to add to the
debate.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will just stand and have a few words and offer my
support for this amendment. Mr.
Chair, as we all know in this House, this piece of legislation will be supported
by the members opposite here. We
think it is a good piece of legislation.
With the amendment itself, Mr. Chair, once again we are
trying to add strength to the legislation.
We are not trying to be critical.
We are not trying to point out flaws, but as the Official Opposition we
are just trying to put strength and put some teeth into this legislation.
That is why, Mr. Chair, we are offering the amendment
back to October 9, 2007, when this first was announced by government that they
would bring in this legislation. I
just heard the Member for St. John's East talking about how he cannot support
criminal activity not being reported or not going back.
If anybody is wrongdoing in a criminal matter, they can go back seven
years, ten years, or fifteen years.
They can go back a number of years.
My colleague from The Straits – White Bay North just
gave some good reasons how far it is possible to even go back.
Mr. Chair, that is one of the reasons why you have to put a little limit
in it. A good example in this House
of Assembly was constituency allowances.
Even the Auditor General said you can only go back so far.
When you go back past five or six, seven years the receipts are gone and
you cannot verify all the information.
That is a prime example of why we cannot go back indefinitely, as the
Member for St. John's East is trying to put forth here.
You just cannot do it. Our
own example is our own Legislature here in the House of Assembly, Mr. Chair.
We feel confident that this amendment will ensure the
legislation is kept intact, but it also assures the general public that people
can go back to when it was first announced so we feel very confident.
First when it was announced – and I think the Member for Burgeo – La
Poile mentioned the only ones who should be nervous is anybody who did wrong in
the government. There is no
suggestion that anybody did. There
is absolutely no suggestion, Mr. Chair, that anybody did that.
The suggestion is that we have to instill public
confidence in the House of Assembly.
To instill public confidence in the House of Assembly when you make a
commitment, Mr. Chair, and the commitment is that you will bring in legislation,
people assume that from day forward that legislation then will be brought
forward.
What we are amending here, Mr. Chair, is the date this
government committed to bring this legislation in, and to instill confidence of
the general public why we are moving it back to October, 2007.
Also, as you know in clause 4 we have it all laid out like, “gross
mismanagement, including of public funds or a public asset”, paragraph (d)
“knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing…”.
Mr. Chair, we are trying to move it back so that we can
ensure everybody in this Province that when the government committed there was
no wrongdoing – which I am not accusing there was, definitely not.
I definitely at no time am I making that statement, and not even
inferring that. I just want to
instill the public confidence.
I just want to be on record, Mr. Chair, as supporting
the amendment. It is a fair
amendment in my opinion. I know the
Member for St. John's East may make another amendment, I do not know, to try to
bring it back to Confederation, I am not sure.
It is up to him when he wants to put it in.
I feel go back a reasonable period of time, the time the company made the
announcement so that we can instill confidence.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank members for their participation in the debate
on the amendment. As members are
aware, I have taken some time to consider the amendment.
I do appreciate and understand the logic.
I do understand and appreciate the rationale, but I still have some
difficulty. As I have alluded to
previously in the debate, Mr. Chair, I have some difficulty supporting making
our legislation retroactive.
Retroactive legislation – or retrospective legislation perhaps more
appropriately in this instance – just is not appropriate.
I would like to explain a little further as to why I believe that is the
case.
Bear with me.
I am not a lawyer; I do not have the advantage that certain hon. members
have, but I will do my best to shed some light on this from my perspective.
It is very unusual for legislation to have retroactive or retrospective
clauses, and there are good reasons why.
When I think about making this legislation retrospective or retroactive,
that could create a whole bunch of complications and challenges that perhaps
have not been considered at this juncture.
People move within the public service, people come to
work, they move to other jobs, they leave government, they retire and so on.
It could be very difficult for the Citizens' Representative and his
office to conduct investigations.
They could potentially be compromised as a result of having to go back multiple
years into the past.
There is the whole question of resources for the Office
of the Citizens' Representative and the Labour Relations Board as well.
I can think of some recent examples in this House, though, that I would
like to cite; one relates to amendments we made to the Fatalities Investigations
Act related to the work of the Child Death Review Committee.
There was considerable debate, I believe, at that time in this hon.
House. I remember some of the
comments from the now Minister of Finance in relation to proposed changes to the
legislation and it was decided that that legislation had to be forward speaking,
which is what we are proposing here.
An example that is as relevant, or perhaps even more
relevant, is the House of Assembly accountability, integrity act – the act with
the long name that I can never remember, but I know members know the act I am
talking about, and some of them are nodding in agreement.
It was brought forward by Chief Justice Green and there are whistleblower
provisions in that legislation that governs us as Members of the House of
Assembly. It was supported by all
members of this House. Chief Justice
Green brought forward a recommendation that that legislation be forward speaking
as well.
Keep in mind at the time, he knew, we knew, that there
had been allegations of wrongdoing involving former members of this House, but
it was felt from a legal perspective and from a legislative perspective that it
had to be forward speaking because that was seen as being just in the eyes of
the law.
Legislation is generally forward speaking.
People today, the public service today, those who work for government
departments, those who work for government agencies, they are now well aware
that this is coming, that we are going to finally enact whistleblower
legislation. I would suspect that
there is not a public servant in the Province who is not aware of the fact that
this is coming. I assure you, Mr.
Chair, that in the weeks that will follow subject to the passing of this
legislation that the Citizens' Representative is going to ensure that employees
of public bodies in Newfoundland and Labrador are well aware of what is coming.
This is really a rule of law question.
Again, I am no lawyer but I do know that people have a right; people have
a fundamental right to know what the law of the day is.
If that law changes for the time for which they have governed their
behaviour and their actions, then there is something unjust about that; there is
something unfair about that. What we
are really talking about here is a principle in terms of rule of law.
It makes sense, generally speaking, from a legislative perspective that
the legislation be forward speaking.
I hope that has provided some context.
I want to assure members opposite that I will give due consideration,
serious consideration, to every single amendment that is brought forward.
Beyond preparing for this bill where I acknowledged previously that I,
too, raised some of these questions and wondered why we would not look at going
back in time; but there are some very good legal reasons, there are some very
good ethical reasons, and there are some very good practical reasons for not
doing so, Mr. Chair.
While I understand and appreciate the perspective that
is being shared – and I do even see the logic; I do appreciate the member's
rationale – this raises a number of concerns, it raises concerns in terms of
precedent as well, and unfortunately I would respectfully submit to the members
of this House that this is not an amendment that I am prepared to support, Mr.
Chair.
I thank members for bringing it forward.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La
Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am happy to stand again and speak to the amendment.
I appreciate the minister standing and providing his viewpoint for it.
Again, as I have said before, there are times when we have had debates
where we do not always get the point.
I do not agree with the minister, but I do appreciate the fact that he is
speaking to it.
I am going to, I guess, respond to that and also
respond to some commentary from the other members.
One of the other members, I think the member from the Third Party
mentioned that we should not support this because it is a timeline.
I am not sure what the suggestion is if he has a problem going backwards
to 2007 or if he wants to go backwards to time immemorial, or if he wants to go
back to Confederation, I do not know; but what I would suggest very strongly is
that the member, if he has a problem, put an amendment forward.
I hope the member – we have done this before.
We have stood up, we have drafted amendments, and we have put them
forward. If they get voted down,
good; if they get supported, better.
It is one thing to talk and criticize about a problem and have no solution.
That is typical. That is all
I am going to say about that is that it is typical.
I may speak to that again.
I hope an amendment comes forward because we should see amendments to
this if we do not agree with it. To
complain about it and not put forward an amendment is pointless.
Going to the minister's comments, the first thing I
would suggest is that going through the list one of them was the practical
reasons. I am unsure as to any
practical reasons why we cannot do it.
I do not think the minister was very specific.
I would suggest though that resources should not be an issue.
I know the minister said earlier in debate – I think it
may have been yesterday, it may have been today, it has been a long debate.
The minister did say that resources should not be an issue.
The Citizens' Representative will report back.
At that time, if more resources are necessary then they will be
forthcoming. If there is any other
practical reason, I hope the minister and the departmental staff will provide
those as to why we cannot do this.
I am going to talk about the difference between
retroactive and retrospective. I
completely understand what the minister is saying in that we have to be careful,
but there is a difference. A
retroactive statute is one that operates as of a time prior to its enactment.
It operates backwards. A
retroactive statute changes the law from what it was.
In this case there is no, was, because the law did not exist before.
A retrospective statute operates for the future only,
perspective, but it does impose new results in respect of a past event.
It looks backwards. It
attaches new consequences for the future to an event that took place before the
statute was enacted. It changes the
law from what it otherwise would be with respect to a prior event.
My position here today and our position here today is that a
retrospective piece of legislation, when it comes to the protection of
individuals who are trying to disclose wrongdoing, is okay.
There are tons of cases out there and they talk about
retroactivity. One place where they
talk about retroactivity is when it comes to maybe pensions, or when it comes to
pay, where you go backwards and harm somebody retroactivity when it comes to
their pay. That is one thing and the
minister's word was unfairness.
Nobody wants to see the concept of unfairness applied to legislation.
I would say two things to that; there is one case, the National Director
of Public Prosecutions versus Carolus, the legal culture leaning against
retrospectivity is where there is unfairness.
Moving forward to that, the minister said there is
something unfair about it. It is my
submission and the reason for my support of this is that there is nothing unfair
about providing protection going backwards for those who want to disclose
wrongdoing. It is only unfair to not
provide that protection to those who thought they were going to have it from the
date that it was promised forward.
That is what I am putting out there.
I understand what you are saying when it comes to
unfairness. If this were to happen,
if the clause were to be allowed, the only person who it is unfair to is the
person who might get the whistle blown on them; the person who committed the
wrongdoing against a person, against this Province, against anybody else,
whether it is gross mismanagement or otherwise.
What I am saying here is that there is nothing unfair
about extending this protection in a retrospective manner to allow those who
wish to disclose wrongdoing. There
is nothing wrong with it. There is
nothing illegal about it. There is
nothing immoral about it. It would
do nothing to harm the intent of this good meaning piece of legislation.
There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.
There is a ton of case law on this.
I know the minister said, I am not a lawyer.
I do not think that matters.
I think the minister has done a very good job of understanding and reading his
legislation and he knows what he is talking about.
I think what I am suggesting is a very proper, sensible, and well-meaning
position.
I would submit that the failure to support our
amendment is the failure to support those people who may wish to disclose
wrongdoing from that time period against something that is covered under section
4(1). That is simply what I am
saying. Without belabouring that, I
think I have made a number of what I think to be valid points.
We will see what happens.
Depending on if an amendment is forthcoming that
carries this back to whenever, the minister might say there is some practicality
to that. I will leave that to if
that amendment ever comes forward.
What I have to deal with right now is the amendment we have put forward.
The promise was made, and we do not know the date that Blue Book was
created. All we know is the date of
the election in which the government was elected on which made that promise.
That was October 9, 2007 and this is dealing with public employees.
What I am saying is from that date to forward, not just
from whenever this is passed – whether it is July 1; I think that might be the
date there. Why not allow those
people out there who may know something bad happened and want to disclose it –
and we hope it never happens, we hope it did not happen.
Why not give them that protection they were promised?
I see no reason whatsoever in any way shape or form that would prevent us
from supporting the people there who need this and from voting in favour of this
amendment. I will sit down at that
point
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS
C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to this
amendment here in the House. I want
to recognize the minister's willingness to continue to answer questions as we
continue to debate this really important piece of legislation.
I have three points and these points relate to the date
and the amendment we are proposing.
In a conversation this morning with the Centre for Law and Democracy, as well as
in conversations with people who are much more familiar with the psychology of
whistleblowers than I am, one of the things that is a struggle for somebody who
wants to come forward is the emotional and psychological impact of making that
decision.
It is never a decision that somebody makes lightly.
It happens over a period of time.
The way that this legislation or this bill is currently proposed, and why
we have put forward an amendment, is that it allows for an individual who may
want to come forward and make a complaint around wrongdoing to go through the
emotional journey of being able to make that difficult decision.
The reality is that coming forward to make a difficult claim –
particularly something you feel might put yourself at risk, your family at risk,
and your financial resources at risk – requires a tremendous amount of time for
somebody to get comfortable with that moral decision.
One of the incidents or situations that I would
certainly query; what happens in the case where there is a wrongdoing that is
happening for a period of time prior to July 4, but does not come to somebody's
knowledge until after July 4?
Somebody is motivated on July 5 to disclose but the activity happened before
July 4. In that case, the employee
may feel, the way the bill is currently worded, that they would not be
protected. Hence the reason why I
think it is important that we have a date that allows people who feel that
struggle of coming forward and making a decision about disclosing something that
could be risky for them have the confidence they are protected retrospectively.
As the minister mentioned, there are a number of
reasons why he articulated there are other mechanisms that would protect people.
For me, as a legislator, this whistleblower bill is about a moral
obligation to create an environment and a culture where people feel comfortable
to disclose. As we have discussed,
it is limited obviously to the public sector currently, which is all the more
reason it is important that we provide confidence to our public sector employees
so that anything they feel morally obligated to disclose over any period of
time, that they can certainly do that.
That is one of the reasons why I support this amendment.
A specific example might be an employee discovers that
a peer or a fellow employee may be accepting payment or accepting something that
they should not be accepting. In
those cases, it is going to be important that the employee feels confident to be
able to come forward regardless of where a hard cut-off date is.
The minister referenced Judge Green's report as an
example of why retrospective legislation would not work – or has not been the
norm, I stand corrected. I remind
the minister that the situation with Judge Green was that he had an opportunity
to investigate in a very robust way the practices, the behaviours, and policies
of this hon. House and the members of the House in prior history.
The disclosure of issues of wrongdoing,
misunderstandings, whatever needed to be discussed and revealed, that work was
already done. In this situation,
because the date is in the future, as the bill currently reads, it does not
provide that opportunity for employees who may want to disclose something in the
past.
I do not think that was the intent of the current
government when they made the promise to implement whistleblower legislation.
I do not think that is the intent of the people of the Province.
I do not think that is their understanding.
I think that is one of the reasons why I am happy to
stand here and support my colleagues who I am sure will speak to this amendment
as soon as I am finished. I ask the
minister to continue to think about the importance of having this date in a way
that allows people the time to feel safe and secure in disclosing things they
feel are in the best interest of the public.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank both hon. members for sharing further
perspective on why they are supportive of the proposed amendment.
Out of respect for the process, I will not repeat what I have already
said.
In terms of the case law that the Member for Burgeo –
La Poile was speaking of, my understanding from consulting with others is that
is limited to tax and Criminal Code provisions, generally speaking, Mr. Chair.
To the Member for Virginia Waters, she was speaking
about the wrongdoing, for instance, if somebody chooses on a subsequent date to
bring the matter forward. No matter
where we draw the line, no matter what date we pick with this legislation, there
are going to be people who fall on one side or the other.
That is the case with many, many pieces of legislation and many
initiatives that we undertake as a government.
I am sure it is a challenge and a reality that other governments face as
well.
If I can offer any words of comfort, if the wrongdoing
is ongoing – if it happened in the past but the wrongdoing is still ongoing on
July 5, as the member suggests, then it would be totally within the mandate of
the Office of the Citizens' Representative to receive the disclosure and to
investigate that disclosure.
I do not have much further to add beyond what I have
already said. I respect the point of
view of members opposite. I
certainly understand and appreciate where they are coming from; but, for the
reasons I have previously outlined, I would find it difficult, I respectfully
suggest, to support this particular amendment.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will be having a few words about this amendment as
well and supporting my colleagues in the amendment.
Of course, as is being suggested, we would like to go back to October 19,
2007, a time that it was promised by the government.
Mr. Chair, the issue I have with it, quite frankly, is
when I go back and look at 4.(1) in its entirety, it talks about “This Act
applies to the following wrongdoings...”.
We are talking about what the wrongdoings are in the public service.
We are talking about “an act or omission constituting
an offence under an Act of the Legislature or the Parliament of Canada…”
We are talking about “an act or omission that creates a substantial and
specific danger to life, health or safety of persons, or to the environment,
other than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the duties or
functions of an employee”. We are
talking about “gross mismanagement, including of public funds or a public asset…
knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing…” and so on.
My point, Mr. Chair, is that we are talking about very
serious allegations, unless people are proven to be guilty.
At the onset we are talking very, very serious allegations that could
have very serious impacts on the health of people, very serious impacts on the
safety of people, very serious impacts on the provincial Treasury.
Again, we have seen instances here in Newfoundland and
Labrador where very serious things have happened.
You look at ER/PR; you look at the Hughes Inquiry.
We have had a history –
CHAIR:
I
remind the hon. member to speak to the amendment, it being very specific.
MR.
LANE:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
The point I am trying to make tied into the amendment
of the date that we are requesting it be amended to, and what is contained here
in clause 4 about these serious issues, I was just trying to give an example of
some serious issues that have happened and could happen.
The point I am trying to make here is if a serious incident happens
tomorrow, if a serious incident of that type of nature happened last year and
now all of a sudden this gets passed and somebody decides to come forward on
July 2, as this is written, they cannot come forward with it.
It will not be looked into.
I shudder to think, when you think back on some of the
incidents that have occurred and could occur, and are covered off in section 4
in this specific clause that we are debating here, to think that a serious
incident, as listed here, could happen on July 2, or on July 3 – sorry, on June
28 or in May, or happened last week or last year, that could have a devastating
impact on the general public and we are going to stand here and we are going to
vote for a piece of legislation as is currently written and say that is okay, we
are okay with that. Because that is
what we would be doing.
Now, I understand we have to be reasonable in how far
we go back in time, and to simply say we can go back forever and a day, I do not
think that is reasonable. We chose
the date we chose for the reasons given.
It is ten years, which I think is a reasonable time frame.
When you think about the seriousness of what we are
talking about here, to simply say because it happened before July 1 we are not
going to look into it, that could be an incident that occurred which could be
ongoing. Somebody, in theory, could
want to come forward and say: Do you know what?
I believe these particular tests that are being done on patients, cancer
patients, or whatever they might be – I believe these tests are flawed.
I believe the person who is doing these tests do not know what they are
doing. They are not trained for it,
or I believe the machinery is not working properly.
They are not maintained or whatever.
I believe all of this.
That could be having an issue right now with anybody
here; any of our family members, any of our friends, anybody in our Province
could be impacted today by that type of a thing.
I certainly hope, I pray to God, it is not; but again, we have seen that
type of thing happen. That could
happen, but unless it happens after July 1, based on this legislation, we are
not going to do anything about it.
It is one thing to talk about we are not going to
report this incident, but in that type of an example these flawed tests could
result in people not receiving treatment or receiving the wrong treatment and
they could die as a result of it; but, because of that date of July 1 we are
going to say no, that is okay.
In good conscience, I have a real problem in supporting
that. We all do, and that is why we
are bringing forth at least to go back – this is ten years – to when it was
promised to have that opportunity.
I did hear the minister say – not this time when he
spoke but the time before – he talked about resources.
That was one of the reasons he gave about we cannot go back in time
because of the resources. First of
all, it is kind of contradictory because I thought that resources were not going
to be an issue.
The bottom line is if it is a very serious issue, if it
is an issue that falls under section 4.(1) (a) to (d), as listed there, and
these are issues of that seriousness, I do not care about the resources.
Quite frankly – I am going to play like the NDP now; I am going to say I
do not care about the money. They
say it all the time, but I will say it for this particular issue because this is
a very serious issue, that I do not care about what it costs.
I do not care about the resources; I really do not.
When it comes to this type of an issue, I do not care.
It is too important, the types of things –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
LANE:
–
that are being contemplated here under section 4 are just too important, or too
serious to put a price tag in terms of resources to investigate it.
To say that because we are going to set this date of July 1 and someone
could come forward and say: Well, do you know what?
Last year, this happened, and this would have a major impact in the lives
of many people, it could be life and death to some people, resources is not a
reason to me – it is not a reason. It has
to be done.
With that said, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat for now
at least and we will see where the debate goes.
That is the reason why we are putting a date – that is why we believe
that we should not start July 1; we should be able to go back in time.
As my colleagues have said here, which is a very valid point, if you did
not, the only people who are going to be impacted by this, if we were to go back
seven years or ten years or whatever, the only people who are going to be
impacted is going to be the person who constituted an offence under the act of
the Legislature or the Parliament of Canada, or regulation under the act; a
person who created a substantial and specific danger to life, a person who had a
substantial and specific danger created to the health and safety of persons, to
the environment, other dangers inherent to the performance of the duties of the
employee; or somebody who was involved in gross mismanagement, including public
funds or public assets; or somebody who knowingly directed or counselled a
person to commit a wrongdoing. The
only people, if we go back, who are going to be impacted by this is someone who
falls under that category. If they
fall under that category, so be it; they should be held accountable for what
they did anyway.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is a pleasure for me to stand and just have a few
brief comments to this legislation again and listening to other people talking
about the timing and the rationale for the timing that is being proposed by the
Official Opposition for clause 4.(2).
As we have said, as it stands, this would come in to effect July 1, but
we want to take it back. Now, I
think the Opposition House Leader has pointed out that we are talking about
retrospective rather than retroactive legislation, and I think that is
important.
We could go back a lot further if you wanted to; you
could go back to the days that the trees were planted down at the Colonial
Building if you wanted, or you could go back to the day that they were cut down.
You could pick any date arbitrarily and have that there.
You could go back to Confederation or prior to Confederation, but I think
the whole issue here is the issue of fairness.
The reason why we are enacting this and debating it and why it was
promised initially is because of fairness.
We want individuals who have information about whether
it is criminal wrongdoing or gross mismanagement, or in the event where somebody
has caused some threat to public health or safety, caused some danger or been
complicit in that or, as the bill says, counselled someone to that effect – we
want to ensure that there is fairness for people who have that information and
who bring that forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
KIRBY:
I
think the other issue as it relates to fairness is when this particular
legislation was promised. This
government, the government that is bringing this legislation forward, promised
it somewhere around – well it was in their election platform during the 2007
election. Like I said, you can
debate all day going back this far or that far, but I think out of fairness it
makes sense to go back to when the PC Party promised this in their 2007 election
platform.
There are a variety of reasons for that, not just for
the fact that it was promised at that time, and it has taken all of this time
for it to actually hit the floor here and see some debate on it.
There could be people during that election campaign back in 2007 who said
to themselves: Oh, well, now I have an opportunity to bring this particular
issue forward. Whether it is
negligence, or mismanagement, or criminal activity, or what have you, some
violation as outlined under the act.
Maybe there are people who during that election
campaign heard about the whistleblower legislation or some time afterwards.
There has been a significant amount of talk about this over the
subsequent years, a number of different newspaper articles, other radio and TV
news stories, and letters to the editor.
It has been raised here in the House of Assembly on a regular basis in
Question Period and in debate.
All over that period of time since 2007 we have been
talking about it. It has been
anticipated, but unfortunately, it has taken us a whole of time – sorry it has
taken this government a long time to actually introduce it to the floor of the
House of Assembly.
I think it boils right down to a question of fairness.
I think that seems to me to be a reasonable compromise is to take it back
to that period of time. If there is
somebody who has been in the public service who is aware of that and has been
thinking about it since this government proposed the legislation, then now they
have an opportunity to bring that particular issue forward.
They will not be subject to reprisal.
They will not have any fear of bringing the issue forward because they
will have protection under the act.
I think I will leave it at that, but I think it is a
reasonable compromise. As I said
before, you could go back any length of time, you could pick any date
arbitrarily. I suppose you could go
back infinitely if you wanted to go back infinitely.
I would be interested in hearing justification for going back infinitely.
The only other thing that I will say is that I could
say I do not agree with having any stipulation so I would make an amendment to
take subclause 4(2) out of it all together.
I will leave it for your expert opinion to make that determination, Mr.
Chair. Based on my limited
experience here in the House of Assembly it would seem to me if you are going
stripping clauses out of legislation, then that is probably going to be out of
order.
The whole point here is to try to find a compromise, to
try to find something that would be in order, that we can all agree on, that
there is some sort of logic, there is some sort of rationale, and there is a
reasonable argument to be made in favour of having a particular date.
It is a good argument to make to set it around the time of the election
in 2007, because as I said, the government promised it at that time.
I will not go back over all of the reasons I gave subsequent to pointing
that out. This government promised
it back then, so it makes all sorts of sense to go back and try and have it
started from that point in time rather than having it begin at July 1.
I will leave it at that, thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have a quick point to make.
I do not presume that the minister is going to respond.
I think I know his position, I think he has put it out there.
I am just putting this on the record because half of this is having it in
Hansard so people know where we stand.
One of the things the minister stated when we talk
about why we are not going back, one of the good things is that if there is an
ongoing issue, at least we will catch that.
I just wanted to put it on the record that I still think that to be a
very big weakness in this legislation, that we have to hope for the wrongdoing
to be ongoing.
The fact remains if something were to happen today,
right now, it is not covered. I want
to put it out there I still think that is a weakness.
I do not expect the minister to change based on what I am saying now, but
I just wanted to make sure that we had our thoughts on the record as we move
forward.
I appreciate that opportunity.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR.
KENT:
I
thank members for their further comments.
I will not belabour the point either.
I just want to acknowledge the member's point.
The only thing I would say, in closing, on this
particular point is that if a matter is ongoing, if it happens today, there is a
likelihood, it is not definite, granted – and I fully understand the point he is
making and why he is making it. If
there is matter of wrongdoing that is occurring today, the likelihood of it
still being an issue a month from now or a month-and-a-half from now is a good
likelihood. It is not definite,
there is no doubt about it, but there is certainly a likelihood.
I know that perhaps does not fully address the member's
concern, I acknowledge that. I just
thought I would provide that clarification for the purpose of the record as
well.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
The
nays have it.
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division is called.
Summon the members.
Division
CHAIR:
Are
the Whips ready?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
CHAIR:
All
those in favour.
CLERK:
Mr.
Andrew Parsons, Mr. Osborne, Ms Dempster, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Lane, Mr. Kirby, Mr.
Slade, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms C. Bennett, Ms Michael, Ms Rogers.
CHAIR:
All
those against.
CLERK:
Mr.
King, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Felix Collins, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hutchings,
Mr. Verge, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Dalley, Ms Sullivan, Mr. French, Mr. Kent, Mr.
Granter, Mr. Cross, Mr. Little, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Forsey, Ms Perry,
Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Chair, the ayes eleven, the nays twenty-three.
CHAIR:
The
amendment has been defeated.
On motion, amendment defeated.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a great interest in subclause 4 of the bill.
Last night I spoke to it on a couple of occasions and I still have it.
The amendment that was brought in by the Official
Opposition was better than what is in the bill from my perspective.
In the bill of course the bill does not allow for retroactivity of any
kind.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS
MICHAEL:
The
amendment that was just defeated by the government at least recognized the need
for retroactivity, though the retroactivity went back to 2007.
I voted for it because it was better than what was there.
Now that it is defeated, I want to bring forward
another amendment to subclause 4.
That amendment is that subclause 4 of the bill is amended by deleting subsection
(2).
CHAIR:
The
House will recess to consider if the amendment is in order.
This House is now in recess.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The amendment as presented is not in order.
Shall clause 4 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, clause 4 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 5 and 6.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 5 and 6 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 5 and 6 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 7.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 7 carry?
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to clause 7, which for
everyone following along it is the disclosure process by an employee.
We have had debate in second reading on this matter.
The process itself here in this proposed legislation is strictly just an
external process going through the Office of the Citizens' Representative.
Where all other jurisdictions have a dual process, where they first would
have the opportunity to go to either a supervisor or to a designate internally,
a designated employee, and deal with that matter.
There would also be some clarification around if they would go directly
to an external process and deal in that medium there.
Clause 7(1) states they would make the disclosure
directly to the Citizens' Representative.
I think there would be a greater level of accountability if somebody had
the opportunity to go to his or her supervisor or the chief executive as in
other provinces where some matters would be dealt with internally.
They would be dealt with more expeditiously, and it
would also then protect them from a reprisal so that that particular employee,
if they did go to their supervisor or to their chief executive first, they would
be protected internally as well.
Because right now somebody would have that fear if something is happening,
whether it is in a department or in an office, that the only person they can
really go to is the Office of the Citizens' Representative for that type of
protection.
We should have confidence that our managers,
supervisors or designates would be able to take the appropriate action.
If the appropriate action is not taken, then there should be some other
mechanism put in place such as the Office of the Citizens' Representative where
they would have a timeline and a time limit to be able to deal with and explore
if something is not happening internally.
A dual process I think makes quite a significant amount
of sense when it comes to the accountability and the protection against
reprisals for employees in the public sector.
It also allows the streamline of government services to be happening in a
more efficient manner. It also gives
greater protection to the employee, not weaker protection as this bill is
currently proposing.
In section 7(2) it talks about, “The identity of an
employee making a disclosure shall be kept confidential to the extent permitted
by law and consistent with the need to conduct a proper investigation.”
I certainly agree with the statement that any employee who is making a
disclosure, the information should be kept confidential.
There will be some situations and circumstances whereby law, if this does
become a civil matter or it goes before the Labour Relations Board, their
identity may become known. That is a
very important piece is to keeping the confidentiality of disclosure.
I am not in disagreement with that particular
statement, but I will state, Mr. Chair, I will be moving an amendment that
“Subclause 7(1) of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after the word
‘disclosure' the words ‘to his or her supervisor or chief executive or'.”
Also, “Clause 7 of the Bill is amended by adding
immediately after subclause (2) the following: ‘(3) A disclosure may under
subsection (1) to a supervisor or chief executive shall be referred to the
citizens' representative who shall, within 5 days, acknowledge to the employee
making the disclosure that the referral has been received'.”
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
We
will take a recess to consider the proposed amendment.
This House is now in recess.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The amendment, as presented, is in order.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment itself is looking at creating a greater
level of accountability that exists in all other jurisdictions that have
whistleblower legislation, whether that be in the United States, whether that be
across Canada, whether it be in Australia, or the United Kingdom.
This is a process that would allow an individual to basically make a
disclosure to their supervisor or chief executive or the Office of the Citizens'
Representative; and if after a disclosure has been made, the supervisor or chief
executive shall refer to the Citizens' Representative who shall, within five
days, acknowledge to the employee making the disclosure that the referral has
been received.
This is a situation where you are making sure that if
the Office of the Citizens' Representative has received a complaint – I could be
an employee who goes to the Office of the Citizens' Representative, follows as
the legislation has proposed, but we have no way of knowing what actions have
been taken by the Office of the Citizens' Representative.
Also, this is a way to look at the streamlining of the
approach and trying to deal with wrongdoings internally first; to have that
ability so that if I am an employee, I would have the protection.
The protection if I went to a supervisor or to a CEO or the designate
that would be associated there, so that if there a wrongdoing, if there is an
intent, as defined by the legislation, that they would be able to feel
comfortable, if they have that option, to go there to take that approach.
If no action is taken, then it would be referred within five days to the
Office of the Citizens' Representative.
This ensures accountability, it ensures that action will be taken, and it
provides a paper trail because this whole process is that the Citizens'
Representative would provide an annual report, would outline wrongdoings, but
would keep matters, the identity – and that is what clause 2 is doing; it is
keeping the identity protected.
I think that this would really strengthen the
legislation as it has existed.
Across all other jurisdictions, when they have introduced whistleblower
legislation, they have not amended their legislation to go to a single process.
So, I put this forward that I think that we should have confidence that
internally our public sector employees can handle and deal with situations if
they are put forward with a wrongdoing.
This reduces the amount of calls that may end up going
to the Citizens' Representative unnecessarily.
It allows for an employee and other smaller issues to get dealt with so
that people have confidence that they can go to their superior or to their CEO
in that situation and not have to be constantly going to the Office of the
Citizens' Representative. I think
this is a way of handling anybody who feels that there is a wrongdoing as
defined by the act, that they would have a dual option.
I think that this amendment certainly makes sense. I hope the minister
will see the intent of what this amendment is going to do and how it will
certainly strengthen the legislation, as is in all other jurisdictions that has
whistleblower legislation across the globe, not just in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR (Verge):
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am very happy again to stand to speak to this second
successful amendment that we put out here to this piece of legislation, and one
that I think certainly is necessary.
It is well meaning. Again, I think
it should be noted on the record.
During the main motion and during many of the debates sometimes we are
criticized for speaking and maybe not making suggestions.
You are criticizing for the sake of criticizing.
It is our belief that every time we speak to this, we are trying to add
value. In this piece of legislation,
it is not like some where you completely disagree.
This legislation is one that we have called on the government to do.
In particular, we have some suggestions to make it better, in our mind.
In this case the Member for The Straits – White Bay
North has proposed an amendment to section 7.
What we are saying here, for people that are wondering, it comes down to
the disclosure by the employee. Very
simply what we are saying is “Where an employee reasonably believes that he or
she has information that could show that a wrongdoing has been committed or is
about to be committed, the employee may make a disclosure to the citizens'
representative.” We are simply
asking that the section be amended by saying after “disclosure”, it should say
“to his or her supervisor or chief executive”.
This comes down to the crux of the single versus dual disclosure.
We still believe – and I do not need to reiterate this
again because I think we have done that very well during the course of this
debate, we have laid out our concerns, especially when it comes to the process
that this Province has chosen to take when it comes to single disclosure versus
what is being used in many other jurisdictions which is dual.
Now, I will note that the minister has said we have checked with other
jurisdictions and it seems like this one is the best way to go, but I would be
interested in knowing, because I do not know, how many of these jurisdictions
actually have plans in place to change to this model.
That would be interesting to know, so I put it out there.
I have to recognize the minister has spoken to and
answered this. I do not like many of
his answers but he gives us an answer.
I will give him an opportunity, if he is prepared.
I know he takes the information – we are trying to give him an
opportunity to respond, and we appreciate that.
I will let him respond to the amendment which we have put forward, which
we are hoping he will see the value of and be supporting.
MR.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am attempting to respond to the various points as
they are raised. Sometimes in order
to consider the amendment it does require consultation with others.
I appreciate the patience of the members opposite.
I also acknowledge we are working to make the legislation stronger.
That is the purpose of making amendments.
It is to see if there are opportunities to make the legislation even
better than what it is. We take that
very seriously.
In an effort not to get ruled out of order, I will
speak to the amendment. I do have
some concerns about the introduction of a dual-disclosure process.
The Member for Burgeo – La Poile is correct in pointing
out that we have talked to other jurisdictions.
It is worth recognizing, as well, that whistleblower legislation in
Canada has evolved over the last decade or so.
We have certainly taken our time to watch what is happening in other
jurisdictions and to benefit from their experience.
What their experience has taught us is that in cases where there is a
dual-disclosure process, employees tend to opt for the external process.
There are a number of reasons for that, which I will elaborate on while
we discuss this particular amendment.
It is possible that employees would refrain from making
a disclosure because they might be uncomfortable going to somebody within their
own agency, within their own department, or within their own division of
government. They may be concerned
about confidentiality if their own department was involved in not only receiving
their disclosure, but actually carrying out the investigation as well.
What we have done through this bill is remove that obstacle.
I acknowledge that in most other places in the country
there is a dual-disclosure process, but the fact that we have opted for the
third party independent, consistent, arm's-length office, the office being the
Office of the Citizens' Representative, actually is a real strength.
It is one that the Citizens' Representative himself endorses.
He has suggested that this – and that is one of the most unique things
about this legislation. He has
suggested that this legislation is going to be the best in the country.
We have talked to other jurisdictions as well.
We have a dual-disclosure process in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and that allows for the internal process, as
is being suggested here by the Opposition amendment, but we really want to
uphold the integrity of the public service by making sure that the process is as
transparent and as effective as possible.
We want to facilitate disclosures of legitimate wrongdoing in the safest
environment possible.
The single-disclosure route is considered the most
effective, for a number of reasons.
It ensures that an independent office that has the skills, experience,
expertise, training and dedicated resources will carry out investigations in a
fair manner, and in an impartial manner, but also in a very consistent manner.
If you had multiple agencies and departments of
government at various levels receiving disclosures and carrying out
investigations and reporting on that, then there is a real concern around
consistency. There is a real concern
about consistent training and resources.
There is a real concern about impartiality.
I really think the principles of procedural fairness would actually be
difficult to meet if we were to have an internal process as well as the external
one.
From what we have seen in other jurisdictions, we see
that employees are not going to their supervisor.
They are not going to their CEO or their deputy minister.
When they have a choice, they are opting for that impartial third party
process. Let's all keep in mind as
well, that is not to say employees are not going to bring concerns to their
supervisors, or that we are somehow going to curb that practice.
What this bill deals with, it deals with significant wrongdoing, serious
wrongdoing.
There are lots of routine day-to-day administrative HR
matters or minor concerns that employees have about others' conduct or things
that might be going on in a department that they would probably feel quite
comfortable talking to their immediate supervisor about, or walking into the
deputy minister's office or the CEO's office.
When it comes to the significant and serious wrongdoing that we are
talking about under this legislation, based on what we have seen in other
jurisdictions, they have told us that having the dual process is really less
supportive of employees. It really
creates an awkwardness for employees that is not necessary.
Employees might be hesitant.
They may be reluctant to bring forward concerns to somebody within their
own department, their supervisor or the deputy minister, whatever the case may
be. If that extra step was added, as
is being proposed here – this may sound a little farfetched, but let's say an
employee has a concern and they go to their supervisor.
Well, if it not already documented and it is not formalized, the
supervisor would also then have an opportunity to talk them out of it, and say:
Okay, I will handle that. You do not
need to write up a disclosure. I
will make sure that matter is dealt with and goes away.
There are all kinds of opportunity for a more complicated and less
effective process by adding that step.
We want employees to feel safe.
We want employees to be able to go to
that independent impartial third party and we want to uphold the integrity of
our public service at the same time.
During the break I shared this with one of the members opposite.
I did raise the question myself in preparing this bill.
I said: Well, if in many jurisdictions there is a dual-disclosure
process, even if one route is preferred, even if the external route is
preferred, why not do both?
What I learned was that the experience in other
jurisdictions is perhaps the most compelling reason not to do that.
There are some other reasons as well that were significant.
It adds a level of administration.
There are major policy implications if all levels of the government were
going to be training and requiring employees to receive disclosures and ensure
investigations take place. There are
training issues, there are reporting issues, and there are consistency issues.
I believe at previous stages of debate I have spoken to
why the single-disclosure process is such a strength of this bill.
I still believe that. I have
reflected on the amendment as proposed, and based on the experience in other
jurisdictions and based on some of the concerns I have just expressed, this
particular change would be a difficult one for me to support.
I am sure other members will have some points to raise and I will
certainly listen carefully to those concerns as well, as others will, and
perhaps there will be some further dialogue on this point before we get too much
further into the debate.
I thank members for proposing the amendment, and I
thank them for the arguments that have been presented so far.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to, in response to the minister's statement,
talk about the amendment itself and just clearly state that they would have to
make a disclosure to his or her supervisor or chief executive or the Citizens'
Representative. This is not saying
they have to go to their supervisor or their CEO.
It gives the option to do so.
They would still have that option to directly go to the Office of the Citizens'
Representative. This is about giving
people choice in the whole process and the manner of which they would feel
comfortable in doing so.
This is why the third clause being added is very
important for the accountability factor.
The example the minister gave really is addressed in the actual amendment
itself. If somebody goes to their
supervisor, the minister said they might not do anything on it.
Clause 3 says that if a disclosure is made under subsection (1) to a
supervisor or a chief executive, it shall be referred – not may, it has to be
referred – to the Citizens' Rep who shall, within five days, acknowledge to the
employee.
They are going to get the feedback.
It will be a direct loop knowing that action is being taken, that there
is accountability. The legislation
is quite clear and it shows people who make legitimate complaints are actually
going to get the action taken. It is
a very clear mechanism here that gives people the option by going directly to
the Citizens' Representative, not necessarily will they see this level of
action, whereas if they had the option of going directly to their supervisor or
chief executive.
The amendment itself puts forward the answer to the
suggestion that the minister had stated it would not.
Clause 3 does that. I think
it deserves due consideration because this has been thoroughly thought out by
the Official Opposition. It provides
greater accountability. It will
protect the public sector employees and those of the public interest.
I think this is a great amendment.
It gives people the option and will certainly reinforce and strengthen
the act when it comes to the public interest disclosure whistleblower
legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
The
amendment is defeated.
On motion, amendment defeated.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 7 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 7 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 8 through 10 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 8 through 10 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 11.
Shall clause 11 carry?
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to have a few brief comments to this
clause. It is a pleasure again to
stand and speak to this important piece of legislation which we have been
waiting for and the people, voters in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
have been anticipating for quite a lengthy period of time.
I will not belabour that, though.
Clause 11(1) says, “Notwithstanding section 10, nothing
in this Act authorizes the disclosure of (a) information or documents which
would disclose the deliberations of the Executive Council or a committee of the
Executive Council” and I will continue in a moment.
I just wanted to ask members of the House of Assembly to cast your memory
back almost two years ago when in this House of Assembly we debated another bill
that had broad blanket provisions pertaining to documents that would be seen by
Cabinet.
There was a provision in Bill 29, An Act to Amend the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act that talked about Cabinet
confidences and documents which would fall under the ambit of Cabinet
confidences. It was a very broad
blanket provision that basically set-up a situation whereby you could just say
that is a Cabinet document so we cannot disclose that information.
Similarly, I believe the paper that members have been
referencing from the Centre for Law and Democracy – which the hon. the Minister
of Municipal Affairs has rightly pointed out, the Centre for Law and Democracy
has been quite helpful to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in reviewing
whether it is Bill 29 or Bill 1 or what have you, and pointing out the
shortcomings in the legislation, and where it can be strengthened in some
places. I do not have an amendment
to this, but I really wanted to express some caution.
I believe once again a government is setting up a situation whereby
blanket provisions, such as this one, “information or documents which would
disclose the deliberations of the Executive Council or a committee” of it.
It really is a broad stipulation that really puts
information once again behind the curtain away from this legislation and exempts
it. I think this is a stark
contradiction when we remember back to the opening of this House of Assembly
some months ago when government launched its new open and transparency Web site.
We announced that it had now a newly-found attachment to openness and
transparency. Yet once again, Mr.
Chair, we have a provision such as this, a blanket provision pushing information
away from this legislation, disallowing selected pieces of information from
falling underneath this.
I think that is really problematic and I think it shows
a pattern. It shows a pattern of
selectivity when it comes to information that we want government legislation and
the people's legislation to pertain to.
It is information that this government does not want people to have
access to, or for to be considered in the instance of a situation where someone
is blowing the whistle, whether it is criminal wrongdoing, or gross negligence,
or some threat to health, or public safety, or the environment and so on.
I wanted to point that out because when we get to the
point where this particular legislation is enacted, I want to be able to look
back and make sure that someone here in the Official Opposition stood up and
cautioned government on once again taking information and putting it beyond the
reach of its legislation in a very selective way.
I just want to get that out there.
This particular section as well, Mr. Chair, goes on to say, “Notwithstanding
section 10, nothing in this Act authorizes the disclosure of (b) information or
documents that are protected by solicitor-client privilege.”
I do not want to repeat myself because I did at length go over this the
other day. I will reiterate again
here we have an instance where we are saying that if you seek out legal counsel,
seek out legal advice; one can claim solicitor-client privilege with – well as
we have seen in the recent deliberations regarding the legal counsel that was
sought out by the Minister of Transportation and Works regarding the Humber
Valley Paving imbroglio. We saw that
sort of very loose interpretation of what it is to seek legal opinion and to get
solicitor-client advice.
The other thing the Centre for Law and Democracy
pointed out, and it is almost really laughable if it was not sort of tragically
sad, because ultimately Bill 1 applies to evidence of gross mismanagement,
criminal offences, or substantial threats to health, safety or the environment.
You think about whether it comes to Cabinet documents in section (a) or
solicitor-client privilege in section (b), you are more or less setting up, I
think, relatively easy ways for information to not be considered in a
whistleblowing situation.
It is easy to say, if you go back to the discussions
again, like I said, that we had here a couple of years ago about the whole idea
of Cabinet confidences, I think this is worded in a very similar way.
It is relatively easy to say okay this document here is a Cabinet
document, this is an Executive Council document, so we stamp that.
This one is not, so you can use that.
Or you could take both of them and you get your lawyer on the phone at
the Department of Transportation and Works and get some legal opinion on the
both of these. Now they are put
beyond the reach of Bill 1 of the whistleblower act.
I think, in a way, it violates the spirit of what it
was we thought we were going to get in the end.
I want to point out I am sure there are situations whereby a legitimate
case can be made for solicitor-client privilege, where there is something to do
with somebody's privacy or something of a personal nature that would reasonably
justify this particular move.
I think, really, you would want to have a greater level
of detail here just to take this out altogether and in those very rare, rare,
rare instances, have it dealt with by the courts; because, ultimately, what you
are setting up here is a litigious situation where people do not have any other
alternative but to seek out that particular legal advice.
The fact that this is such a broad interpretation of Executive Council
documentation, documentation covering the deliberations of Executive Council,
again that sort of violates what it is we thought we were going to get.
This really exempts a whole lot of information, and it sets up really
neat ways that government can get around whistleblower protection and
whistleblower provisions.
I will not belabour that any further, but I thought it
was important for me to stand and to put that out there.
We made a big mistake – or not we, but the government made a big mistake
a couple of years ago when it brought in the changes to the Freedom of
Information Act with similar provisions and look what happened.
When the new Acting Premier came in, he had to throw all of Bill 29 out
and call in a select committee to get them to go and review it all.
Who knows how long it is going to take, how much money is going to be
spent on that, and how much energy is going to be used up before all of that is
straightened away when these things really were unnecessary in the beginning.
We have pointed all of that out at the time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much.
It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to stand briefly and make a few comments
as to section 11 of the whistleblower act, which my colleague for St. John's
North has done a great job of speaking to.
I, more or less, had a very pointed question.
This is a question that if the minister gets an opportunity, he can
answer. I will read this and then
ask I will ask the question.
Section 11 says, “Notwithstanding section 10, nothing
in this Act authorizes the disclosure of (a) information or documents which
would disclose the deliberations of the Executive Council or a committee of the
Executive Council; or (b) information or documents that are protected by
solicitor-client privilege”.
The simple question would be: Is it correct that
whistleblower legislation does not in any way, shape or form apply to Cabinet
and/or Cabinet ministers? That would
be the simple question.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the hon. colleague for drawing attention to
that item. The language used in this
particular bill, first of all for the record, would be consistent with many
other acts that are currently within the Province.
Two, in particular, come to mind: the Auditor General Act and the House
of Assembly Act. Both of which
provide protection, if you will, to Cabinet deliberations.
That would be very much not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador, but what
would be very much the standard practice throughout Canada, in particular, and
part of the democratic process where it is recognized that in Cabinet
deliberations it is expected that members ought to be able to speak freely and
participate openly in the decision-making process.
There is certainly no intent in this bill to have any
of this language show something different, something untoward, or a different
direction than what would exist in other particular pieces of legislation with
the same clauses attached.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess the point of the question – and I appreciate
the minister answering the question, but where we are getting at is that the
difference here is that this piece of legislation provides protection against
those who want to disclose it. By
asking it, I am not inferring wrongdoing, I am not saying wrongdoing, anything
like that, but what I am saying is that in no way, shape or form is the Cabinet
subject to whistleblower legislation.
The rest of the public service is, everybody else is, but Cabinet is not
subject to this. So, an individual
who may have information – that would go back to clause 4, I believe it was,
where we talked about the different forms of wrongdoing – would not have that
protection.
I am putting that out there.
I want it on the record. I
think it should be noted. Again, I
am not even putting an amendment out because I know for a fact that it would not
get accepted – or, I guess, supported; but I am putting it out there because I
think it is due some recognition that people who may have that are not given
that protection under this piece of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I accept the member's comments for the spirit for which
they are intended. Just to clarify,
this clause does not exempt Cabinet ministers from whistleblower.
What it does is it provides protection for the Cabinet proceedings, the
actual Cabinet meetings. That policy
has followed Progressive Conservative governments and Liberal governments in
Newfoundland and Labrador since we have been here, and it follows all other
governments across Canada. There is
nothing different or untoward about that language; but, to be very clear, it is
Cabinet proceedings. It is not
protection for Cabinet ministers in their day-to-day dealings of their work.
It is only the deliberations of Cabinet in the Cabinet room.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 11 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 11 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 12 and 13.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 12 and 13 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 12 through 13 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 14.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 14 carry?
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clause 14 is around the investigation by the Citizens'
Representative. I just wanted to
have a little bit of discussion around this and ask a couple of questions.
It states: The citizens' representative is responsible
for the investigation, and the investigation shall be conducted as informally
and expeditiously as possible. Now,
other pieces of legislation that I have reviewed has listed that there would
also be a mechanism which would require the Office of the Citizens'
Representative to inform the employee who is making the request, the disclosure,
or blowing the whistle over a period of time; sometimes it would be over a
period of ninety days.
There is no time limit listed to go back to at least
inform them of the status of the investigation.
Also, when it comes to consent, when it comes to sharing information,
sometimes there is an expiry lapse of once you give that consent to share with
other departments within government, after a certain period of time has lapsed
then they would have to go back and get consent again.
There is nothing listed here in this piece of
legislation that clarifies that process.
Maybe the minister will clarify the reason why it is not listed, or maybe
this will be something that would be identified in a regulation that would come
forward based on this process, to outline clearly when the Citizens'
Representative conducts an investigation that it does put a mechanism in place
knowing that action is being taken and the person who blows the whistle is
informed throughout the process, and that consent is requested within the ninety
days and every ninety days thereafter to continue such a process.
I would just like to ask those questions as to why such
a process was not included as it has been in other pieces of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is more for clarification perhaps.
To the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, are you asking about a
process where a complainant or someone who files a complaint gets
acknowledgement that the complaint is received, or are you asking if or why
there should be updates provided to the complainant on a process?
Just to be clear.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I am asking about is once a complaint is received,
an investigation – it states under this piece – should be conducted as
informally and expeditiously as possible.
In other pieces of legislation there is a ninety-day process where the
person who has blown the whistle, who has made the complaint, is updated.
There is no clause here that highlights that the Citizens' Representative
is obligated to provide any type of update.
Also, over the course of time if somebody consented to
give their information to departments, is that consent extended beyond ninety
days? How long can that information
then be shared with departments?
Because normally there would be a process in place where consent would have to
be given after a period of ninety days.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I draw members' attention to page 9 of the bill, or
specifically section 18.(4). There
is commentary there which indicates, “The citizens' representative shall report
on the result of his or her investigation to the employee whose disclosure
initiated the investigation in the manner and at the time of the citizens'
representative considers appropriate.”
I think that is the clause that speaks to the issue we are discussing
here.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
The
particular matter is the timelines, it is open ended.
It does not give any timeline or any responsibility for the Citizens'
Representative to go back and report to the person who is making a legitimate
complaint of a wrongdoing that is happening.
I am asking for consideration that either – it is not clearly written in
the legislation itself but I want to make the point for the record that the
Citizens' Representative should have an obligation to go back.
It should be clearly stated.
Maybe that is something the minister would consider in
a regulation or direction to the Citizens' Representative on a go-forward basis.
Just something for consideration.
I am not proposing an amendment to the particular piece of legislation
but just asking for some consideration on that because it is not clearly stated
in the legislation here.
Also, around the point of one consent is given, if the
minister could clarify that. Does it
expire or not? If I give consent to
the Citizens' Representative does it go forever and a day, or would there be a
process where the person would have to give consent again if too much time has
lapsed?
CHAIR:
Shall clause 14 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 14 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 15 through 19 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 15 through 19 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 15 through 19 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 20.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 20 carry?
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am speaking to clause 20 of the whistleblower act,
and this is the annual report. This
is an important part of what the Citizens' Representative is going to do.
To lay it out, “The citizens' representative shall make an annual report
to the House of Assembly on the exercise and performance of his or her functions
and duties under this Act, setting out (a) the number of inquiries relating to
this Act; (b) the number of disclosures received and the number acted on and not
acted on; (c) the number of investigations commenced under this Act; (d) the
number of recommendations …”. It is
all good stuff. It is certainly not
an issue, and necessary. It is not
an issue.
However, when we get to sub (2) it says, “The report
shall be given to the Speaker, who shall table a copy of it in the House of
Assembly within 15 days after receiving it if the Assembly is sitting or, if it
is not, within 15 days after the next sitting begins.”
That is the issue we have.
Obviously, the report has to be tabled here in the House.
That is what we want to see, that is what the public wants to see.
However, what if the report comes and the House is not sitting?
What if we have a situation where the House empties out in June and goes
until next March – because that has happened – and there is no sitting in the
House? That report sits there, it is
not tabled. We are not going to get to
see it.
What we are suggesting, and I do have an amendment here
to it, and before I get to the subject of what I am saying – I do not want to
not be able to speak to it. What we
are saying is it should be in such a way that if it is fifteen days and the
House is in session, great, that is what we want.
If the House is not in session, there should be a format by which after
fifteen days it can be received by the Clerk and then deemed to have been tabled
by the Clerk, therefore becoming public knowledge to all those out there.
That way the information is out there in a timely fashion.
I do not see any way in why that would not be appropriate and necessary.
I am unsure in the past as to whether there have been
cases where public reports should have been received and sat there on the desk
because the House was not sitting. I
do not see any reason why this could not happen.
So, I am going to propose an amendment.
“Subclause 20(2) of the Bill is amended by deleting the
words ‘within 15 days after the next sitting begins' and substituting the words
and comma ‘the Speaker shall give a copy of the report to the Clerk of the House
of Assembly and 15 days after receipt of that report by the Clerk it shall be
considered to have been tabled in the House'”.
CHAIR:
The
House will take a brief recess to consider the amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We have considered the amendment to be in order.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the member for proposing the amendment.
As I understand it, the intent as proposed here is simply to make sure
the documents that are tabled within the fifteen-day time period become a matter
of public record in instances where the House of Assembly is not sitting.
Government has no issue with that amendment, and we will certainly be
supporting it.
CHAIR:
Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
The amendment is carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 20 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 20 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 21.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 21 carry?
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am sorry if I am smiling so much now.
I pulled something off here I never thought possible.
I would like to thank the Minister of Education who
really spoke to this. I do not know
if the Minister of Municipal Affairs had anything to do with it, but I give the
credit to the minister who spoke. In
all seriousness, I am glad to see that.
Moving forward, this section is 21.
Section 21(1) says, “A person shall not take a reprisal against an
employee or direct that one be taken against an employee because the employee
has, in good faith, (a) sought advice about making a disclosure from the
citizens' representative; (b) made a disclosure; or (c) cooperated in an
investigation under this Act”.
Section 21(2) says, “A person who takes a reprisal against an employee or
directs that one be taken contrary to subsection (1) is subject to appropriate
disciplinary action, including termination of employment…”
This is a good thing.
Obviously we do not want to see reprisals.
The only thing we would suggest is adding an employee or former employee.
We are going to be proposing an amendment to section
21(2). Subclause 21(2) of the bill
is amended by adding immediately after the word employee, the words or former
employee.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The House will take a brief recess to consider the
amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We have considered the amendment to be in order.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I extend my appreciation to members
opposite for their participation in the Committee stage of debate this evening.
Some good suggestions and some interesting suggestions have been made
through a number of amendments that have been proposed.
On this particular amendment, and we are talking about
subclause 21.(2) of the bill, it is proposed to add the words “or former
employee” after the word “employee”.
I think I understand the spirit and intent behind the amendment.
I appreciate where members are coming from.
I would point out that clause 21 is a notice provision.
When you step back and think about it, I cannot think of a circumstance –
I cannot think of how a reprisal could be taken against a former employee.
So you will notice further in the bill, even in the
very next clause, in clause 22, there is reference to a former employee.
I think members were striving for consistency and trying to ensure that
basis is covered. When you look at
the definition of reprisal in subclause 2.(j) it says “‘reprisal' means one or
more of the following measures taken against an employee because the employee
has, in good faith, sought advice about making a disclosure, made a disclosure
or cooperated in an investigation under this Act”.
To have a reprisal taken against you, at that point in time when a
reprisal is taken against you, you have to be an employee; but in the next
clause, which we will get to, it does include former employees for good reason,
because in that instance it makes sense.
It may be that there is just some confusion between
clause 21 and 22, because again, I cannot think of how a reprisal could be taken
against someone who is not a former employee.
Protection for former employees, which I would suspect is the intent
behind the amendment, to protect former employees, and that is a good intent,
that is actually covered under clause 22, which we will hopefully debate
shortly. So, I appreciate the
suggestion. I really believe that
this is covered elsewhere in the legislation, and that the amendment as proposed
would not actually be necessary for the reasons that I have just explained.
I do appreciate and acknowledge the suggestion, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
All those against, ‘nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
The
amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 21 carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 21 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 22 through 30 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 22 through 30 inclusive carry?
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a quick question for the minister on section 28,
Regulations. It says: The Lieutenant
Governor in Council may make regulations (a) designating a body as a public
body; (b) exempting acts or regulations; (c) respecting the provision of legal
advice; and generally, to give effect.
So I would just ask the minister: When it comes to the associated
regulations, is there any timeline in which to have these in place?
Has that been considered at this time?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Chair, I thank the member for his question, and I will endeavour to get him a
more precise answer than the one I am about to give.
We recognize that it will take some time.
The language that is proposed here in terms of how regulations will be
made is consistent with other jurisdictions, and a lot of what exists in other
jurisdictions relates to the internal disclosure process.
Any regulations that we develop would only address our single-disclosure
process, of course. We certainly
want to move quickly to get those regulations in place, and we will do the
appropriate consultation to do so.
In terms of a precise time frame, I would be happy to
reflect a little further on that and get back to the hon. member in short order.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 22 through 30 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 22 through 30 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:
A
bill, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.
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 with 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 with amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, that the Committee rise and report the bill as amended.
CHAIR:
The
motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 1 as amended.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Wiseman):
The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.
MR.
VERGE:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report Bill 1 carried with an amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the
matters to them referred and have carried Bill 1 with amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR.
KING:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, report received and adopted.
MR.
SPEAKER:
When shall the bill be read a third time?
MR.
KING:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Member for Port de Grave, that
Bill 1, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure, be now read the third
time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
We
need to deal with the amendment first, Government House Leader.
Do you want to move and have it seconded that the amendment be now read a
first time? The amendments we have
to deal with first.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Member for Port de Grave, that
the bill, as amended, be now read the first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the amendments be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
CLERK:
First reading of amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation,
Business and Rural Development, that the amended bill be now read the second
time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the amendments be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
CLERK:
Second reading of amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I move, seconded by the Member for Harbour
Main, that Bill 1, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure, be now read the
third time.
MR.
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
that Bill 1 be now read a third time?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
On motion, amendments read a first and second time.
Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.
(Bill 1)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
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 Public Interest
Disclosure”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 1)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Child, Youth and
Family Services, that the House do now adjourn.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay'.
Motion carried.
The House stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow
afternoon.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.