December 15, 2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 56
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Today it gives me pleasure to welcome to the public
gallery Mr. Lester Powell, who happens to be the father to the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair; and Mr. Tony Powell, along with Ida Powell.
Ida is a former long-time Mayor of Charlottetown.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have members' statements from the Member for the District of St.
George's Stephenville East; the Member for the District of Placentia St.
Mary's; the Member for the District of Trinity Bay de Verde; the Member
for the District of Bonavista North; the Member for the District of
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair; and the Member for the District of Kilbride.
The hon. the Member for the District of St. George's
Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to pay tribute to the firefighters of St.
George's Volunteer Fire Department.
In particular, I want to make special note of Brian Bennett, who
recently received his pin for thirty years of services, and also his brother
Jerome and Theo Bennett who are also long-serving members of the St.
George's Volunteer Fire Department.
Jerome has forty-one years of service, and Theo, who is
currently the fire chief, has twenty-four years of service.
Between them, they have close to 100 years of service with the fire
department.
The St. George's fire department has been in place for
forty-three years and has seen many changes in equipment, training and
practices, but one thing remains the same is the willingness of these
volunteers to come forward and serve their community.
I ask all members of the House to join with me in
paying tribute to the Bennett brothers and all the firefighters in Bay St.
George.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Placentia St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to five
centenarians from my district.
Mr. Speaker, on March 4 Anastasia Yetman of St. Mary's
turned 100 years old. On January
10, Annie English of Branch celebrated her 100th birthday.
For Bridget Smith of Placentia, the magic milestone was reached on
July 31. Beatrice Murphy of
Placentia turned 101 on September 13, and Mary Drake of Placentia was 102
years young on February 1.
Mr. Speaker, I could not match the Member for St.
John's East, but he has a bigger pool to draw from than I do; in fact, it
would have been six, but Mrs. Annie Hayward of St. Vincent's passed away in
November at the tender age of 103.
She was reading the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, and keeping up with world
affairs two days before her death.
Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to grasp the
tremendous changes that have occurred on this planet during the amazing
lives of these ladies. When I
inquired as to their recipes for their longevity, one responded that it was
hard work and a smile in your heart.
Another said a good shot of scotch every day.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in
congratulating Anastasia, Annie, Bridget, Beatrice and Mary, and extend our
very best wishes for good health in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Trinity Bay de Verde.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Jennifer Rimmer,
this year's recipient of the Cecilia Carroll Award for Independent Living
for a person with a disability.
This award is bestowed upon a person who has
demonstrated a long-term and extraordinary personal commitment to full
inclusion of persons with disabilities in the Province.
As a deaf person, Jennifer has exemplified that role.
Jennifer, who is originally from the Town of Heart's
Delight-Islington, graduated from Memorial University with an undergraduate
degree in 2010 and was heralded as the first deaf person to exclusively use
American Sign Language throughout her university studies.
Jennifer continues to work tirelessly on community
outreach to ensure maximum accessibility and an inclusive environment for
the deaf community. She has made
presentations titled Understanding the Deaf Community that have helped the
hearing understand a little better.
The wife and mother of a three-year-old boy is employed
at the St. John's Airport, also provides respite work for a young deaf
adult, and is often called upon to provide translation services.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating
Jennifer on winning this prestigious and well-earned award and wish her well
in all of her future endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSS:
I am very pleased to rise today to speak about school spirit and teamwork.
On November 29, I had the pleasure of visiting School
Sport NL Female Volleyball A Division Championships hosted at Gill Memorial,
in Musgrave Harbour. Gill is a
small community school and it hosted similar sized schools from across the
Province. Gill played Main River
Academy, while Eric G. Lambert met Bishop White All Grade in the crossovers
with the final combat between host Gill Memorial Academy and Bishop White
All Grade School.
In front of a supportive audience the little host team
from Gill battled through some games, but made it through the crossovers and
in the finals they bumped, jumped, blocked and smashed their way to a Gold
Medal and a Provincial School Sport banner.
The young ladies on the team are: Natasha Bemister,
Allyson Morgan, Sarah Hicks, Taylor Mouland, Kalei Cromwell, Kendra Dyke,
Tyra Burry, Kaylie Chaulk, Laura Whiteway, Sarah Simms, Courtney Pinsent and
Brandi Hicks, their coach John Abbott and manager Courtney Mouland.
I know that this success did not materialize without
the dedication of the players, the coaches, and the parents.
As colleagues let us unite to congratulate all of the competitors at
the provincials and salute Viking Gold.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to
recognize Captain Lester Powell for his forty-five years of flying.
Over the past four-and-a-half decades, he has flown from the
Atlantic, to the Pacific, to the Arctic, but most of his stellar career has
been flying the friendly skies of the place he is so proud to call home
Labrador.
Captain Powell attended flight school in Moncton, New
Brunswick and made his first flight on September 28, 1969.
Since that time, he has logged over 45,000 hours delivering freight,
mail, and passengers to coastal Labrador communities.
Initially it was floats in summer and skis in winter on single-engine
aircraft prior to the days of coastal gravel runways.
Today, he is one of the most experienced Twin Otter pilots in Canada.
During his career, Captain Powell has completed more
than 1,000 medical evacuation flights, transporting sick and injured people
for medical care. Captain Powell
is the first of six brothers who would become fixed-wing pilots.
Powell would become a well-recognized and well-respected name in the
aviation industry.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in
recognizing my wonderful dad and aviation icon, Captain Lester Powell, for
his lengthy career in the airline industry.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, 2014 is the International Year of the Family Farm.
At the annual agriculture show at Jack Byrne Arena on October 3, John
Lester and his family were recognized for their contributions to
Newfoundland and Labrador agriculture.
Lester families have been farming on Brookfield Road
for more than 160 years. John
and Mary Lester started their business a number of years ago on twenty-five
acres of land, growing only a few types of vegetables.
Today, Lester's Farm Market grows more than 100 varieties of fruits
and vegetables on 110 acres.
This very successful local business continues to change
and evolve. Lester's have a
nursery, a bakery, and an animal petting farm.
They have set up a youth club which gives children an opportunity to
try their hand at farming.
Lester's annual Pumpkin Fest has raised thousands of dollars for local
charities.
John and Mary Lester, two sons, Chris and Brad, and
daughter, Susan, along with over thirty employees, strive to maintain a
great atmosphere for customers.
I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing a
great family of farmers.
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 highlight the good news
resulting from the calls for bids announced Friday by the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
The call for bids consisted of six parcels of land in the Flemish
Pass, the Carson, and Jeanne d'Arc basins.
The interest by the petroleum industry in the calls for
bids was significant and clearly demonstrates the long-term potential for
exploration and development within Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore.
In fact, the result for calls for bids in the Flemish Pass Basin of a
$559 million commitment to exploration by ExxonMobil Canada Limited, Suncor
Energy and ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation is the largest bid in
the Province's history for a single parcel.
Exploration and production companies internationally
are increasingly interested in our offshore.
Statoil, for example, has indicated that Newfoundland and Labrador
remains one of its six core focus areas.
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to
exploration, including the Province's frontier regions.
As envisioned in our Energy Plan, we have enabled Nalcor, on behalf
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to invest in multi-client
seismic programs which has delineated three new basins offshore Labrador.
Nalcor, through the Offshore Geoscience Development Program,
continues to pursue seismic, electromagnetic, and seabed coring initiatives
from the Labrador Sea to the southern Grand Banks.
The Province continues to transition towards a new
scheduled land tenure system.
The next Call for Bids, which will be issued by the Canada-Newfoundland and
Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board in the spring, will be under the new
system and will provide operators with increased time frames for the bidding
process in more frontier areas.
The petroleum industry is the largest contributor to
provincial GDP at 33 per cent with oil production value of over $8 billion
and royalty revenues of $2 billion in 2012.
Continued exploration activity will help to sustain growth and
development, while supporting long-term economic and employment
opportunities for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of
his statement. Of course, we on
this side of the House are very pleased and interested with the results we
saw on Friday of last week, and pleased with the outcome.
I would also like to congratulate ExxonMobil Canada,
Suncor Energy, and ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation on the
successful bid we saw just last week.
It is particularly nice to see the new player, or welcome the older
player back, ConocoPhillips, to our jurisdiction.
We, too, have high hopes in the Flemish Pass and this
high level of interest we saw on Friday, as I said, is encouraging, as well
as the continued interest in the Carson Basin and the Jeanne d'Arc Basins,
as well.
Additionally, we have been very supportive of the new
land tenure system used by the C-NLOPB and we look forward to the Call for
Bids again next spring this so-called creating the environment for
success.
As we know this money will be spent over a six-year
period which could be extended into nine years in some cases, but as well
know exploration is key to sustaining our oil and gas.
All of us in this room, I am sure, as Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, know the tremendous value that oil and gas has to our
economy. We look forward to
this. We are very pleased with
the results on Friday.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. It is indeed good
news that the largest bid in the Province's history has been made for a land
parcel in the Flemish Pass Basin.
I do not underestimate that.
However, a Nalcor official is quoted in the recent
Globe and Mail story saying he
would like to see competitive bids for at least three of the six parcels and
at least one new entrant. I
point out to the minister there was one bid, large though it may have been.
The minister notes correctly there were $2 billion of
revenue in 2012. I look forward
to hearing what the mid-year financial report will be with oil close to $60
a barrel.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to note our government's commitment
to engaging youth in marine studies.
For decades our fishery has been a cornerstone of our
Province's economy and culture.
The fishery is rooted in our history, and as we move forward it is important
that we engage youth who will be the harvesters, processors, scientists,
inspectors, and policy-makers of our future fisheries and aquaculture
sector.
Mr. Speaker, for this reason the Department of
Fisheries and Aquaculture Scholarship was created in 2008 to promote
awareness and appreciation of the Province's fishing and aquaculture
industries among graduating high school students.
This past year Nicole Kennedy of Spaniard's Bay was the winner of the
seventh annual Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Scholarship.
Mr. Speaker, funding has also been provided for a
number of youth-focused initiatives that encourage youth to pursue active
participation in coastal and ocean stewardship and learning.
An example of this would be The
Trading Books for Boats program that was created and launched by
Atlantic Coastal Action Program Humber Arm in 2002.
The program provides opportunities for students to collect data and
learn about topics such as marine ecosystems and species, aquatic invasive
species, marine debris, and ocean technology.
The provincial government has supported this initiative because it
engages and motivates youth to pursue success in the marine careers.
The department is also proud to support Students on Ice
Arctic Expeditions, an award-winning organization offering unique
educational expeditions to the Antarctic and the Arctic.
This program provides students, educators, and scientists from around
the world with inspiring educational opportunities to help youth foster a
new understanding and respect for our planet.
Approximately $60,000 in funding under the department's Coastal and
Oceans Strategy program has been provided to the Students on Ice Arctic
Expedition since 2010.
In addition to the Department of Fisheries and
Aquaculture Scholarship, the provincial government supports student
engagement in marine issues by providing funding for student placements at
the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystem Research, and the Dr. Wilfred Templeman
Memorial Scholarship for graduate students studying fisheries science at
Memorial University.
We look forward to continuing support for the youth of
our Province who show an interest in marine studies.
By strengthening their understanding and knowledge, we ensure the
future of our fisheries and aquaculture industry remains as vibrant as it is
today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I would like to take up where he left off.
He said he would like to ensure that the fisheries and aquaculture
industry remains as vibrant as it is today.
Well, heaven forbid that it should be no better than today.
I am taken back to the 1999 Seafood Industry in Review.
The hon. John Efford pointed out fifteen years ago that we had
reached $1 billion. Our seafood
industry reached $1 billion and we have been flatlined, Mr. Speaker, ever
since the flatline of $1 billion.
We have had no growth whatsoever.
Even more tragically, at that time we had 30,000 people involved in
our fishery; today we have 18,000 people.
The minister seeks to congratulate the government on a loss of 40 per
cent of the people working in the industry and no growth in fifteen years.
Mr. Speaker, this government may pretend to be
born-again fisheries advocates but clearly they are not.
They have ignored the fishery for eleven years and now they are
looking to get some credit by a few low-scale announcements.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement.
I applaud all these efforts to encourage young people
to consider a career in the fishery, our one, true sustainable industry and
our oldest one, Mr. Speaker.
Congratulations to all the young people participating
and I wish them every success in these exciting opportunities.
Imagine an expedition to Antarctica.
It is important for the future of the fishery and the future of these
young people that we fight to protect our fishery in light of the Harper
Government's refusal to contribute financially to our fisheries future
because of the impacts of CETA.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize
St. Kevin's High School in Goulds for developing the first in a series of
iBook textbooks focused on workplace health and safety that will be shared
with students around the Province and around the globe.
The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Commission was proud to provide $22,000 in funding to support this
innovative project which establishes St. Kevin's High School as a Centre of
Excellence for student-created safety iBook textbooks.
By providing high school students
with the technology and resources to develop initiatives such as safety
iBooks, we are ensuring that students are better able to learn how their
knowledge and attitudes can improve their workplace health and safety.
Young people are the workforce of the future and have
unique health and safety challenges.
There are a range of factors that impact their well-being, including
unsafe working conditions and job-related factors such as heavy workloads,
long working hours and inadequate training.
Young people are also impacted by a lack of awareness of their rights
and responsibilities in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, the Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Commission has developed important partnerships with schools
throughout educational initiatives such as Safe Work NL's Who Wants to
Save a Life? game show, the annual Young Worker Safety Radio/Video Ad
Contest, Skills Canada competitions, and the high school course Workplace
Safety 3220. These initiatives
have resulted in students becoming more aware of their rights and
responsibilities as they enter the workforce.
As well, these partnerships show that the Workplace
Health, Safety and Compensation Commission remains committed to making
Newfoundland and Labrador workplaces safer for young workers by increasing
awareness of workplace health and safety and how to prevent injuries.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the work carried out by
the students at St. Kevin's in helping to keep their peers safe at work and
I congratulate them on the launch of their iBook textbook.
I encourage all students in our Province to visit iTunes and download
the iBook Introduction to Young Worker Safety for free.
It can be viewed using the iBooks App on any iPad or MacBook
computer.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly would like to also applaud
St. Kevin's High School on this initiative.
We know when we talk about workplace safety, one of the most
vulnerable groups in the workplace where you have a lot of the accidents
occurring is actually with new workers.
So I think anything we can do to bring awareness to our future
workforce, to do it at a young age, is a very positive thing and I think it
will pay off down the road.
That said, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about occupational
health and safety in this Province, while this is a good initiative, there
are certainly other things that need to be done.
We look no further than the Fish Processing Sector Safety Council
that was announced three years ago, absolutely nothing done.
We have all of these cases of silicosis in Lab West at
IOC. There is a problem there.
We do not have inspectors.
We have not had an inspector there, I think, for five years.
They are flying them in and out.
There used to be three.
Now they are down to fly in and fly out.
We look at the plight of the former workers of the
Marystown Shipyard. Once people
become injured or they come down with industrial disease, then we have
issues in this Province as it relates to the Workers Comp system and getting
their cases reviewed.
So while this is a positive initiative, there is
definitely a lot of work to be done.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. Bravo to the staff at
St. Kevin's High School who have dedicated time and effort to educating
young workers about workplace hazards and their right to a safe environment.
Because of projects like this, we are seeing a drop in
young worker injuries although the statistics also say every day in this
Province two young workers are injured on the job.
So we must also teach young people how to be advocates for safety in
their workplaces, and to hold employers accountable for that.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the unions have done a great
job on this. Now that the young
worker safety iBook will be available for free with an iPad or a MacBook, I
am hoping that students will have access to that at school.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, just recently the Premier stated that the removal
of the MPRs minimum processing requirements as part of the CETA
agreement is not going to have a negative impact on fish processors in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
So I ask the Premier: If this is the case, why is one
of the five pillars called worker adjustment and designed to provide
assistance for workers displaced by fish plant closure related to CETA?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take a moment to applaud the work of
government officials and those working for government on behalf of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have worked very hard on this file
in the last number of years, Mr. Speaker.
We have employees in government who have worked on this file now in
excess of five years, dedicated full-time, worked days, nights, and weekends
for extended periods of time. I
would like to extend my congratulations and appreciation to them.
As part of the agreement that we reached with the
federal government, a 70-30 split of $280 million submitted by the federal
government, and $120 million by our government, was built on five pillars.
It was about marketing, it was about fish science, it was about
research and development, it was about investment in infrastructure in the
fishing industry, and it was also, as the member opposite referenced, about
workforce adjustment, if that was to happen, Mr. Speaker.
The fund today and the utilization of that fund today,
we cannot anticipate and we do not anticipate a significant impact on the
workforce; but if that was to happen in the future, Mr. Speaker, this fund
was going to position Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the safety of the
fishery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I am sure the Premier, as well as the officials
and then the employees, who I agree, worked a lot of hours over a number of
years in getting us to where we are today with all of this but there was
no question about this. Some of
the Premier's comments that he has made publicly just last week is not
surely helping this argument.
One of the problems is that government has not been clear, really, on the
values of MPRs to our fishery.
The 2006 report completed by Burke Consulting did not
place an exact value on MPRs; however, the report did recommend that further
evaluation of the MPR system be undertaken by 2009.
I ask the Premier: Eight years after the recommendation
and being such an important piece of the CETA negotiation, why hasn't this
additional evaluation been completed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On a discussion about MPRs which are minimum
processing requirements that we have in place in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Just to be clear for members of the House and for the general public
as well is that in Newfoundland and Labrador we have two jurisdictional
authorities in this Province over our fishery.
We have authority over licensing and we also have authority over
minimum processing requirements.
The federal government holds the ability to make
decisions over harvesting and what happens on the water.
We do not take over regulatory authority until products reach the
wharf, in which then we have those authorities.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for minimum processing
requirements they are important to the people of the Province.
They are important to fishing communities.
They are important to people who work in fish plants and the fish
processors. For us to give up on
that policy, we wanted to have an assurance that we could build a fishery of
the future. That is what that
funding is for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Throughout this whole negotiation one of the things
that was very clear, especially from the federal government, was about
workers replacement job replacement.
The Burke consultants outlined this.
In order to put a value on MPRs they suggested that more work needed
to be done.
I ask the Premier: Since this was a foundation for the
CETA agreement, the fisheries loan, this fund, why did you not do this work
that was suggested by Burke?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The agreement that we reached with the Government of
Canada was based on a negotiation.
As we went through the process of negotiation, we included input in
consultation with industry stakeholders.
The FFAW was highly involved in the process of discussion about the
importance of MPRs and how we would
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
enter them into the trade agreements and trade discussions with the
Government of Canada.
While the member opposite is questioning MPRs and
questioning where we are as to how we reach value and so on they are all
important, good discussions but I would like to know, for the member
opposite, where does he stand with us as a government in our battle against
the Government of Canada?
We need to hold Stephen Harper's feet to the fire in
ensuring that we get this agreement finalized.
We know some members opposite do not support CETA, but I can tell you
we certainly do, if Stephen Harper lives up to his obligations, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
I will make it quite clear to the Premier, and those who are following this
at home, I am certainly not one to be siding with Stephen Harper.
It did not take a trip to Ottawa for me to figure out that you could
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BALL:
I was not the one saying in this House that I am dotting the i's and
crossing the t's on this agreement either, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in other negotiations, like the federal
loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls, the Province signed an MOU a year before
the final agreement was reached.
In this case, with a $400 million CETA fisheries fund, the government did
not have a signed formal agreement.
I ask the Premier: During negotiations on the fisheries
fund, and before your public announcement, why didn't you have a signed
agreement with both parties?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite must be the last person in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and the last one in Canada, who does not believe
we had an agreement. The Prime
Minister has said we had an agreement.
Senator Wells says we have an agreement.
We have said we have an agreement.
We have independent professors from the university saying that we
have an agreement, Mr. Speaker.
We had an e-mail from Bill Hawkins dated October 23,
right to officials in government, who also acknowledged we had an agreement.
Bill Hawkins was the Chief of Staff for the hon. Ed Fast at the time,
Mr. Speaker. He now works in the
Prime Minister's Office. Even
his e-mails acknowledged we had an agreement, Mr. Speaker.
There is no question; we had an agreement with the
federal government. It was
contingent on the federal government providing $280 million towards a fund
to allow for this Province and our government to ensure industry renewal and
industry development so we could have a positive impact on the fishing
industry throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I say an e-mail exchange or a letter-writing
campaign with the federal government, in this particular case, we all should
have learned a lesson about that from our own experience over many, many
years. Without a signed
document, the Province is left without a dispute resolution process.
I ask the Premier: Why would you negotiate with Stephen
Harper and make a public announcement without a clear process, a clear
resolution process already established?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is clear now, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite
is not with us on this. Where we
are
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Members have asked questions and ministers and the
Premier are going to answer.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we announced this last year, the Member for St.
Barbe was quite clear publicly when he said the CETA deal is going to kill
the fishery, Mr. Speaker. Now,
we are having questions from his leader opposite about the viability of the
CETA agreement and the tariffs and the fund and all of the agreements that
were reached. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we reached agreement with
the federal government. There
was no doubt in anyone's mind.
The people throughout Canada, people throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador who took the time to read the documents they are
very careful in the documents that allowed a negotiation that took place,
Mr. Speaker, e-mails we have as well, it clearly paints a picture that we
had an agreement.
Mr. Speaker, even in this e-mail here from Bill
Hawkins, who at the time was the chief of staff for Minister Ed Fast, says
he looks forward to he congratulated us on our announcement.
He looks forward to us moving forward together and receiving further
discussions on finalizing the deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I have read all the documents too, and there is
no doubt when you read through those documents there was certainly an
expression there and one could read that there was an agreement in principle
being formulated. What was
missing, however
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BALL:
What was missing, however, was getting those signatures on the paper.
The Premier should have known who he was dealing with and should have
had a document signed by both parties.
Instead, we have a loose assortment: some correspondence, some
e-mail, assortment of letters.
I ask the Premier: Have you obtained a legal opinion on
your letters, whether they are legally enforceable or not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is trying to
point out is that we had a deal.
All those documents paint a picture of a deal; they clearly paint a picture.
Those who have taken the time to read those documents agree that we
clearly had a deal, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Not only did we have a deal, but what happened after we announced the deal
last October I think is important as well.
Because the file from the federal government was taken from Minister
Ed Fast who was the chief negotiator, it was passed over to ACOA, Mr.
Speaker, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, who invests in Atlantic
Canada, invests in opportunities, and invests in the future.
They do not like Service Canada provide funding for
compensation. They are about
investments, Mr. Speaker. That
is where the file went. It went
to Minister Moore, and for seventeen months Minister Moore not once said
that we had to demonstrate economic loss, not until this fall.
They are moving the goalpost, Mr. Speaker, and we are not going to
stand for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well it took almost a year after the announcement was
made here in St. John's did we even figure out who was actually going to
administer the program. As a
matter of fact, it was a minister of your government who felt that the
administration would be done within government.
It was the federal government who told you that it would be done by
ACOA. Mr. Speaker, we have
reached a stalemate with no signed agreement and no dispute resolution
process in place.
I ask the Premier: Will you bring this issue to the
Supreme Court to get an interpretation on what exactly was agreed on during
the series of letters over a year ago?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This will provide more detail, Mr. Speaker, because I
know the people of the Province are keenly interested in this whole process.
October, 2013, we made an announcement to the people of
the Province that we had reached an agreement with the federal government.
Mr. Bill Hawkins, who now works in the Prime Minister's office, at
the time was chief of staff for the hon. Ed Fast, acknowledges and knew we
were going to make an announcement; regretted he was not able to send
someone to the announcement. It
says so in his e-mail that he looks forward to working with us into the
future. That is what his e-mail
says, Mr. Speaker.
Then, when the file goes over to Minister Rob Moore,
who is the federal minister supposedly representing Newfoundland and
Labrador, he took the file, Mr. Speaker, and in January soon after we
announced our deal he came to Newfoundland and Labrador, went to the board
of trade, and not once did he mention that we had a demonstrated loss, Mr.
Speaker not once.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, an internal audit of laboratory medicine at the Health Sciences
Centre was completed four weeks ago.
There were fifty-one instances where concerns were raised around
seven main areas of concern.
I ask the minister: Are you aware of this audit, and
does this cause you concern?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, assuring quality and safety in our laboratories and throughout
our health care system is a top priority.
So any time there is a review or audit, we take those concerns, those
findings, and those recommendations very seriously.
We have good, well-run accredited labs in this Province that achieve
the highest standards, and we are continually improving on those standards
as well, Mr. Speaker.
Every time there is an audit or review, of course we
take it very seriously, and we work to improve our performance accordingly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, it does not sound like the minister is quite aware of the audit
that I am referencing right now.
This laboratory medicine audit showed there were eighteen instances where
laboratory standards were either (a) not developed at all, (b) not being
implemented, or (c) policy was not being followed.
Five years ago the Cameron Inquiry required all labs to be
accredited.
I ask the minister: What immediate action are you
taking to address these very significant concerns?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the specific report that the member is referring to was just
received by my office this morning.
So I have every intention of fully reviewing it.
I can assure him and members opposite, and the public,
that every laboratory in this Province is accredited.
We are constantly improving our standards.
Quality and patient safety are our top priorities, and that will
certainly continue, Mr. Speaker.
I do look forward to reviewing the report in question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, recommendation 15 of the Cameron Inquiry stated that leadership
training was necessary for management within the pathology division.
This audit showed there are problems with communication and
leadership throughout the department.
I ask the minister, or perhaps the Premier, or the
former minister: Why does pathology still have communication and leadership
issues five years after the Cameron Inquiry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, we take concerns raised about the pathology lab or any other
laboratory in our system extremely seriously, and we will be reviewing the
audit report that has now been received by my office.
I know that Eastern Health is taking steps to address many of the
concerns that are outlined, but in terms of the progress that has been made
since Cameron, it has been substantial.
Most recommendations have been implemented.
In fact, we have invested over $43 million to respond directly to the
recommendations in the Cameron report, and fifty-five out of sixty
recommendations have been fully implemented, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is going to review it, but I can tell
him about some of it right now.
The Cameron Inquiry recommended efficiencies and improved protocols within
immunohistochemistry or IHC testing.
For the past four months, half of the samples that go in the lab do
not leave on time. These tests
are widely used in the diagnosis of cancer.
These delayed test results are causing undue stress for the pathology
assistants, and it is putting cancer patients at risk.
I ask the minister: What immediate action will you take
to ensure that cancer patients are receiving their lab information on time?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, it is important that lab results are processed efficiently and
effectively, and in a timely fashion as well.
That is part of the reason why some tests, certain tests have been
performed outside the Province for a period of time, as we have previously
discussed in this House, Mr. Speaker.
Again, we have invested over $43 million to address
recommendations coming out of the Cameron Inquiry, and that includes
improvements to our laboratory services as well, Mr. Speaker.
Continuous improvement is necessary everywhere in the health care
system, and certainly in the laboratory environment, that is no different.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister mentions $43 million,
because senior staff and pathologists at the Health Sciences have said that
actions taken in relation to Cameron have not been sustained.
This is shocking, and it is unacceptable.
This report has been out for over a month, and it is five years
post-Cameron.
What will you do to immediately address this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, again, the report that the member is referring to was received
by my office this morning. So I
have not had an opportunity to review that report.
I understand that officials at Eastern Health are taking immediate
action. We want to address
whatever concerns exist related to the pathology lab.
I have received assurance that quality standards are being met and
that patients are safe. Patient
safety is always our top priority, Mr. Speaker.
I do look forward to reviewing the report.
I can assure you if further action needs to be taken then it will be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the report that I am referencing is dated November 12.
Why is the Minister of Health only getting it on
December 15?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the moment that I became aware that there was an audit review
report that was being compiled, I immediately requested that report.
Eastern Health provided that report this morning.
I look forward to reviewing it in its entirety.
I am sure I will be having active discussions with
Eastern Health. My understanding
from brief discussions even this morning, Mr. Speaker, is that action
already has been taken. I look
forward to receiving a full briefing from Eastern Health on necessary next
steps.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health: Just to clarify for the record
here, when did you first become aware of it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I became aware in November that there was a review being done.
I only became aware this morning that the report had been received by
my office because it was received this morning.
I was aware that an audit was being conducted.
That audit is now complete.
A report was provided to me today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, we have a report that is dated November 12.
Now the minister has said here right now that he has been aware of
this since November, but he only gets the report on his desk on the morning
of December 15.
I ask the minister: Is this acceptable?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will try again.
I became aware in November that there was an audit being conducted
in November. I received the
report on that audit from Eastern Health this morning.
I fully intend to review the recommendations that are provided in
that audit because I want to ensure that safety and quality is paramount in
all of our laboratory facilities.
I am pleased with the significant progress we have made
since the Cameron Inquiry. We
have improved quality. We have
improved patient safety within our diagnostic services, and within our
overall health care system. That
progress and that improvement will continue, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last April, the government committed to a
$500,000 study to determine how best to deliver radiation services to the
Province. This study was due in
August. In November when we
asked, the minister said it would be available in the next number of weeks.
I ask the minister: What is the status of the $500,000
study?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House of Assembly.
Earlier in this sitting, we did discuss this very issue
because the provincial radiation review is ongoing.
There have been some delays.
I expect to receive the report on that review within the next number
of weeks. I look forward to
reviewing its findings.
In the meantime, that ongoing review of provincial
radiation will not pose any threat to the West Coast hospital project.
It will also not result in any delays whatsoever to the new West
Coast hospital.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health said that the functional program for the
new Western Memorial Regional Hospital is being finalized, but he is willing
to answer whatever questions we have.
Last week he confirmed that there was a 45 per cent reduction in the
number of labour and delivery rooms in the new hospital.
I ask the minister: Can he also confirm that the number
of ultrasound machines will be reduced from the current six, and if so, to
what level?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the specific information from the draft
functional plan that the member is asking for, but I will certainly get it
and I will certainly provide it in this House.
What I can assure you is that as a result of the work
that is going, and as a result of the new functional plan, the number of
beds in the new hospital facility to the West Coast hospital will increase.
The number of services available in the West Coast hospital will
increase. The service level and
the quality of care will be better overall as a result of this new
development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Advanced Education and Skills alone the
Population Growth Strategy is late, the Immigration Strategy is late, the
action plan for the inclusion strategy is late, the Poverty Reduction
Strategy is two years late, and the Adult Literacy Plan is almost eight
years late.
I ask the Premier: Why does your government continue to
miss deadlines, break promises, and operate in the absence of strategies?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, I go back in Newfoundland and Labrador a long time not
telling my age here and I have watched politics from way back in the early
1970s. There were a lot of
strategies by the Liberal government that were shelved and collected a lot
of dust, I can guarantee you, that never seen the light of day until we took
government.
We have been working on those strategies, Mr. Speaker.
As a matter of fact, they are very important to the Province.
Population growth is absolutely important.
That is the reason why we have been focusing on immigration.
That is the reason why we have been focusing on workforce
development.
These strategies take a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, and
they are well underway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
I guess they are coming soon, Mr. Speaker.
We know the importance of their population growth; that
is why they are reducing the beds in Corner Brook.
Five strategies late in one department; meanwhile, we have the
highest food bank usage in Canada, some of the lowest literacy levels in
Canada and an Office of Immigration cut in half, despite a desperate need to
grow the population.
Again, I ask the Premier: Don't you see that a failure
to plan is a plan to fail?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting, the member gets up and cites things
that suit a purpose and may not always have the information, Mr. Speaker.
I can speak to her that the Poverty Reduction Strategy
is well underway. The final
session of that one, I believe, is on January 19.
I would go back to December 18 when she got up and asked a question
about the inclusion strategy, Mr. Speaker.
I can list to her almost all of the money of the $6 million that she
mentioned that was spent.
She is absolutely wrong about what she is trying to
portray to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.
It is not acceptable and I can show her where the money was spent
right after Question Period, if she is interested.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is reported as saying that Stephen Harper
has changed things so much regarding the
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS MICHAEL:
Did I hear incorrectly, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
The Premier is reported as saying that Stephen Harper
has changed things so much regarding the fishery investment fund that it is
going to be unreachable.
I ask the Premier: If he is so convinced that there is
nowhere else to go regarding this fund, will he rescind his agreement for
CETA?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear; we had a negotiation with the federal
government. We reached an
agreement with the federal government.
We reached an agreement with Stephen Harper's government that
includes a fisheries innovation and renewal fund that will be cost-shared
70-30 with the federal government; they would pay 70 per cent and we would
pay 30 per cent. We expect them
to live up to their obligation.
I can tell you, if they do not live up to their
obligation our deal was that you provide us with this fund and we support
CETA. Mr. Speaker, it is very
simple. It is not difficult to
do. If you provide the fund, as
we agreed to, then we support CETA.
It is a very simple concept, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier: Why would he continue to agree to
CETA if the fund that he thought existed to assist with the development of
our fishery as the Province moves into a more open and aggressive market
with open European countries does not exist, as he thought it did?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to follow all avenues
available to us as a government and a Province on behalf of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that Stephen Harper lives up to his
obligations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we have already started the work of going down those roads.
When we visited Ottawa last week, we also took the chance and
opportunity to visit with some MPs and Senators.
We have written all the MPs and Senators for Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We will be talking to and bringing our story to the
leaders of the federal parties, Mr. Speaker.
We will bring our story to the people of Canada, through leaders and
provinces and municipalities and industry leaders.
We will bring our story to the EU as well, if we have to, because
that is what we need to do for the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
I ask the Premier: If the fishery cannot be assisted, why would he support a
deal that can lead to more expensive prescription drugs
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
uncontrolled rights for corporations, and can force municipalities to put
tenders out on an international stage?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It certainly sounds to me like the Leader of the Third
Party is going to support us in our efforts to ensure that Stephen Harper
lives up to his commitment to the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that members opposite in the
Opposition, the Liberal Opposition, are in support in the same way; but I
can tell you what we are going to do over here, as the Premier of this
Province and as a government
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
we are going to fight for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
We are going to fight for the people who work in fish processing, in fish
harvesting. We are going to
fight for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are going to fight for communities, Mr. Speaker.
We are going to fight for all regions of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and we are going to fight to ensure that Stephen Harper lives up to his
obligations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Hearing Aid Program is backed up by a full year.
That is a year for people who cannot hear, causing isolation,
confusion, and frustration. A
constituent of mine contacted me because he was in danger of losing his job
while waiting.
I ask the minister: How many people are on the
wait-list for hearing aids?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, these kinds of issues for all individuals in Newfoundland and
Labrador have always been a concern of this government.
That is the reason why we have invested heavily in regard to our
social programs: $219 million into Income Support, supporting the most
vulnerable people of our Province.
If the hon. member across the way can forward the name
in regard to the issue, I will certainly look into it and have my officials
react to it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, for a quick question.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, because he is not hearing: What is he going
to do about the year backlog for people waiting for hearing aids?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, like I just said, we invest heavily in regard to the most
vulnerable people in our Province.
We try to address their individual issues.
We work with the industry as well in regard to the
various providers across the Province.
There is a process they have to go through in regard to being
evaluated and assessed, Mr. Speaker.
We will keep working that system and we will keep helping the people
of the Province.
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.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I hereby table the report of the Auditor General
entitled, Report to the House of Assembly on Review of Departments and Crown
Agencies, dated December 2014.
Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on Wednesday, December 17, be
moving the following private member's motion:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly
urge government to immediately strike an all-party committee on mental
health to conduct Province-wide public consultations, review the current
state of provincial mental health services, receive expert testimony on best
practices in mental health care delivery, and report its findings with the
goal of improving mental health programs and services to better serve the
needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The motion is seconded by the Member for Signal Hill
Quidi Vidi.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that the motion just read by my colleague
will be the motion for Wednesday, December 17.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl 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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Edinburgh Group has been granted permission
to proceed with the development of 110 recreational cottage lots at Ocean
Pond near Whitbourne; and
WHEREAS the roadway accessing the new development was
built by and maintained by cottage owners for the past thirty-five year; and
WHEREAS the existing Ocean Pond road cannot possibly
withstand the heavy construction equipment and traffic of a 110 lot
development; and
WHEREAS there has been questionable transactions making
the piece of property a Crown grant to which no answers have been provided;
and
WHEREAS there was access given to this property through
Crown land as well as a change in the boundary of the original land licence
shortly before the purchase by Edinburgh Group but after the grant was
finalized;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to stop the current development by Edinburgh Group
and hold a meeting with the Ocean Pond group to outline government's plan
for the area and allow existing residents to have input into decisions made
in their cottage area.
Mr. Speaker, I have several signatures here from cabin
owners, from residents of Ocean Pond.
As has been indicated, there was certainly a transaction which
occurred up in that area that was not made public.
It involved Crown land that belonged to the people; it was part of
that deal. Again, it was not
made public.
There was a road that was put through Ocean Pond to
that development before there was even an environmental assessment done on
that particular development, Mr. Speaker.
Residents have many, many concerns about it.
Particularly, the main one being the fact they were never consulted;
they were never given an opportunity for proper input.
They are calling upon government, as is indicated in
this petition, to halt the development, have a public meeting, and allow for
the residents and the cottage owners of Ocean Pond to have that opportunity
to ask questions; and, most importantly, to get straight answers on how this
occurred and what are all the ramifications around it, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for your time.
MR. SPEAKER:
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 Route 434, Conche Road, is 17.6 kilometres of
unpaved road; and
WHEREAS the current road conditions are deplorable; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Automobile Association ranked
Route 434 the seventh worst road in Atlantic Canada;
and
WHEREAS it is government's obligation to provide basic
infrastructure to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS an improved paved road would enhance local
business, fish processing operations and tourism, which is vital to the
health of the communities affected;
We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to
urge the government to allocate funds in the Provincial Roads Program to
pave Route 434.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is the biggest issue in the Town of
Conche. They have been
advocating for some time for pavement, whether it is a one-time deal or a
multi-year plan, to pave this particular piece of road infrastructure
because it means a lot for the economy of this community.
Whereas you have an active fish processing facility with hundreds of
transport trucks travelling over this highway.
You have a tourist attraction there which sees thousands of tourists
in season. You have a writers'
retreat. You have a bed and
breakfast and a restaurant. You
have other local business and commerce that is happening in this community.
There are a lot of commuters who are travelling back
and forth to the hub, to Roddickton-Bide Arm, and also commuters who are
coming into town to work.
Government has already invested about $6 million to rebuild and realign this
road. There needs to be an
investment made to look at paving this route, because there is a dedicated
grading system currently there.
It is costing money, to see this infrastructure that is being lost off the
sides of the road into the banks, creating potholes, and putting down to the
bedrock.
The longer government delays making Conche an even more
vibrant economy, the worse it is for the town, for the local regional
economy, and for the provincial economy when it comes to the tax base
overall.
So, I enter this petition on behalf of my petitioners
in Bide Arm, Englee, St. John's, and Roddickton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly the petition of the
undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Labrador's coastal communities already pay
extremely high hydro rates; and
WHEREAS small businesses are struggling to stay in
operation against rising costs; and
WHEREAS Nalcor, a Crown corporation, is proposing a
11.4 per cent increase to residential hydro rates and a 20 per cent increase
to business rates;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to work with
Nalcor to establish rates that are fair and consistent to the whole
Province.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Now, in the great Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Speaker, there are four Aboriginal groups.
There are Inuit, Innu, Mi'kmaq, and NunatuKavut on the South Coast of
Labrador.
The proposed hydro rate that is proposed by Nalcor, Mr.
Speaker, impacts three of those four Aboriginal groups.
It impacts the Inuit in Northern Labrador.
The Innu in Northern Labrador are in the process of trying to
negotiate a final agreement for New Dawn.
It also impacts NunatuKavut on the South Coast of Labrador.
I have heard government across the way stand up many, many times
talking about how they support the Aboriginal community in our Province, and
when I see proposals like this, I question government's statements as to
their actual commitment to the people in this Province who were here first.
The other issue, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the power
line, the transmission line from the proposed Muskrat Falls Project.
On the south coast there is a community called Forteau.
That power line goes right through the community, and they cannot get
any power. You could plug in an
extension cord and get power, but it will not be done.
Yet, these people are the ones who are going to be hit with an 11.4
per cent hydro rate and a 20 per cent hydro increase.
These communities are part of the Province.
We would not have had a problem with Nalcor saying we
are going to the PUB with a 3 per cent increase rate.
There would not have been a problem at all, Mr. Speaker, but when you
start differentiating between who you think you can go to and what you think
you can get away with in terms of making increases the reason I say that,
Mr. Speaker, is because the last time, as I said, it went to Central
Labrador and Labrador West, 25 per cent increase.
It was pulled off because there was too much opposition to it.
What do you do? You run
around and you pick on people who you think are not going to oppose it.
Well, in this case it is being opposed and it will continue to be
opposed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Labrador's coastal communities already pay
extremely high hydro rates; and
WHEREAS small businesses are struggling to stay in
operation against rising costs of operation; and
WHEREAS Nalcor, a crown corporation, is proposing an
11.4 per cent increase to residential hydro rates and a 20 per cent increase
to business rates;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to work with Nalcor to establish rates that are
fair and consistent to the whole Province.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are about ten days away from
Christmas, but there are a lot of people in the District of Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair and in the North Coastal communities who are not feeling in
the Christmas spirit. What is
happening right here is wrong.
Myself and my colleague from Torngat have been on our feet every opportunity
that we have had, giving voice to this injustice that is happening in small
Aboriginal, coastal communities.
We had an application that was put forth in 2013 that
was very, very different than this, Mr. Speaker.
What happened? Some
communities, some of the larger areas were going to get a 25 per cent
increase, that got pulled back.
What is happening now is once again the most vulnerable, the people on the
fixed income, the businesses that already have rising high costs are the
ones who are going to be hit.
We have an obligation, Mr. Speaker.
I believe we have a moral and an ethical obligation to stand for
those people and to be a voice for the people who cannot be a voice for
themselves. What is happening
here is wrong. We are not happy
about it. My colleague is
absolutely right when he talks about the megaproject that is going down
through that we are not seeing anything from.
Mr. Speaker, this government, if they want to do
something, stand up and say we will look at subsidies for this because this
is wrong. Write letters to the
PUB and say what is happening here, because you are targeting these tiny
communities, is wrong.
Do not stand up and say we support the process.
In standing up and saying we support the process, you are saying we
will lose no sleep over the fact that small coastal communities are going to
be hit with an increase of 11.4 per cent, and that small businesses are
going to have to live with the reality of a 20 per cent increase.
What will happen there, Mr. Speaker, is that businesses are going to
close their doors.
We are hitting the most vulnerable, our small fishing
communities that are already struggling, Mr. Speaker.
I will continue. This is
wrong. The last application was
pulled off the table. This
application can and should be pulled off the table, and I hope it is.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR. DALLEY:
A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite said they should be subsidized.
She should acknowledge that the rates in Coastal Labrador are
subsidized, everywhere from 70 per cent to 85 per cent, Mr. Speaker, despite
the challenges which we certainly acknowledge here as well.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville
East.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have another petition to present on the health care
in the Heatherton to Highlands area of the West Coast.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there has not been a permanent doctor in the
clinic in Jeffrey's for almost a year; and
WHEREAS the absence of a permanent doctor is seriously
compromising the health care of people who live in the Heatherton to
Highlands area and causing them undue hardship; and
WHEREAS the absence of a doctor or nurse practitioner
in the area leaves seniors without a consistency and quality of care which
is necessary for their continued good health;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to take action which will result in a permanent
doctor or other arrangements to improve health care service in the
Heatherton to Highlands area.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a doctor at the clinic in
Jeffrey's for a number of years, and for the last year they have been unable
to find a doctor to go to that clinic.
This is not a new position that the people are asking for.
This is a position that has been budgeted for in last year's budget
and exists for a number of years.
It is not a new position.
It is something that has been there in the past.
People in the area are not getting the medical care
they need in the area. People
have to travel long distances to get just the basic care they need.
Even to get a prescription refilled, they have to travel to
Stephenville and usually wait all day in outpatients to get a prescription
filled.
Also, the Town of St. George's is losing their doctor
today. So that will put the
people in St. George's into a similar situation where they will be without a
doctor. People there will have
to travel to Stephenville as well to get medical care.
All of these people from outlying areas travelling to
the Stephenville hospital leaves that hospital in a situation where they
have longer wait times. It is
not unusual for people who go to the outpatients or the emergency room there
to have to wait all day to get in to see a doctor.
I have talked with officials at Western Health and I
have talked to the Minister of Health to inform them of the seriousness of
this situation. I am hopeful
that in the not too distant future some action will be taken to address the
crisis situation that is developing in health care in the Bay St. George
South area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I call from the Order Paper, Order 2,
third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act And The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Bill 39, and I move that the said bill be
now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that Bill 39 be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion
that Bill 39 be now read a third time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act And The Public Service
Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass
and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Pensions
Funding Act And The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.
(Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the record, the seconder to that motion was the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
Mr. Speaker, I now call from the Order Paper, number 3,
third reading of a bill, An Act To Modify Eligibility For Other
Post-Employment Benefits, Bill 40.
So moved by me, seconded by the Minister of Municipal
and Intergovernmental Affairs, that the said bill be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that Bill 40 be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion
that Bill 40 be now read a third time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Modify Eligibility For Other Post-Employment Benefits.
(Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do
pass and that its title shall be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, An Act To Modify Eligibility For
Other Post-Employment Benefits, read a third time, ordered passed and its
title be as on the Order Paper.
(Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This time I call Order 6, second reading of a bill, An
Act To Amend The Social Workers Act, Bill 38.
So moved by me, seconded by the Minister of Health and
Community Services, that the said bill be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The
Social Workers Act. (Bill 38)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to
introduce Bill 38, which, as was just noted, is An Act To Amend The Social
Workers Act.
Mr. Speaker, members will recall that this bill is very
similar to Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008.
That was debated during this sitting of the House just on December 2,
so in the last couple of weeks.
The primary focus of Bill 38, which we are now debating
in second reading today, is that quality assurance provisions to the Social
Workers Act is very similar to what we did with the Registered Nurses Act
just a couple of weeks ago less than a couple of weeks ago.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social
Workers is established under the Social Workers Act and is the regulatory
body responsible for registering social workers and regulating the practice
of social work in the Province.
The association currently has over 1,400 members.
One of the most significant ways in which the
association currently regulates the practice of social work is by
administering a disciplinary process.
The Social Workers Act already contains provisions which establish a
disciplinary process to deal with allegations regarding the conduct of a
social worker. Currently, the
disciplinary process is the only means in the act that is available to the
association to address those allegations.
In order to engage the disciplinary process, the
conduct of a social worker must be very serious and it must be conduct
deserving of sanction. Conduct
deserving of sanction, Mr. Speaker, is defined in a similar manner in the
Social Workers Act as it is defined in the Registered Nurses Act 2008.
Conduct deserving of sanction includes professional misconduct,
professional incompetence, incapacity or unfitness to practice as a social
worker, and acting in breach of the act, regulations, or the bylaws which
adopts the code of ethics applicable to social workers.
This bill will provide the association with a different
mechanism to address allegations that are not appropriate for the
disciplinary process. Adding
quality assurance provisions to the act is a way for the association to
address concerns where the social workers practice before those concerns
become serious enough to be considered conduct deserving of sanction which
requires disciplinary action.
A quality assurance review is yet another way for the
association to assist in improving the quality of care and services provided
to clients of social workers, and in dealing with concerns at an earlier
stage before becoming part of the disciplinary process.
The quality assurance program created by this bill would include
mandatory continuing education and professional development that would
promote continuing competence and continuing quality improvement in social
workers.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed quality assurance provisions
will require the appointment of a quality assurance committee.
This committee will be responsible for investigating a concern on a
referral from the registrar, the complaints authorization committee, or on
its own accord. The mandate of
the quality assurance committee will be to deal with concerns regarding a
social worker's practice that do not meet the higher threshold of conduct
deserving of sanction. In these
circumstances, while the concerns need to be addressed, the intervention of
the disciplinary process may not be necessary to adequately address the
concerns.
The quality assurance committee may appoint a social
worker to act as an assessor and to assist in conducting the investigation.
Once a quality assurance review is underway, the quality assurance
committee and the assessor have a number of powers to allow for the
gathering of information and documents necessary to conduct the review.
These powers include: the power to subpoena records; the power to
order a social worker to undergo an evaluation; assessment, or examination;
the power to review a social worker's practice; the power to order
periodical random audits of aspects of a social worker's practice to enter
and inspect the premises where the social worker practices; and the power to
access and inspect records.
The social worker is required to co-operate with the
quality assurance review. The
social worker or another person may also be required to be present at an
interview to provide information relevant to the quality assurance review.
Once a review is completed, a report is to be prepared based upon the
information gathered. The report
is then to be presented to the quality assurance committee.
The report may contain recommendations aimed at remediating any
deficiencies or addressing any areas of concern in the social worker's
practice.
Mr. Speaker, unlike Bill 32, which amends the
Registered Nurses Act, 2008, this bill does not specify the type of
recommendations which may be made.
The bill is worded in such a way that it could include the types of
orders that may be made under the Registered Nurses Act, such as requiring a
social worker to undergo an examination, evaluation, assessment, or review
of his or her professional practice, or capacity, or fitness to practice; to
obtain counselling; to complete a course of studies or an educational or
training program; to restrict his or her social work practice; to obtain
supervised clinical experience.
However, the quality assurance committee may determine
that other action is appropriate to address concerns identified during the
review. For example, the
committee may recommend that the social workers write a letter of apology to
the person who made the complaint, or another person impacted by the social
worker's actions. The committee
has the authority to make any recommendation that it considers appropriate
to remedy any deficiency in a social worker's practice.
While the expectation will be that the social worker
will comply with the recommendations contained in the assessor's report, the
quality assurance committee may also order that the social worker comply
with those recommendations. If a
social worker fails to comply with an order of the committee, this
non-compliance must be referred to the disciplinary process as an allegation
of conduct deserving of sanction.
The significant difference between a recommendation and
an order is that only the failure to comply with an order is grounds for a
referral to the complaints authorization committee, thereby engaging the
disciplinary process.
Furthermore, if it becomes apparent during a quality assurance review that
the social worker may have engaged in conduct deserving a sanction, the
quality assurance process is terminated and the matter is then referred to
the disciplinary process. In
this case, all records and information related to the quality assurance
review must also be provided to the complaints authorization committee.
Mr. Speaker, the quality assurance review and the
disciplinary process will actually be complementary.
Depending on the nature of the complaint received, a social worker's
conduct could be examined either through the quality assurance process or
through the disciplinary process.
This bill gives the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Social Workers another means of addressing areas of concern
regarding a social worker's practice.
This, in turn, will assist in strengthening and improving the
practices of social workers and will provide enhanced protection for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador who rely upon their services.
Protection of patient records and personal health
information during any review process will, of course, remain paramount.
The association already has access to personal and sensitive
information during the registration process and during a disciplinary
proceeding. The association will
ensure that the information collected under a quality assurance review will
be protected and will be secured in the same manner as such information is
currently protected.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take some time to highlight
another change that is contained in this bill.
The Social Workers Act will also be amended to include a requirement
that social workers report to the registrar conduct deserving of sanction of
another social worker. This is
required when a social worker has knowledge of such conduct deserving of
sanction from direct observation or objective evidence.
Further, if a social worker is terminated from employment due to
conduct that is deserving of sanction, then there is also a requirement
imposed on the employer to notify the association of such conduct.
Officials in my department have worked very closely
with the association regarding these proposed quality assurance provisions
and the amendments to the Social Workers Act.
At the request of the association, this bill will come into force at
a later date. Delaying the
proclamation of the bill will provide the association with the necessary
time to fully develop its policies and procedures regarding quality
assurance. It will also provide
the association with sufficient time to appoint the quality assurance
committee.
Mr. Speaker, quality assurance provisions are currently
in effect in five statutes in this Province: the Health Professions Act; the
Medical Act, 2011; the Optometry Act, 2012; the Psychologists Act, 2005; and
the Pharmacy Act, 2012. With
Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act, 2008, and this bill,
there will be over 11,000 health professionals in this Province representing
twelve health professions who could be part of a quality assurance review.
Mr. Speaker, social workers provide very valuable care
and services to the people of our Province each and every day.
They work with our children.
They work with adolescents.
They work with seniors.
They work in the fields of education, of justice, and, of course, within the
health care system. The work
they do is obviously very important.
As is the case with all health professionals, they take great pride
in the quality of the care and services they provide to their clients.
As a self-regulated profession, Mr. Speaker, social
workers hold each other up to a high standard of practice.
To ensure that social workers continue to practice in accordance with
applicable standard, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social
Workers needs the tools to address deficiencies and concerns in a social
worker's practice, or his or her conduct, when they are identified.
In the absence of the social workers voluntary compliance with
remedial recommendations, the association should not be left to wait until
the concerns become more serious before they can be appropriately addressed.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will strengthen the authority of
the association to assist in fulfilling its mandate to protect the public by
maintaining a high standard for social workers who practice in Newfoundland
and Labrador. It will also help
maintain and improve, where necessary, the quality of services provided by
social workers to the people of the Province.
I hope that all members of this hon. House will join me
in supporting this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments at this point in time, as I
will have an opportunity to speak again later in second reading.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to stand and speak to Bill 38 dealing with
the Social Workers Act. Again,
it is very similar to a piece of legislation we dealt with earlier in this
session where we talked about quality assurance as it relates to nurses.
In and of itself, quality assurance is obviously a great thing; it
actually played a large role in Question Period today.
Quality assurance of any regard in any profession, in any system,
needs to be there and needs to be strong.
In this case, when we talk about social workers and the
important part that they play in our system, then obviously we would like to
have a QA aspect to their legislation.
Now, that being said, again, I support the bill in theory.
It is obviously necessary.
Social workers being a self-regulating organization, I think they
pose a very serious, strict standard to themselves again.
Because what happens to one or what might hurt one will hurt all,
therefore, you want to make sure that the highest standard is maintained.
That being said, I do have some very specific questions
as it relates to this piece of legislation that I will ask now so the
minister and/or his officials will have an opportunity perhaps during the
Committee stage to respond to them.
These are just questions that were put to me by social workers to ask
and again, the minister will have an opportunity, probably not during the
second reading stage, but during the Committee stage to address these.
It was actually brought to me by social workers who, since this was
put on the table, I have had an opportunity to discuss it with.
Looking at section 39.1 where we talk about the quality
assurance program, in and of itself, I believe it is peer regulated.
So the specific question that was put to me was: Who makes up the
board? Who goes on the board?
Who chooses who is on the board?
I apologize that in this case this may have been explained during the
briefing session, but this is one of the few pieces of legislation where I
was unable to attend the briefing.
I figure it is easy enough the minister's staff are quite willing
to answer these questions and, again, they will put this out there now.
When we talk about QA and section 39.1, when we
establish and maintain the program, who makes up the program?
Who will formulate it?
Who will make it up? Again, is
it made up just of peers? Is it
the minister's discretion? Is it
board's discretion? During the
Committee stage it would be fine.
That is
MR. KENT:
You are talking about (inaudible)?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
The second part, and this is a case of, look, we get a
lot of legislation and sometimes it is hard for us being lay people of the
different professions that we are setting the legislation for them.
So what I have done, I go directly to the individuals and the members
of that group.
One of the questions was, when we talk about 39.1(2),
The quality assurance program shall include mandatory continuing education
and professional development
.
The question that was specifically put to me is: Well, we already do that,
so what aspect of this legislation, what makes this different than what we
already do? This might be a case
where there may be something we do not know, because a lot of times the
legislation is not vague but it does not answer all these specific
questions.
That is one of the questions I would put out there.
Is this different than what these individuals, these men and women
already do? They already do PD
days. They already do training.
Like many professions, you have to keep up to the times in terms of
regulations, the best methods of operation, et cetera.
So that is one of the questions I will put out there for the
Committee stage.
Also, one of the ones that came to me under 39.3(1)
The quality assurance committee may appoint persons registered as social
workers
as assessors
. Again,
the question that was put to me very specifically by social workers is who
chooses who the assessors are?
How do you become an assessor?
Again, a bit more specific on this.
I put this out there, and I do not think this falls under the
minister. Maybe it falls under
the group.
I do not know how these things unfold when you make up
legislation that involves certain individuals.
For instance, I just use what I know.
If there was a piece of legislation affecting lawyers, then it would
be up to the Law Society to let the registration, the membership, know.
Look, this is coming down the tubes.
This is what we are dealing with; let's talk about it.
In this case, were the general rank and file notified
or let know? Were there
education sessions, or just putting that out there so they know; or will
this happen during the date between us doing it now and the date where it
becomes enacted or published?
Will it happen then?
The issue I have there in that sense is it is hard to
change the legislation if we have already passed it if there is an issue.
Now, I do not think there will be an issue.
I am not saying there will be an issue.
I am saying was that opportunity put out there for the rank and file
individuals all over the Province?
There is a large group, as the minister stated.
There is about 1,400 members.
How do they go about letting people know, specifically when it comes
to some of these? We are looking
at assessors here. I have
somebody appear who is assessing me; how did they get that role?
How do we go about that?
The last part is quite a serious part here, when we
talk about the section where you have the duty to report.
This would be specifically when it comes to, we have workers and we
have management. We have a duty
to report wrongdoing, basically, is what we see here.
If the wrongdoing leads to an investigation and if that investigation
leads to a finding, will the employers, will management be notified of this
right away so they know how does this exactly work?
Again, I do not need to belabour the content of the
bill because it is very similar to one we have seen before.
I think it is certainly good in theory and it is certainly necessary.
Many of us in this room deal with social workers on a daily basis as
part of our constituency work.
The job they do is important.
The job they do is necessary when you are dealing with, especially, children
across this Province. In this
case, I just want to make sure the individuals themselves, the social
workers, have all the knowledge they need when this moves forward.
You must understand the gravity of the rules that are put in place so
you can do your job properly.
There is nothing else to add to this, except that when
we get to the Committee stage, I am sure the minister will have had an
opportunity to get the answers to these questions.
I certainly appreciate that.
Thank you.
I look forward to the Committee stage of this process, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I want to thank the people of the
District of Baie Verte Springdale, which is comprised of thirty-four
communities, for their trust they have placed in me to represent them in and
out of this Assembly, of course.
Everywhere I go I am cognizant of the fact that I am representing the people
of the Province and the people of the district.
Of course, we all do that.
We all take our jobs very seriously.
We love our jobs as well, Mr. Speaker.
We are all passionate about it.
Secondly, I would like to thank the minister and the
Department of Health and Community Services for their briefing and for their
very thorough, comprehensive, well-organized, and well-planned briefing, Mr.
Speaker. Since I became
parliamentary secretary, I do understand and appreciate the tremendous job
the Department of Health does over there.
They are a very dedicated and professional group of individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the explanatory notes
on this bill. This bill would
amend the Social Workers Act to, number one, add quality assurance
provisions to enhance public protection and accountability.
Number two, it would allow the complaints authorization committee to
refer an allegation to the quality assurance committee.
Number three, it would require a social worker who has knowledge of
conduct deserving of sanction of another social worker to report that
knowledge to the registrar.
Number four, require a person who terminates the employment of or dissolves
a partnership with a social worker based on knowledge of conduct deserving
of sanction of that social worker to report that knowledge to the registrar.
In essence, Mr. Speaker, Bill 38 amends the Social
Workers Act to add provisions which will give authority to the Newfoundland
and Labrador Association of Social Workers to participate in a process of
quality assurance with a social worker.
Of course, the ultimate goal is to make sure the people of the
Province are receiving good care and good services right across the Province
from professionals such as social workers.
Mr. Speaker, as the minister pointed out earlier, there
are over 1,400 social workers right across the Province who are registered.
They practice in the fields of health, child protection, and justice.
They work in regional health authorities.
They work in community organizations.
They work at government departments.
They are employed in various settings, and their skillset equips them
to provide a variety of services to the people of the Province.
As a government, we are acutely aware, Mr. Speaker, of
the quality care and services that social workers give to the children and
youth and to the families of our Province day in and day out.
They work with families on a daily basis to find appropriate supports
to address areas of concern, and to resolve all kinds of conflict.
I want to commend them for their stellar work, for the
outstanding job they do. They
have a tough job to do, Mr. Speaker.
They face all kinds of challenges.
They are up to the task, but they perform stellar work indeed.
I just want them to know this afternoon that as a government we do
appreciate the social workers right across the Province, Mr. Speaker.
Health profession governing bodies are responsible for
the regulation of health professions in this Province and, as such, they are
responsible for establishing standards of practice and standards of conduct
for their members. They set the
boundary, so to speak, Mr. Speaker, or parameters if you like, outlining how
the social workers carry out their duties.
They are also responsible for registering individuals who meet the
health profession's educational, training, and certificate requirements.
Only those individuals who meet the registration requirements are
permitted to practice in this Province.
These regulatory bodies do an outstanding job.
They do very good work every day in fulfilling their role for the
people of this Province who avail of the services of health care
professionals. One of the most
important duties of a health profession regulatory body in its protection of
the public is to administer the disciplinary process set out in its
governing statute.
Each health profession governing statute contains a
detailed disciplinary process that is generally consistent across all health
professions. Each step of the
disciplinary process is set out in legislation.
The process begins with an allegation that a health professional has
engaged in conduct deserving of sanction, something that is of more serious
nature such as misconduct or incompetence, Mr. Speaker.
The registrar, with the consent of the complainant and the health
professional, may resolve the issue and may not go any further.
However, if it is not resolved, the complaint is then
referred to an authorization committee to conduct an investigation.
Where there are reasonable grounds following the investigation to
believe that the health professional has engaged in conduct deserving of
sanction, something that is serious, the complaint may be referred to an
adjudication tribunal for a hearing.
Where a health professional has been found guilty of
conduct deserving of sanction, the adjudication tribunal has the ability to
make the following types of orders in other words, there are three options
available to them: number one, it may order that the health professional be
suspended for a fixed period of time, that he or she may meet certain
conditions imposed by the adjudication tribunal; or it may order that the
health professional surrender his or her certificate and may not practice
any more; or number three, may order that the health professional will pay a
fine.
An adjudication tribunal may also require a health
professional to obtain medical treatment, obtain counselling including
substance abuse counselling or treatment, engaging in continuing education,
and permit periodic inspection of records related to his or her practice.
Mr. Speaker, these orders play a very important role in
the protection of the public with the end-game to make sure that the public
is receiving good care on a continual basis.
We know that on a daily basis there are always checks and balances
and everyone is to be accountable.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, these amendments will
support the role of the association to protect the public interest by
ensuring that competent social workers are providing quality care and
services to the people of the Province.
That being said, I take my seat and I look forward to everyone
supporting this bill this afternoon.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to stand and also to speak to Bill 38, An
Act to Amend the Social Workers Act.
Everybody in the House who was elected in 2011 will remember that it
was in 2011 that the new Social Workers Act was proclaimed.
It was an extremely important piece of work because it moved focus
away from social workers themselves as individuals to looking at the
profession.
The association, while it is there to protect
individual members, is also there to make sure that the profession stands as
a profession, that the association itself is a professional organization,
that they have in place everything that is needed to show that they are up
to date with all of the requirements for any professional organization.
We have had a number of bills over the last eight years
that I have been in this House dealing with the various professional
organizations, especially within health care.
Of course, this group today, while they are social workers in a
general sense, they are social workers who are under the Health and
Community Services division and work within health and the community.
So it is extremely important that they have a
professional document, a document that deals with everything that one
expects a profession to be concerned about in this day and age.
I am pleased to know that the ministry did consult with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers, and that they were
very pleased to take part in the consultation that took place.
My understanding is that they are pleased with the piece of
legislation that is before us today.
Now, I do not have to outline the details of the piece
of legislation because the minister has done that, but there are some points
I would like to point out. One
is that the social workers already had mandatory continuing education for
twenty years, which is excellent, because mandatory continuing education
ensures that the profession is kept up to a high level, and it is an
important piece of quality assurance.
So it makes sense that in the amendment we are dealing with today,
the whole thing of continuing education is seen as part of quality assurance
and now is placed in the legislation under the quality assurance process.
So that is extremely new.
Quality assurance is fairly new within these
professions not that they did not care about the quality of their members
before; of course, they did. As
a program, as a process, it is fairly new.
For the ministry and for the association, I understand that there is
a lot of discussion going on to try to determine the best way to implement
quality assurance in terms of programming and administration because you
cannot put this kind of a thing in the piece of legislation and talk about
quality assurance without the realization that something has to make it
happen. Quality assurance is not
just words; there have to be programs put in place.
That means that there has to be extra staffing, and there is going to
have to be financing of the program, and there is going to have to be
education of the professionals on how it works and training of those who are
assessors under the quality assurance program.
This is pretty complex and so there will be another
whole stream in the organization that will have to be set up.
I think it is extremely important that the government ensure that the
resources are there to make sure that quality assurance is not just words on
paper and in this bill, but it is going to be something that is really going
to happen, that we are going to be able to ensure that all social workers
have everything they need in order to work at the top of their game to use
that kind of language that they are in very, very stressful situations.
It is a very, very difficult job being a social worker.
They find themselves in very stressful situations.
Whether they are inside an institution or whether they are out in the
community, it is not an easy piece of work.
Being able to be who you are professionally, being able to be who you
want to be as a person in that profession, can become very difficult.
So we need to make sure there are programs in place to ensure that
the individual social workers can feel they are who they should be as social
workers.
This is not just an easy use of language.
This is not just, oh, we have put quality assurance into all of the
professional pieces of legislation.
It is how are we going to make sure they are going to be able to be
proud of who they are and perform in their profession so the people of the
Province receive the services they need to receive.
That is the most important thing.
It is not just so that a social worker can say I am a good social
worker, I am proud of who I am, and everybody can see I do good work; it is
so that the people of the Province get top service from the people in the
front lines in these industries.
One of the good things about the assurance process
and we saw this when we discussed quality assurance last week, I think it
was, with another professional group is that the committee that is set up
under the legislation can make recommendations when there is a concern about
a practice. This is extremely
important, that they can make recommendations.
They will not be dealing with misconduct.
Misconduct is another piece of the pie, if you want.
If quality assurance were to indicate that misconduct is taking
place, then there is another process that would take care of that, not
quality assurance.
The social workers association now will have greater
freedom to do alternate dispute resolution.
They already do it, but now they will have greater freedom in doing
that. One of the things about
alternate dispute resolution is that the experience is that in working
together in trying to deal with a resolution, a dispute, in a way that is
co-operative rather than being people on opposite sides of the fence banging
their heads together, that you actually come to resolutions more quickly.
This is very important, that the members of this
association can perform that way, can do what they find to be a process that
benefits them as an association, benefits their members, and therefore
indirectly or maybe directly benefits the people they serve.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to approve
this piece of legislation. It is
putting our social workers on a more professional footing with social
workers in other parts of the country because not just anybody is a social
worker. Lots of us care about
people in the community and we do maybe service jobs in the community, but
to say that you are social workers means that you have to be recognized in
your training and in your education by this association to be able to call
yourself a social worker. We
just cannot think because we talk to people and sit in the community talking
to people that we are social workers.
You have to be accredited.
You have to be recognized.
The association does that.
Now government is putting in legislation and with the
real support of the association, the fact now there is a new level not
that the association was not doing some of this before, but now with it in
legislation it does bring it to a new level and does relate the ministry to
the association in terms of mutual responsibility for making sure that what
is now going into the legislation will actually take place.
With that, I assure the minister we will be voting for
the legislation, and I thank the ministry for co-operating with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers in putting this
together.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, he will close
debate.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to begin by thanking members for their
participation in the debate: the Member for Burgeo La Poile, the Member
for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, and of course the Member for Baie Verte
Springdale as well. He did not
thank his constituents today, so I will do it for him.
On behalf of the member, I just want to thank the good people of Baie
Verte Springdale for being good people covered.
He is a good constituency man, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to now close debate in second reading on
An Act to Amend the Social Workers Act.
As I said earlier, the Social Workers Act currently contains
provisions which establish a disciplinary process to be followed when
dealing with allegations that a social worker has engaged in conduct
deserving of sanction.
We are amending the Social Workers Act, through Bill
38, to add provisions that authorize the association to engage in a process
of quality assurance with a social worker, which I think is good for the
profession, as the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi pointed out, and good
for the people of the Province.
These amendments will provide the Association of Social
Workers with another means of addressing concerns with a social worker's
practice. The addition of these
quality assurance provisions enable the association to engage with a social
worker to address the concerns before they get to the point of being conduct
deserving of sanction that then requires disciplinary action.
As I said, there are currently five health profession
statutes that contain quality assurance provisions.
With the passing of Bill 32 that was debated earlier in this session
and now Bill 38, where we are going to amend the Social Workers Act, we will
now have seven health profession statutes that contain quality assurance
provisions. I think this is a
very positive step forward, Mr. Speaker.
The ability to proactively assess and address potential
issues earlier further strengthens our health care system.
As previously noted, at the request of the association, these
amendments are subject to proclamation and will come into force at a later
date. This will provide the
association with the necessary time to fully develop its policies regarding
quality assurance and with sufficient time to appoint a quality assurance
committee. My officials will be
working to assist the association during this process.
This was actually an issue raised by the
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate that.
This was an issue that was raised by the Member for
Burgeo La Poile, the Opposition House Leader.
He was asking about the timing of the enactment of this legislation.
We will work with the association to ensure that they have the
necessary time to fully develop their policies related to quality assurance.
They also need time to appoint the quality assurance committee.
It is at the request of the association that we are delaying
enactment to a later date. I
hope that addresses one of the questions raised by the Opposition House
Leader.
The Member for Burgeo La Poile also asked about the
composition of the committee. I
am certainly happy to speak to that as well.
The committee will be appointed by the board of the association.
I will speak to that in just a moment.
I am looking for some precise detail to provide him with as well.
Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, the board will appoint the committee.
The board will educate members prior to the proclamation.
They will be directly involved in that process.
As I said a few minutes ago, we have worked very closely with the
association in development of the bill.
To the member's point, the committee composition will
be determined by the board. We
anticipate that there will also be public representation on the quality
assurance committee. In terms of
continuing education, while it is always something that social workers have
been engaged in, it will now be a legislative requirement.
I can also confirm for the Opposition House Leader that the quality
assurance committee will appoint the assessors as well.
The delayed proclamation is just like the nurses' bill,
to allow the development of policies and procedures, to appoint the
committee, and to educate members.
I would anticipate that all of this will happen in 2015 and that the
legislation will be enacted in 2015.
We will continue to work with the association to ensure
the quality assurance program is implemented.
The board has certainly indicated a willingness and a desire to take
this on. I think that covers the
member's questions, as I check my notes here.
The quality of care that is provided by health
professionals and the improvement of that care is obviously a high priority
for the Department of Health and Community Services.
I really believe that these amendments will further enhance both
safety and care for residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to thank my colleagues again for participation
in the debate. I do appreciate
their participation. I hope that
all members will join me in supporting these amendments to the Social
Workers Act. I thank the Member
for Burgeo La Poile for his questions as well and to the other two
colleagues for participating in the debate.
At this point, I will close debate in second reading,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the second
time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Social Workers Act.
(Bill 38)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read the second time.
When shall the bill be referred to the Committee of the
Whole?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Social Workers
Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 38)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I move, seconded by the Minister of Health
and Community Services, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole to consider An Act To Amend The Social Workers Act, Bill 38.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Cross):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 38, An Act To Amend The
Social Workers Act.
A bill, An Act To Amend The Social Workers Act.
(Bill 38)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
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 and 3.
CHAIR:
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:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Social Workers Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 38, An
Act To Amend The Social Workers Act.
CHAIR:
The motion is the Committee rise and report Bill 38.
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 (Littlejohn):
The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. CROSS:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed me to report Bill 38 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report
Bill 38 without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bill be read the third time?
MR. KING:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted.
Bill read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to move now to Order 7, second reading of
a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 41.
So moved by me, seconded by the Minister of Municipal
and Intergovernmental Affairs, that the said bill be now read the second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The
Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill
41)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased today to rise in
the hon. House to speak to the amendments of the Municipalities Act, 1999.
Mr. Speaker, since this government has come to power
our focus has been on families and communities, ensuring that our local
government leaders have the supports necessary to make their commitments
sustainable, their communities sustainable and attractive places to work,
live, and do business. It has
and will continue to be a top priority for us.
It is important as a government we work collaboratively with our
municipal partners to assist them in driving their economies and improving
services for their residents.
Mr. Speaker, currently the municipalities in
Newfoundland and Labrador may only exercise those powers authorized by the
Province through statute or regulation.
Outside of the three cities, our municipalities are governed
primarily by the Municipalities Act, 1999 and the related regulations.
In 2011, section 201.1 was adopted to the
Municipalities Act,1999 to address a legislative gap regarding how
municipalities could dispose of their property.
Currently, section 201.1 requires a council to sell both real and
personal property by public tender or auction if the probable market value
is over $500. Only if the item
was valued at less than $500 or if there were no responses to the public
auction or tender could a council enter into a private sale for the
property.
Real property as described in the act includes lands,
an interest in land and buildings or structures owned or erected by the
municipality. While personal
property is not defined in the act, it is generally regarded as tangible
property that is not real property and includes such things as vehicles,
machinery, furniture, and other equipment.
At the time when section 201.1 was added to the act, it
was meant to provide clear direction to councils regarding the disposition
of property to ensure that municipalities achieve the maximum value for
their property and that it was done in a fair and transparent manner.
However, in its present form, section 201.1 does not give
municipalities' flexibility to enter into transactions to further social and
economic development in which achieving fair market value may not be the
most important factor.
For example, there was a particular town that wished to
do a land swap with the Department of Transportation and Works for the
construction of a new grade school within its boundary.
The Department of Justice and Public Safety advised that such a land
swap would be considered a sale under section 201.1 of the act; therefore,
the transaction could not proceed as planned.
In order to facilitate the construction of the school, the land was
eventually expropriated by the Province.
Another example of disposition of real property for
social development purposes could include the sale or transfer of land to
organizations such as Habitat for Humanity for the development of affordable
housing. As we all are aware,
affordable housing is becoming a concern for many individuals in our
Province. Our municipalities
should be encouraged to find solutions and our legislation should not be an
impediment to achieving this objective.
Mr. Speaker, there have been other towns that have
expressed interest in disposing of land within its boundaries for economic
development purposes. In these
cases, there were opportunities made available to the town that are
considered to be of economic benefit as a result of increased employment
opportunities in the expansion of municipal tax base.
While section 203 of the act which relates to
agreements for economic development purposes may be interpreted as
permitting such private sales, section 201.1 may be seen as being
contradictory. We need to
provide clarification to ensure our legislation fosters economic development
within our municipalities rather than create barriers to its advancement.
Mr. Speaker, the current legislation also placed an
administration burden on our municipalities when it comes to the disposition
of property. As previously
mentioned, when a town wishes to sell any piece of property that is valued
at over $500 it must currently hold a public tender or auction.
For items that are of relatively low value, such as used office
furniture or vehicles, this requirement may be considered burdensome.
In order to alleviate the workload of municipal
councillors and staff while ensuring municipalities obtain the maximum value
for municipal property in a transparent manner, I am recommending that
section 201.1 also be amended to remove the requirement of public tender
auction for the disposition of property.
Municipalities will, however, still be required to provide notice of
intent to sell or lease the property to the public.
As well, they will be required to obtain at least a
fair market value for the property disposed of and must accept the highest
bid if more than one is received.
Municipalities may now use the discretion in determining the manner
in which the property is sold as long as these objectives are met.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, my department has
recently completed extensive consultations on the new provincial municipal
fiscal framework. The objective
of this review is to identify options to change the way services are
delivered, paid for, and shared to better position local governments to meet
the needs of citizens now and into the future.
The proposed amendments to the act presented here today
will assist municipalities in maximizing revenues generated from its surplus
property for financial and economic purposes while reducing the
administrative burden on council and staff in a manner in which the
properties are disposed. While
we are still working on our analysis and recommendations to inform Budget
2015, this amendment is in keeping with the objectives of the review.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislative amendments to the
Municipalities Act was identified following the considerations of the issues
encountered by some municipalities, such as those I previously mentioned.
The issue was identified as well by Municipalities Newfoundland and
Labrador in consultation with its membership and a resolution was passed in
their 2013 annual general meeting for amendments to be made to the
legislation to resolve these concerns.
I believe we have addressed the concerns raised in
MNL's request, and I am pleased to say that MNL has indicated its support of
the proposed amendment, who we met with to discuss the nature of the changes
before bringing them to the hon. House.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Municipal
and Intergovernmental Affairs is proposing legislative changes that will no
longer require municipalities to hold a public auction or tender when
disposing of property, but will still require municipalities to provide a
public notice of their intention to dispose of property to achieve fair
market value and accept the highest offer, if more than one is received,
when selling or leasing surplus municipal property.
Additional amendments will also provide flexibility for special
circumstances where fair market value may not be the most important factor
when disposing of real property.
The department proposes that a municipality may, with
vote of two-thirds of councillors in office and approval of the Minister of
Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, dispose of real property at or less
than a fair market value for social or economic development purposes.
This will help towns who wish to dispose of property
for the construction of schools for other social purposes such as low-income
housing, or recreation facilities, or parks.
It will also allow council to enter into agreement with an
individual party where the agreement has economic benefits for the
municipality.
Because municipal property is a valuable asset, it is
also important to ensure such exemptions are approved in a transparent and
equitable manner. For this
reason, municipalities will be required to achieve a two-third approval of
sitting council members as well as the approval of the Minister of Municipal
and Intergovernmental Affairs in these circumstances.
It is essential that we work collaboratively with towns
to give them ability to increase social and economic development in their
communities, while minimizing their administrative burden.
The proposed amendments to the legislation will maximize the value
obtained for municipal property, while providing flexibility to
municipalities that is still transparent and accountable.
The ultimate beneficiaries of these amendments will be
the residents of communities throughout the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to stand and speak on a piece
of legislation. I have sat here
for some weeks and watched my colleagues and the way they debate.
Some are rather animated; some just stand and speak and say what is
on their mind. Some go on and on
and on, whereas others just say exactly what is needed and on.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my
two colleagues here. It is the
first chance I have had to speak since they came in and sat beside me.
I know they had a draw to see who sat next to me.
They still will not tell me who won or who lost.
Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to speak a
couple of times in the House.
There have been some problems, I know, with finding the right level of
voice. I know the Premier
misquoted me once in the media, and I have had at least one minister answer
the wrong question; so if anyone on the other side is having trouble hearing
me or understanding me, I just give them leave to let me know.
This is a piece of legislation that the provinces and
towns have been waiting for, for some time.
Anything that we can do to make the lives easier for councillors and
the staff of our municipalities they are the people who are working at the
ground level and working with small staffs in many cases.
So anything we can do to make their lives easier, I think we should
try and do so, and certainly this is a piece of legislation that does just
that. In fact, there was a
resolution passed asking for most of what is contained in this bill at MNL's
annual convention in 2013.
Basically, this bill is to replace section 201.1 of the
Municipalities Act and, realistically, the intent is to remove the
burdensome process of having to go to public tender or auction for a
relatively small amount of money.
It has two broad areas.
It speaks of sale of real property, and it speaks of disposal of property as
well.
Sale of real property, it talks in terms of that which
is less than $500, a simple sale process; that which is above $500 having to
be advertised in the community, having to be advertised in a local
newspaper, if such a newspaper exists.
I had a look online to see what some communities are selling.
I just happened to go the beautiful Town of Conception Bay South
where I know that the staff there are doing things properly.
In a recent sale, they are selling a 1999 GMC pumper fire truck, a
2005 GMC Savana van, and a 2007 PowerLiner line painter.
These are the kinds of items that many of our towns are selling on a
regular basis and, as a result of this legislation, will not have to go to
tender, will not have to go to public auction.
Another sale which is common and I know certainly
common in the Town of Conception Bay South where there is such a large
amount of roadwork, such a large amount of development, are the sales of
'jibs' of land, small pieces of land, where the piece of land is only good
to the person who happens to live nearby and he just wants to control that
piece of land. This legislation
deals with that piece as well.
Throughout this, Mr. Speaker, there is an attempt to
make the system a little bit easier.
It also gives you a notwithstanding piece where fair market value is
not reached, it allows councillors to vote on a two-thirds majority to deal
with these sales.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer specifically to
section 201.2(7). This is a very
interesting clause. It calls for
towns to be able to dispose of real properties, especially land at less than
its fair market value. We know
that happens at times.
Towns will even be allowed to sell or lease land to
someone or some agency at less than the market value of the land, provided
that it is done for one of the following purposes: social purposes or
economic development. The
minister spoke to that in some detail as he presented his bill.
In other words, a town may dispose of land to build a park or to
provide a non-profit group an opportunity to build some affordable housing,
things like that, a new Lions Club, what have you; schools was the example
that the minister used.
What is interesting is that the towns will also be
allowed to dispose of town-owned property for the purposes of economic
development. In other words,
where a business might be developed, employment increased, or where new jobs
might be created with a two-third vote and ministerial approval the town can
go ahead. We applaud this
initiative.
Whatever we can do in our towns to allow them to
develop economically, to allow staff to do their own work independent of the
Department of Municipal Affairs, particularly in our larger towns where we
have large planning staffs, where we have experienced planning staffs, where
they can actually do a lot of the work rather than having to run things
through the Department of Municipal Affairs.
Wherever we can make sure things are running a little bit more
smoothly, we need to be doing this.
We applaud this initiative.
For too long towns have had a responsibility for economic development
but little in the way of tools or support from the Province to do any.
What is missing in this clause and I am not sure, it would not be
in this clause because it is in other legislation is a reference to and
the dealing with Crown lands.
Government, under this amendment, will allow towns to
do something they themselves will not do.
Towns can, under this new change, sell town land for economic
development purposes at below market value but will not give towns Crown
land at below market value for any kind of economic development.
We need to see this changed.
In the fiscal framework which the minister referred
to in his presentation document now on its way to Cabinet, there is a
significant discussion on the issue surrounding Crown land.
Here is a recommendation coming from that report.
That the provincial government work with MNL to review how Crown
lands are sold and to consider land transfer options not currently available
such as long-term leasing and lease to buy arrangements.
This is similar to the same arrangements which are being dealt with
in this piece of legislation from a town's point of view, but we cannot seem
to go there at the provincial level.
Section 201.3 deals with towns gifting or swapping
lands for the benefit of the community.
In other words, providing a benefit to someone or some organization
or agency without meeting the requirements of fair market value.
This can be done with a two-third vote of councillors, as I
referenced and as the minister referenced.
All of this is good, but towns should be able to have access to Crown
lands inside their planning areas in the same manner as other lands are
available to them for economic development purposes in this amendment.
I give you an example in the Town of Conception Bay
South. The town is developing a
box store development at the top of Legion Road where they have 100 acres
they have amassed over time.
There is another fifty acres of Crown land there that eventually if the town
wants to develop and increase the size of that development, the town is
going to have to buy at fair market value.
My wish today I guess is to make the point that if towns can accept
less than fair market value for economic development, there is no reason why
the Province could not do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I will finish there, but while this bill
satisfies its intent, I ask the minister to deal with the Crown land
transfers in towns with the same consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. LITTLE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was speechless for a moment.
Actually, there was a problem there with the mike.
I am honoured to rise in the House of Assembly today to
speak to Bill 41. I would like
to commend the staff at the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs for providing a very thorough briefing on this very important act,
Bill 41, an amendment to the Municipalities Act.
In my past years, I served on community council with
the Town of Bonavista for fourteen years.
I can see the benefit of the change.
This piece of legislation would be very important to communities like
the Town of Bonavista, Trinity Bay North, King's Cove, the municipality of
Elliston. That is some
communities in the District of Bonavista South.
I will definitely support this piece of legislation,
Mr. Speaker. This piece of
legislation is twofold, from an economic perspective and from a social
perspective. It is very
beneficial socially. That would
certainly help out communities all over the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
There was a collaborative process here, Mr. Speaker,
where town councils put forward a request at the Municipalities Newfoundland
and Labrador convention. There
was a very open and transparent dialogue between, I guess, town councils,
people in the department, and people who actually see a need for change to
this particular piece of legislation.
This was an open, transparent process that took place.
This amendment will allow municipalities to have the flexibility to
gain economic benefit to many communities out in Newfoundland and Labrador,
all around Newfoundland and Labrador.
This piece of legislation will assist towns that want to dispose of
property for such social advancements, such as construction of schools,
recreational facilities, or even parks.
It will also allow council to initiate or consider a
proposal for economic development that may be in the best interest of the
municipality by creating jobs for residents or expanding the tax base for
the municipality. This
particular piece of legislation will certainly help communities in the
future.
The approval from the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs ensures this process is going to be done fair and
to be a very transparent process.
It is important that towns have the ability to increase social and
economic development in their communities.
By amending this legislation, it will give communities the ability to
enhance their communities by advancing social initiatives and to maximize
revenue and economic benefit.
Due to that factor, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly
support this good piece of legislation.
The Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs proposes
that a municipality may, with a two-third vote by councillors in office and
the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, dispose of property at or
less than fair market value for social and economic development purposes.
I listened to the previous speakers here today and we
can all agree that this particular piece of legislation would be of great
importance and benefit to communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker. Like I said, it is
twofold. It is very important to
all communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I will definitively support Bill 41.
I hope that my colleagues will support Bill 41 as well.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take pleasure in rising in my place and speaking to
Bill 41 this afternoon. From
time to time we get a piece of legislation that comes across as fairly
simple in nature. This is, I
will not say it is simple in nature, but overall I think it is a measure for
I guess speaking on the municipalities behalf, it is good for red tape
reduction. I will say that.
It does take some of the issues from municipalities when it comes to
the handling of some matters. In
particular, when it comes to disposal of the various properties they are
talking about.
In some ways it probably saves some effort too on the
part of government; albeit, through the approval process the Minister of
Municipal Affairs still has to sign off on.
One of these days maybe he shall be set free and probably alleviated
of some of this.
Mr. Speaker, just very quickly.
I do not have too much to say about it, next to the simple aspect of
the red tape reduction that I feel is great for municipalities.
Under section 201.1, a council may by resolution sell
real and personal property where the item or lot has a probable market value
of more than $500 by public tender or public auction advertised.
I will not go on any further with this section, sections (a) and (b).
This amendment preserves the ability to sell items and
lots below $500. It is
self-explanatory, I think. The
change that this amendment brings in regarding the sale of these real or
personal property over the value of $500 if they give public notice of the
intent to sell, that notice must include an ad in at least two conspicuous
places that is what the legislation says and in the local newspaper, if
there is one.
I have to ask the minister possibly, I guess well, I
cannot ask now. Perhaps he can
sum it up when he gets on his feet, his definition of two conspicuous
places. It seems to be a little
bit wide open there. I think we
need an explanation as regards to that.
I would also ask the minister if his definition of a
conspicuous place in some cases, Mr. Speaker, some places obviously do not
have a newspaper. Some
newspapers only advertise or may only print pretty much in some cases once a
week, in some cases once a month, so the timing of the actual publishing of
that may be a little bit questionable.
I will ask him at the same time is if his definition
would, for example, be on the Internet.
If the publishing of some of these matters might be on the Internet
or perhaps even on the municipal Web site, but then again there are some
municipalities out there that do not even have a Web site.
I think this has to be considerations brought up to government and at
the same time there are ways around it.
I think with the 276 municipalities out there, we can work around
that.
They have to accept the highest bid so long as the bid
is over the estimated fair market value, but there are also exceptions to
that as well. Council can sell
real or leased property for less than fair market value if the purpose of
the sale is for social or economic development.
In just reading through this and in conversation with
my research staff, the definition of economic development could be wide open
I think. It can mean almost
anything. The backstops to
protect from these problems two-thirds of the vote of council are necessary,
and you need prior approval of the minister, or public notice must be given.
I guess there are going to be a lot of notifications as regards the
citizens of various municipalities exactly what is going to be happening
here.
It is thought that these backstops or safety values
will protect against any problems with councils giving land away to
developers without widespread approval to those involved.
That was a concern that was brought up by one person who we consulted
with. Another provision allows
for the sale of real property or adjacent real property and the real
property is of minimal value to another person, the same backstops would
apply here.
This actually formalizes a practice that many
municipalities already do. There
was a discussion about the $500 cap, of course.
MNL has initially talked it being raised to $5,000; however, the
department felt that removing the requirement to hold a public auction or
public tender would be sufficient.
I think that MNL eventually agreed to that, and I think that they are
quite happy with it.
Municipalities were actually losing money on the sale
of things because of the requirements to the public auction through tender.
Some things were not up to that $500 value, they were well below;
they did not get a tender up to that amount.
So that is one of the reasons why this being done today, too.
It could be anything from furniture to computers or anything that may
become redundant. Computers, of
course, as we know, get better and better with age and they lose a lot of
value pretty quickly. Allowing
them to sell with a two-thirds vote of council with the prior approval of
the minister less onerous requirements, and again I think we are coming
back to red tape reduction here at the same time.
There is nothing in section 201.1, 201.2, or 201.3 that
relieves the council from complying with section 95 of the Urban and Rural
Planning Act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is nothing in here that would relieve council
from paying attention to section 95 of the Urban and Rural Planning Act here
at the same time. For example,
when it comes to the disposal of land, the minister or council or regional
authority, with the approval of the minister, may sell, lease, or otherwise
dispose of land or an interest it has expropriated and not abandoned upon
those terms. This provision
ensures the Urban and Rural Planning Act has priority despite this
amendment. So we still have to
pay attention to various other acts that are out there.
Councils still have to pay attention, in particular, to the Urban and
Rural Planning Act at the same time.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is about all the comments I had
on that. Perhaps the minister
can answer a few questions when his time comes about when we close debate or
in the Committee process as regards to those particular points that I
brought up.
Mr. Speaker, that is all we have to say on this.
We will be supporting this amendment.
We know there are a lot of municipalities and towns out there that
look forward to this bit of red tape reduction.
At the same time we wish all those municipalities and council workers
that are keeping these municipalities all the best in their future
endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
I am thankful this afternoon again to get up to speak to Bill 41.
First of all, I would just like to thank again the people of the
District of Baie Verte Springdale for their support and for their
confidence and trust that they have placed in me.
I also would like to thank the minister and department officials for
their briefing. Again, it was
very thorough and complete as well.
We really appreciate that.
Bill 41 says An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act,
1999 just a very brief explanatory note, Mr. Speaker.
This is what it says, This Bill would amend the Municipalities Act,
1999 to provide greater flexibility to municipalities to sell, lease or
dispose of real and personal property that has an estimated fair market
value of $500 or more.
Just for the benefit of the listeners, it might be
interesting to point out the definitions of what real property is.
Real property would be referring to land or buildings that the town
actually own. It is not
referring to Crown lands or vacant, empty buildings that are already in the
town such as school buildings, for example, that is owned by probably school
boards or some religious denomination.
Personal property would refer to equipment such as dump trucks,
loaders, tractors, plows, or furniture, what have you, Mr. Speaker.
That is a clarification.
I also wanted to point out like my colleague, the
Member for Bonavista South, who spent fourteen years on council, I spent
half of that, seven years, which was the tribulation period, I suppose.
I certainly enjoyed my time on council in the Town of Springdale,
four years as Mayor of the Town of Springdale, and what a tremendous
opportunity to learn the issues and concerns of the people.
I consider it a real honour and privilege to serve the community for
seven years on council. I would
advise anybody out there, any resident who wanted to serve their community,
it would be a good place to start as councillor a very, very valuable
experience indeed.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out and give a
great big shout out to all the mayors and the councillors out there in this
great Province of ours, because they do stellar work day in and day out.
Currently, section 201.1 does not give municipalities
flexibility to enter into transactions to further the social or economic
development in which achieving fair market value may not be the most
important factor. The current
requirement of a public tender or auction when disposing of all property
valued at over $500 or more, including low dollar-value personal property
items such as used equipment and vehicles, it is very cumbersome and is very
burdensome to the town council, Mr. Speaker.
By allowing councils to dispose of such items in a
manner that is still transparent and achieves maximum value, we do reduce
the workload of councils and staff while still maintaining the basic
principles that the original amendment intended.
The proposed changes, Mr. Speaker, are also consistent with the
intention of the resolution passed by the MNL, Municipalities Newfoundland
and Labrador, at their AGM in 2013 which was pointed out earlier, and we
support them, Mr. Speaker.
That is a good indication of how responsive we are.
That is another prime example of how this government is listening to
the people of the Province and all stakeholders, and listening to everybody
involved so that we can act expeditiously on behalf of the Province, Mr.
Speaker, and all stakeholders.
This will assist towns or communities that want to
dispose of property such as social advancements, such as if you want to
build a school or build a soccer pitch, or softball field, whatever, or
other recreational facility, or any park. It would also allow council
to initiate or consider a proposal for economic development that may be in
the best interest of the community by creating jobs for the residents, or
even expand the tax base of the municipality.
You must have two-thirds of council support in these
cases as well as the pre-approval of the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs. Because you have these two criteria, Mr.
Speaker, this is done in a fair and a transparent manner.
It is important that towns have the ability to increase
social and economic development in their towns. By amending this
legislation, Mr. Speaker, it will give all communities or towns the ability
to enhance their communities by advancing social initiatives and to maximize
revenue and economic benefits. In other words, it removes the
barriers, the impediments so that communities can improve their economic
lot.
The Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs, what they do is they will propose that a municipality may, with a
two-thirds of the councillors in office vote and approval of the minister,
will dispose of property at or less than fair market value for social and
economic development.
Finally, this legislative change addresses the concerns
heard from a number of municipal leaders right across the Province, Mr.
Speaker. The amendment will allow councils the ability to foster
social and economic development in all municipalities while achieving
maximum value from its property in a fair, equitable, and transparent
manner.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to stand for a few minutes and speak to Bill
41, Mr. Speaker, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act, 1999. I spent
many years in municipal politics in my small community of Charlottetown on
Labrador's Southeast Coast. I also spent some time maybe not long
enough, I wish it had been longer serving as the Labrador rep on the
provincial municipalities board, where I was a voice for all of the
communities in Labrador.
As you can appreciate, there are some very vast
differences there in just Labrador. You have Lab West, the mining
town. Things are not good right now, but that was more of a wealthy
town. Then you had Lake Melville and then you had the smaller coastal
communities.
It was the smaller coastal communities that really had
the challenging issues, Mr. Speaker, when you have a shrinking population,
an aging population, and aging infrastructure in the ground. A lot of
challenges, and these people are volunteers, Mr. Speaker.
What we see here with this act, and I will just read it
for the purpose of the people who may be viewing this today, This Bill
would amend the Municipalities Act, 1999 to provide greater flexibility to
municipalities to sell, lease or dispose of real and personal property that
has an estimated fair market value of $500 or more.
Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that the
provinces and the towns have been looking for, for a long time.
Somebody already mentioned today in the House that there was a resolution
passed asking for most of what is contained in this bill during the MNL
annual convention in 2013. In addition to sitting on the MNL board,
Mr. Speaker, as a deputy mayor in my community, I attended many of their
events a reputable group.
I believe the forty-eight of us who serve here in the
House, who represent the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is
important that we sit and talk with groups like MNL, because different
groups are experts in different fields. We certainly have a
knowledgeable and a reputable group here.
I want to quote Craig Pollett, from MNL. I
attended a forum last spring at Memorial University Barbara Neis was there
and it was a forum on the fishery of the Province. During that forum
Craig, from MNL, made a statement and it stuck with me. It resonated
when he said: the closer that decisions are made on the ground to the people
most impacted by them, the more likely they will stand the test of time.
Now, I remembered that, Mr. Speaker. The closer that decisions are
made to the people impacted. That is what we have here today, Mr.
Speaker, with this piece of legislation. I am happy to support this,
because we are giving more ownership to the people. We are making it
less cumbersome.
My colleague for CBS spoke, and there are a lot of
variances in the coastal communities where I come from, from the beautiful
area of CBS. They have planners, they have engineers. Why do
these people have to come to St. John's to get approval on something for CBS
if they have the expertise there, if they have the people? So I think
it is a very positive thing. I think it is something the towns have
been asking for, for some time. It is something that will be
applauded, Mr. Speaker, removing requirements for towns to have to auction
off or go to tender to dispose of surplus items. It is certainly a
good thing, Mr. Speaker.
One of the things I do want to mention is the $500.
There is a consensus that figure still remains a little low. If we
look back when that was brought in back in 1999, $500, and we factor in the
inflation, that $500 would be about $670 now. If we want to give these
towns a measure of faith or good will, the government could have put that at
a figure of $1,000. Because what happens, in our offices resources are
limited, people, time, like many other places, and when they have to be
going through this process for anything that is over $500, that is extra
work placed on them.
Mr. Speaker, these people know, they are running
communities. I think we easily could have gone to $1,000 instead of
the $500; but, be that as it may, maybe we will see an amendment down the
road and we will see some improvements to that because municipalities did
describe this as getting 99 per cent of what they were looking for.
I think another point here that is positive is towns
will be allowed to dispose of town-owned property for the purposes of
economic development. Once again, the communities, the people who are
on the ground, know what is needed in their communities to grow their
communities. For a long time I sat at tables where there was so much
frustration around decisions that were made up here, that were impacting
people down there and they did not have the knowledge, that grassroots on
the ground.
When these volunteers sit around the table, Mr.
Speaker, they are there because they want to make their town better.
They want to make the place they call home better. So they are looking
for ways to grow. They are looking for ways they can put in a small
amount of money and they can get the investment back, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is very important that we give them more
control in that area. In other words, Mr. Speaker, where a business
might be developed, employment increased, or where new jobs might be created
with a two-third vote and ministerial approval, the town can go on ahead,
Mr. Speaker. Again, I see this as a positive thing.
A lot of times just because we have towns that have to
come in here to get approval, that was slowing down the process, Mr.
Speaker. We all know when we are waiting on things like this, how long
you can be waiting. If there is anything we need to do to support
municipalities, we need to try and reduce the red tape for them. That
is a positive step. I think we are going to see the benefits of this.
I want to applaud the initiative. For too long,
Mr. Speaker, towns have had a responsibility for economic development but
very little in the way of tools to support from the Province to do so.
Mr. Speaker, anything we can do, even the staff who
work there. If we can invest in training, I believe we are certainly
going to get a return on that investment. More than half this Province
is rural communities. Most of the offices probably have one staff,
maybe part-time staff. So if we
can invest to make them more competent, to increase their understanding of
things in the municipal office, I believe that will pay dividends with us,
Mr. Speaker.
It has been raised that what is missing in this clause
and in the amendment itself is the issue of Crown lands.
Crown lands continue to be a very challenging issue.
Government, under this amendment, will allow towns to do something
they themselves will not do.
Towns can, under this new change, sell town land for economic development
purposes at below market value, but they will not give towns Crown lands at
below market value for any kind of economic development.
I would just simply have to ask there, Mr. Speaker, why
that is. I do not want to
digress too much from the bill, but I could spend a lot of time talking
about the issues around Crown lands as well.
Most things that government sends out to the people, you have maybe
thirty days or something to be back, but with Crown Lands you might be
waiting three years. That is an
issue and I hope we are going to debate and take that up some time soon in
the House.
Back to Bill 41, we need this changed.
We have heard numerous times in the House discussion on the fiscal
framework and it is very important as we go forward that we get this fiscal
framework right, Mr. Speaker. It
is daunting when you think about what is actually in the ground around the
Province in the municipalities, the dollar figure, and what the need is
going to be on a go-forward basis to ensure that we have safe drinking water
and things like that.
We need this change and we know that in the fiscal
framework document that is now on its way to Cabinet there is significant
discussion on the issue surrounding Crown lands.
The recommendation if I might share here coming from that report
is that the provincial government work with MNL to review how Crown lands
are sold and consider land transfer options not currently available, such as
long-term leasing and lease-to-buy arrangements.
Mr. Speaker, while this is a positive amendment you
know what they say about improvement: the room for improvement is the
biggest room in the house.
Hopefully we are going to come back and we are going to see this continue to
move in the right direction because, while all of this is good, I feel towns
should be able to have access to Crown lands inside their planning areas.
Again, in terms of giving the people who sit around the municipal
table, giving them some more responsibility and some more say into decisions
that will help make their towns more viable and more sustainable over the
long term, in the same manner as other lands are available to them for
economic development purposes in this amendment.
I will not use my full time, Mr. Speaker, but I am
pleased to see this act to Bill 41.
Any time that we are able to do something to support municipalities
in the Province, it is very, very important that we do so.
These people play important roles in the communities that they serve
and we certainly appreciate what they do.
Those of us who have been at those tables, we understand the
challenges that come in those positions, Mr. Speaker.
I look forward to hearing further comments from the rest of my
colleagues.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a privilege for me to rise in the House
of Assembly today in speak to this very progressive piece of legislation
that we are bringing forward to the House today.
I guess the simplest way to describe this bill is that
it greatly increases the flexibility for councils to improve their economic
and social development efforts.
I will not elaborate a whole lot on what has already been said here in the
House today, but in a nutshell land that has a value greater than $500 will
no longer have to go through a public tendering process if the town council
can clearly demonstrate that the disposal of this equipment or property will
have some type of social or economic benefit to the municipality.
Section 201.2 speaks specifically to selling or leasing
property and section 201.3 gives guidelines with respect to gifting or
swapping a property, so I will elaborate a little on those two features.
In terms of property with an estimated fair market
value of $500 or more, a council may, by resolution, sell or lease this
personal property under this new act.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to note that there is
still going to be a very strong element of transparency with this bill.
The council will be required to provide public notice of the
council's intention to lease the property and that public notice can take
place in not fewer than two conspicuous places in a municipality.
So that would be places that are frequented very often by large
numbers of residents in the municipality, as well as publication in a
newspaper that has some type of general circulation within that
municipality, Mr. Speaker. Of
course transparency and accountability is very important for this government
at the municipal and provincial levels.
Subsection (5) of section 201.2 does state that, A
council shall only accept an offer to sell or lease real or personal
property if that offer is the highest offer for the property.
It does allow, Mr. Speaker, for three exceptions to that:
Notwithstanding subsection (5), a council shall not accept an offer to sell
or lease the property, except where a resolution by two-thirds vote of the
councillors in office approve of the sale, and including approval of the
minister.
Where the exception will apply again is if two-thirds
of councillors agree as well as approval of the minister, that can happen.
It must clearly demonstrate that there has to be some type of a
social or economic benefit to the town.
That social benefit could be something like affordable housing,
construction of a new park, or a community centre.
In terms of the economic benefit, it would pertain to
where a council can clearly demonstrate that long-term benefits are worthy
of foregoing fair market value.
Those long-term benefits could be an increase in the number of jobs or a
significant increase to the tax base in the municipality, Mr. Speaker.
This act is indeed providing greater flexibility to municipalities to
be able to move forward with initiatives that will enhance the well-being of
the community as a whole.
There is also an exception, Mr. Speaker, where the
property is valued at $500 or more the council may, by resolution of
two-thirds of the vote, and again with prior approval of the minister,
accept an offer to dispose at less than estimated fair market value where
the purpose of that disposition is clearly of social or economic benefit.
It is only pertaining to the municipally owned personal or real
property. Section 201.4 speaks
to the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000.
It does state that disposal of all expropriated land will still
require ministerial approval.
To look at some examples of where, say, swapping a
piece of land may be of benefit, we had a situation in this Province not too
long ago where a community wanted to erect a school on a piece of property.
That piece of property was owned by the Department of Transportation
and Works. Because of the
previous legislation, the only way that land could be acquired was through
expropriation.
This bill, of course, gives the flexibility to allow a
clean swap without the undue burden of massive paperwork and time delays.
It is certainly going to be of great benefit we believe, Mr. Speaker,
to municipalities and to those who want to do something meaningful in the
community, either by means of enhancing its social infrastructure or
creating some meaningful employment.
It is important to note, as has been stated here today,
that this is a piece of legislation that has been requested by
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is very important that towns have the ability to increase social
and economic development in their communities.
In my former life, prior to politics, I worked for
twelve years in community economic development and was very happy to be part
of establishing the very first ever Joint Councils for the region.
It was quite a delight to work for all those municipalities in
partnership, with their key goal being the social and economic improvement
of the region as a whole. Issues
like this would arise from time to time, and I certainly can relate to how
it is going to be very beneficial throughout our Province as a whole.
It is really going to give the communities an ability to enhance
social initiatives and to maximize their revenues and economic benefits.
Again, the resolution was brought forward by MNL in
2013. Here it is 2014, Mr.
Speaker, we are nearing the end of 2014 and our expedient movement, I would
say, with this legislation clearly demonstrates that we are listening to the
people of the Province; and not only are we listening to the people, we are
putting action to our words.
I am very pleased to be part of this government that is
so responsive to the requests of the people we serve, and very pleased that
we are providing greater flexibility and clarity with respect to how
municipalities can dispose of municipally owned assets and equipment.
I will not belabour speaking to this bill much longer.
Everyone has clearly outlined what this bill will mean for
municipalities and I, for one, will be very happy to support the
legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you so much.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just stand and have a few words on this bill.
As we said before, Bill 41, the Official Opposition will be
supporting this bill. I just
want to stand and have a few words about some of the concerns and some of
the positive things about the bill that is brought forth.
I just heard the member earlier talking about how
government quickly does the work of municipalities.
We are still waiting for the fiscal arrangement since 2008, Mr.
Speaker, so let's not jump for too much joy here because there are some
amendments brought in under Bill 41 to the Municipalities Act.
Mr. Speaker, the odd thing about it there are some
good things in the bill, and I will go through it is the Crown lands
aspect. We all know in a lot of
towns I hear it a lot out my way in the Bay of Islands and in other parts
that when there is Crown land in the area that it is almost next to
impossible to let the town get this kind of land transferred to the towns.
What we have here, Mr. Speaker, we have a bill here
where the provincial government, under the Department of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, are saying to the towns you can sell land at a
reduced rate for several reasons: social development or for economic
development. It is a great
initiative. It is definitely a
great initiative, but if there is a piece of Crown land in your area, the
government will not allow the town or will not give it a reduced rate for
economic development.
I know the minister will get up and explain that when
he gets an opportunity, but I know a lot of Crown land in municipalities
that it is almost impossible to get.
A lot of the land they can use for social development, they can use
it for economic development, yet they cannot get it.
So government is saying you can give some land you have, at a cheaper
rate, to help foster economic development, yet we are not going to do it if
there is Crown lands in your town.
Mr. Speaker, that is a big concern I hear all
throughout the region. Out on
the West Coast, it is a big issue about Crown lands.
To get a piece of Crown land for any municipality in this Province
I know this is not the minister's portfolio of Crown land, but seeing it was
brought up, put through it, and it is now through it, but before it was not.
Mr. Speaker, to get a piece of Crown land for any economic
development in any town takes years.
I mean years, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible)
MR. JOYCE:
I hear the Member for Baie Verte Springdale say what is this to do with
municipalities.
MR. POLLARD:
Relevance.
MR. JOYCE:
Relevance, Mr. Speaker, Crown lands is right in the act.
So, what the member should do, if the Member for Baie Verte
Springdale is telling me about relevancy in an act, Crown lands is mentioned
right in the act. So the next
time he reads his briefing notes that someone gave him, he should read the
act, if he wants to know what is in it, because it is definitely in there.
It is definitely a part of it, Mr. Speaker.
What he should do, Mr. Speaker Little Bay Islands
people are still waiting for him to go down for a meeting to discuss their
regionalization and their movement.
So he can stand over there and yap at me as much as he likes, but the
people in Little Bay Islands and the town council would love to see him to
speak about the relocation, Mr. Speaker.
There is another part of this that is good that is in
there. Mr. Speaker, when there
is a piece of land given away for less than market value for economic
development or social, it needs a two-third majority vote.
It also needs approval from the minister.
I think that is a nice check and balance; but if there are any
concerns after the two-third vote taken by a municipality which I am
definitely not suggesting the minister still has the final approval of it.
So if there are any concerns brought up after, there are a few checks
and balances in this piece of legislation and I think that is a great
initiative by the minister for the following years for any new minister that
is there.
Mr. Speaker, MNL, as was mentioned several times in
this House already, wanted this bill in 2013. I think they passed a motion
at their convention for this.
There are some things and I will ask the minister I will not even have to
stand up in Committee, but the minister to explain why the threshold is not
past $500 and the minister explained that.
I can see the Member for Baie Verte Springdale down
again, and if he wants a chance to speak in Committee he can go right ahead
and speak in Committee and stop just trying to we are supporting the bill,
yet the Member for Baie Verte Springdale still wants to try to cause some
kind of grief with us over here.
We think it is a good bill. Mr.
Speaker, I say to the Member for Baie Verte Springdale, the residents, the
town council of Little Bay Islands would love to see you.
Mr. Speaker, I will sit in my seat.
Once again, we are going to support this bill.
We think there are a lot of good things in the bill.
I will not have to stand in Committee because the minister is aware
of some of the things that have been brought to my attention.
Like I said before, Crown lands is an important part of this which is
under Municipal Affairs now. The
Member for Baie Verte Springdale can stand up any time and he can speak
about anything in this bill. Mr.
Speaker, without the notes brought up from the eighth floor, he will not be
able to because all he can do is read the explanatory notes.
Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs speaks, he will close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members today for
the debate on this particular bill.
I certainly want to recognize the Member for Conception Bay South,
the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for St. John's East, the Member
for Baie Verte Springdale, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair,
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, and the Member for Bay of
Islands.
Mr. Speaker, I will take a few minutes to go through
and try to address some of the questions that were raised as we went
through. The Member for
Conception Bay South and some of the other members as well referenced Crown
land. It is important, too, this
legislation, this amendment is not tied to Crown land.
What has been mentioned is in regard to municipalities and how they
are able to obtain Crown land in terms of economic development and other
initiatives in towns and communities.
As well, it was mentioned from Municipalities
Newfoundland and Labrador and we have talked about in this House before in
regard to the fiscal framework and a whole range of initiatives that we are
looking at, a recommendation made by MNL.
One of those related to Crown lands in regard to access to Crown
lands, the cost of Crown lands, and all those types of things.
We are looking at that as one of the recommendations from MNL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
In regard to the intent in what we are trying to do to communities in terms
of economic development, access to revenues, those sorts of things, those
are the kinds of things we want to work with Municipalities Newfoundland and
Labrador. As I said, we look at
those recommendations and as we are moving towards Budget 2015, those are
the kinds of things we will respond to and see what we can do in regard to
some of the members on both sides in our communities and municipalities, and
how we can work with them to drive economic development, but as well to
drive revenues. That is all tied
to sustainability of those communities.
I thank the hon. members for their comments in that regard.
As well, I think the Member for St. John's East spoke
in regard to the reference to conspicuous places in advertising.
That has not really changed.
Really what we would look at, we look at newspaper, Internet, things
like local pharmacies, city hall, and even local TV channels.
There would be a variety of options there where they could pursue to
meet the requirements in having two conspicuous places in regard to
advertising to meet the requirements.
As well, one of the hon. members mentioned economic
development and opportunities.
Viewed from the department, that is any investment that looks at promoting,
building, and sustaining local business activity and the associated impacts
of that activity. Certainly,
look at the local employment, expanded tax base, and other financial and
social benefits in that regard.
I think the hon. Member for Bay of Islands mentioned,
and others did as well, the cap in regard to $500.
In regard to that, if you look at the real property transactions, it
would generally exceed $5,000. A
change in the threshold would apply mainly to personal property such as
vehicles and equipment. By
keeping the threshold low as well, I think it is a higher level of
transparency and accountability that is maintained for the disposal of
virtually all personal property, including vehicles and heavy equipment.
The third point is, as other members may have
indicated. We had discussions
with MNL, and they indicated the main reason for the cap to be raised was to
avoid having to conduct public auctions or tenders for many personal
property items. By removing that
requirement for public tender or auction altogether when disposing of
property, this issue has really been addressed.
As I said, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador were supportive
when we had the dialogue and discussion with them.
I think looking through, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the
discussion and questions that were asked, I think I have been able to
respond to those. Again, I would
like to thank all members for their discussion on this particular bill.
It seems to be a good bill.
Across the floor on both sides, it seems that people recognize the
importance of this amendment.
MNL passed a resolution in their AGM in 2013 to have
this resolution brought to us and amend the legislation to reflect their
needs. In discussions with them
and what we have heard today, I think we have met those needs.
I look forward to working with MNL and municipalities throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador, again, to support them.
We look forward to responding to the financial
framework that we are reviewing.
We will respond to that in 2015, and certainly may respond to some of the
items that were brought up here today in discussing this amendment.
Thank you again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second
time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.
(Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole House?
MR. KING:
Today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Today.
On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities
Act, 1999, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill
41)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I would like to call Order 7, second
reading of a bill, An Act To Amend sorry, pardon me, Mr. Speaker, it is
Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise sorry again.
I am in the wrong place here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Number 5.
MR. KING:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
(Inaudible).
MR. KING:
I got it, thank you.
It is Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act
Respecting Missing Persons, Bill 36.
So moved by me, and seconded by the hon. the Premier,
that the bill be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that Bill 36 be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting
Missing Persons. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to introduce
Bill 36 this afternoon, An Act Respecting Missing Persons.
This is a new piece of legislation for Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is a piece of legislation that deals in a circumstance that
happens frequently in Newfoundland and Labrador when people go missing in
our Province. It is a bill that
will allow for timely access to information that is often very crucial in
finding a missing person.
As it currently stands, Mr. Speaker, the police must
rely upon only the authority given to them under the Criminal Code of Canada
to compel a third party to provide information such as medical, financial,
telephone, or other information in support of a missing person's
investigation. Under the current
law, the Criminal Code provides police with the opportunity to search for
such records but require police to have evidence of a criminal offence prior
to obtaining a production order or a search warrant.
If police are doing a missing person investigation and
if there is cause to believe a crime had been committed and they have
grounds to support the request laying any information for a search warrant,
they can obtain a search warrant only if grounds support it, but it has to
be pertaining to an investigation regarding a criminal matter.
However, we also know, Mr. Speaker, that in many cases of missing
person's investigations there is no immediate indication of a criminal
offence having taken place.
There is no known knowledge or understanding that a
criminal offence has taken place.
If there is sufficient evidence of an offence, access to information
for investigative purposes is not available under the Criminal Code.
If there is not enough information, if there is insufficient evidence
to establish that an offence had occurred, then you cannot access
information under the Criminal Code.
That means that in many instances when the police are
unable to compel a third party to provide information that would generally
assist in a timely investigation, it means that in a case where there is no
criminal activity or no criminal allegation, they are not able to obtain
those types of records. In order
to address this limitation and to assist in locating missing persons, we are
establishing missing person's legislation.
That is the legislation that is now before the House and to which I
speak.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not new in Canada.
It exists in four other provinces.
BC, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Alberta all have similar types of
legislation. The intent of this
legislation is to provide the police with the tools necessary to move more
quickly and more efficiently on those investigations where it is known that
a person is missing, but there is no evidence that a crime has been
committed.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that these types of occurrences
happen frequently in policing.
Every year, the police investigate missing persons; probably on an almost
daily basis the police in this Province investigate missing persons and, by
far, most of them do not have a criminal element to them.
Mr. Speaker, in developing this legislation the
Department of Justice and Public Safety have consulted with representatives
from Aboriginal and also women's groups and I can tell you that the response
from the consultations has been positive.
Given the nature of the legislation, the Information and Privacy
Commissioner was also consulted and I can tell you that the commissioner is
in agreement with the underlying purpose of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, what is in the bill and what is in the
act, as I am sure people want to know more about it, the Missing Persons Act
allows the police to obtain specific information about a missing person when
the police lack reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has
occurred. So the police receive
a complaint of a missing person, someone calls the police and says a loved
one, family member, friend is missing.
I do not know where that person is.
I am worried about that person for one reason or another.
However, all of those circumstances do not include a criminal offence
then it is this legislation that would deal with those types of
circumstances.
As I mentioned, it is modeled after similar
legislation. The other
legislation exists in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia,
and this one is modelled after Manitoba.
I think Manitoba was the first, and most of the other provinces have
modelled their legislation after Manitoba's as well.
The act allows for the police to apply to a court, a
court of jurisdiction, for a record access order or for a search order.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a record access order allows the police access to
records that may assist in locating the missing person.
That is the intention of this legislation.
There are times when there is information or records that are
available that could assist the police in locating a missing person and
there are times when the holder of that information does not want to or
feels they cannot provide that information because of privacy concerns,
because of contractual obligations or otherwise, and they do not want to
provide that to the police.
Well, the police can now apply to the court for a record access order or a
search order.
What happens is the police would have to apply to the
court, requiring that the person give access to and have requested copies of
specific types of records in respect to the missing person and if a missing
person is a minor or a vulnerable person, records in respect of a third
party can also be requested, if it is believed that they were in the company
of the missing person.
The police must have a reason to believe that the
requested records will do a number of things.
They have to be able to establish this, and they must have a belief
that the records will provide an opportunity to assist them in locating the
missing person and the records are in the possession or under control of the
person being served with the order.
They have to have some grounds of belief.
Before they set out to request the order, they actually have to
believe and be able to establish that the records they are looking for could
assist in finding and locating that missing person; and secondly, that the
person they are asking for the records actually has possession of those
particular records.
Mr. Speaker, under section 6 of Bill 36 there are a
number of records listed. It
outlines a number of records that the police can actually request and search
for. It includes under section
6.(2), The records that may be accessed under a record access order include
(a) records containing contact or identification information; (b) telephone
and other electronic communication records, including (i) records related to
signals from a wireless device that may indicate the location of the
wireless device, (ii) cell phone records, (iii) inbound and outbound text
messaging records, and (iv) internet browsing history records.
Mr. Speaker, those records, we all know, may assist us
in locating a person. A person
may have said I am going to a place today or going to visit a person, or
going to a specific place or visit a specific person.
Sometimes records relating to signals from wireless records because
we know now that cellphones, you can almost track a cellphone anywhere or
any time. We know it can be
done.
The service provider quite often holds that particular
information. The service
providers generally we know are co-operative with the police.
There are times when they say privacy legislation and protection of
people's privacy, we have to be careful.
We are more conscious of privacy information or people's private
information than we ever are before.
Having this will protect those service providers as they provide the
information to the police.
They may have records of the actual location of a
phone. They can also determine
what towers, what repeaters, were utilized in the service of a phone call.
I have seen that myself in the past, in my history as an
investigator, that the cellphone towers, you can actually track a person's
records on their phones and know when they made a call.
It utilized a certain tower.
That helps you to narrow down as well the location where the person
is. They know from their own
usage that if a certain tower is accessed, then there is a geographic area
in which that phone quite likely was utilized.
If a person makes a phone call in Topsail, they are not
likely going to use a repeater in Logy Bay, or use a tower from Logy Bay.
It helps to narrow down those factors as well and can help the police
in locating that person.
Global positioning system tracking records: Many
vehicles today have tracking systems located in the vehicles, emergency
services. They have GPS as well
and having access to those records can locate a vehicle.
Quite often, when you locate the vehicle, it is a good source and
assistance to help actually locate the person.
Video recordings, including closed circuit television
footage: There may be a recording at a local business that will show the
person inside a business and maybe in company with somebody else and they
assist in locating the missing person.
Records of employment, records containing personal
health information: A person may have gone to visit a doctor or a health
professional and had provided information that could assist the police in
locating that person as well.
It includes records from school, university, or other
educational institutions containing attendance information.
Records containing travel and accommodations a very important one
here, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you.
I know in times in the past utilization of a person's debit card and
a credit card, a Visa or MasterCard, that type of thing, can assist.
Then when you find a person used a card at a location of
accommodation, if you can go to that business and obtain the records of what
particular information was provided when a person checked into a hotel, as
an example, then that could assist you in locating a missing person as well.
Also, records containing financial information, again
that goes to debit cards, Visa cards.
Where did a person last make a withdrawal or utilize their debit
card? You may find they used it
in St. John's. They used it in
Clarenville. They used it in
Gander. They used it in Grand
Falls-Windsor. You may say the
last time they used it was in Grand Falls-Windsor, as an example, and that
is the last known place of the person.
That will help the police and assist them in locating a person as
well.
There are other records that the judge considers
appropriate. I caution again
though, Mr. Speaker, in those types of circumstances the police would again
have to establish the important or relevance of the information.
They would have to provide details and information, as to their
belief, of why those records will assist in their investigation.
Mr. Speaker, they are all listed under section 6 which
refers to the section where, A member of a police force who has reasonable
grounds to believe that a person has records respecting a missing person may
apply to a judge for an order requiring the person to give members of the
police force access to, and if requested, copies of, the records
as I just
outlined.
There are also times when there are emergency
circumstances, when police say they have reason to believe that there is a
concern of imminent bodily harm or a concern of death of the missing person
that may happen in an emergency circumstance where they have to act right
away.
As I am speaking here in the House, I can think of
circumstances I have been involved in in the past where there was a known
and very high level immediate concern for locating that person.
In those cases, it just may not be that a written demand for access
to or copies of the records, doing it by court order may not be in the best
interest of locating the missing person.
In that case the police were required to report.
They can access information.
They can make a demand, but they will also have to report to the
commanding officer of their particular police force or police service, and
they will have to file an annual report.
The police service will have to file an annual report with the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety outlining the number of emergency
demands and the type of information that was demanded.
The legislation also allows for that report to be made publicly
available as well.
In a case like that, a police officer is doing an
investigation if a person or loved one says or gives reason to believe there
may be imminent bodily harm to the person or worse.
In a case where the police feel we have to find this person right
away, the circumstances are not conducive to actually going to the court,
completing the order, making the order, and you need to make a demand right
away. The legislation allows for
the police to make an immediate demand upon a holder of information for that
information, but there is also a reporting requirement that occurs after
such a demand has been made.
A search order allows the police to enter a dwelling or
other premises. Mr. Speaker, as
I said, there are two types of demands that can be made.
One is for records and the other one is a search order.
When the police obtain a search order it will allow them to enter a
dwelling or other premises but only on the condition that it is limited to
searching for missing, minor, or a vulnerable person, which is an adult that
is in need of protective intervention as defined in the Adult Protection
Act, or a mentally disabled person as defined in the Mentally Disabled
Persons Estate Act. The police
will be required to make an application to the court and to have reasonable
grounds to believe the minor or the vulnerable person may be in the dwelling
or premises in which they are asking to search.
In the case, Mr. Speaker, of domestic violence victims
who may be fleeing from an abusive type of relationship, this legislation
will not be a tool for an abuser to find them.
This is purely a police investigative tool, because it has been
asked. Well, in a case where a
person is fleeing from an abusive relationship, can an independent person
apply for information? No, they
cannot. It is only the police
who can do that. It would be a
police investigative tool, and the records they found are also kept
confidential.
The police will have the authority to publicly disclose
the missing person's name or photograph, last whereabouts, vehicle
information, circumstances surrounding the disappearance, and also serious
medical concerns that may pose a threat to the person's life.
The police do that regularly now, and the legislation will give that
authority as well. In cases
where individuals are of the opinion that the police acted inappropriately
regarding their information, the person could make a complaint to the Police
Complaints Commission or to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure the legislation is used properly and
for the right person.
We heard from the police when we announced this
legislation last week that they conduct and carry out missing persons
investigations on a regular basis.
In times when a missing person, where the circumstances are there is
no allegation of any criminality, there is no allegation of a criminal
offence against that person that has been committed, circumstances where a
loved one, a family member, it could be a medical practitioner, has concern
for the person's safety and the person cannot be located, the police need to
utilize all of the information and services that are available to locate
that person as quickly as possible.
This legislation is about that.
We know in this day and age, especially, there are
records and electronic records, electronic devices and other records that
can assist the police in finding a missing person as soon as possible.
In these types of cases, it is our intention that it gets an
opportunity to either save a person from bodily harm, or it could save a
person's life. That is what the
legislation is about, Mr. Speaker.
That is what we have brought before the House today, and I encourage
all Members of the House of Assembly to support this legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very happy to be able to stand here today and
speak to Bill 36, An Act Respecting Missing Persons.
Obviously, it is a very important piece of legislation that is being
brought here today, evidenced by the fact that the Premier is speaking to
it.
I do not think there is any need to belabour the points
that the Premier has made. I do
have some comments and questions perhaps that I will put out there, just
some thoughts. Speaking
globally, speaking as a whole, we obviously like the idea of doing whatever
we can to help the authorities locate missing persons.
That needs to be said.
That is on the record. We like
the thought of resources and the lack of legislation that sometimes holds it
up or makes it harder, we get that, and I do not think there is any
disagreement certainly from this side on that purpose.
Where my background I guess kicks in as someone who did
practice criminal defence law is that sometimes you get a fear when the
authorities have unfettered discretion to exercise powers which may infringe
on somebody's civil liberties.
That is the point from which I am speaking right now.
I can say as someone who has had their in my case I
had my health information breached illegally.
It is not a good feeling when somebody is able to get into your
records and look at them without your consent, I can guarantee you that.
Until you have been there, you can talk about it but you do not know.
When you get that letter saying somebody, who you had no idea
existed, was in looking at your files to find out about you.
That is disturbing; it is illegal.
In this case, that person was convicted under the Personal Health
Information Act. So I can say
that.
The trick is we have this measurement, we have this
weighing of the ability for police to do their job to locate a person who is
potentially at risk versus those rights we have as citizens to be free from
search and seizure, to be free to be alone, to be free as lawyers have said,
our home is our castle, to be able to get in there without a warrant.
That is a big thing. That
is a big thing that has come from decades and decades of jurisprudence.
This has been in court more than you can name.
I want to put the context of which I am speaking out there so we can
talk about that.
I hate the thought of a loved one of mine potentially
missing and having the authorities say to me, boy, we are trying our best
but I have to go to court to get this warrant, and I have to go through this
to get there. That would kill
me; but, there is also the potential for people doing things improperly and
for the wrong reasons. We cannot
just toss that aside we cannot.
What I am going to do is I will just speak to that, and
this has been brought up in the media.
There have been other people who have brought this out.
Actually, I am pretty sure that whenever this legislation, which I
believe is in four other provinces, has been brought up these concerns have
been brought by those who are actually seeking to protect people.
We have to have these rights that we must protect.
We have to have that right balance, and that is why I put this out
there.
One of my first concerns when I look at section 2.(c)
of the bill is missing person, a 'missing person' means (i) an individual
whose whereabouts are unknown and who has not been in contact with those
persons who would likely be in contact with the individual
, and it goes
on. My question as to that is
what is the threshold? What is
the actual threshold? At what
point is there a time period?
I know I am speaking now and this is stuff that will
come up in the Committee stage.
I put this out there because I have these questions.
If these concerns can be allayed, then that is the purpose of this
whole process. Nobody wants to
see a rubber-stamping process where we all stand up and we all say
everything is great when it is not.
It is better we put this out now to ensure because we have seen
this before, everybody has, where we talk about legislation and maybe
sometimes we do not think of every possible angle and that angle comes back
to bite you. We saw that last
week where we it never came back but we closed off a loophole that could
have been exploited.
In this section, when am I deemed missing?
When am I deemed a missing person?
What if I am a person who does not speak I do not have a close
family and I do not have friends around.
When am I deemed? Is it
after twenty-four hours? The
Premier, who has a law enforcement background, probably knows this right
now. He will get an opportunity
to explain that.
The other thing too, we know the criminal side of this.
If there is a criminal aspect to this that we are aware of, if we
know that, it is fine, people can go do the warrant and go to the judge with
the application. Hey, that is
great; I like the thought of a judge sitting there hearing the basis for
which we want the warrant to be able to get the information.
That is how this is done.
In this case, when you go further under section 10,
Notwithstanding section 6, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that
immediate access to records is necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm to
or the death of a missing person, a member of the police force may serve a
written demand on any person requiring that person to give members of the
police force access to those records that are in that person's possession or
under the person's control. The
list of records is large.
Records containing contact information, electronic communication, telephone,
wireless, cellphone, text messaging, Internet browsing, GPS, video records,
employment information, personal health information, school records, records
containing travel and accommodation, financial information, and credit
cards.
I get why that is there.
If we have someone that the police believe is in imminent danger, let
us do what we can. For every
action, we have to make sure there is the reaction to it.
We need to make sure that this is not exploited.
We have seen this done.
We do not want that possibility.
What if and this is again the libertarian perhaps in me coming out or the
defence lawyer saying you think that I am missing and I am in harm.
You do not have to put that in front of a judge.
There is no proving to the judge why.
You have the ability to demand those records or to enter into my
house. What if they are in my
house and I have some evidence of wrongdoing there?
I can then be charged for that wrongdoing from a completely unrelated
search that was done warrantless.
I put that out there because that is serious and we need to make sure
that is protected.
This is the balance and I think we are having, I am
not going to say trouble, but I mean this is serious stuff.
This legislation, once it is put into law, we have to abide by it.
We have to live by it. We
cannot just toss this in without it getting proper discretion, even if it
has the most honourable intentions.
I do believe this has the most honourable intentions; I agree fully.
My concern is that like anything, if it is abused, what does it lead
to?
I put that out there.
I think some of my concerns are better exercised through the
Committee stage of this process, but what I would say is that again, I
think my colleague is going to speak to this; this is something we have
brought forward when it comes to Aboriginal and missing women.
We have dealt with this in this House.
My colleagues and colleagues on the other side have spoken to this,
the gravity and the seriousness.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this, and I believe I will take
another opportunity during Committee stage to ask maybe some specific
questions so that members can answer them properly.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have a chance to stand and have a few
words about this piece of legislation, Bill 36, An Act Respecting Missing
Persons. First of all, I guess
as a bit of personal history, a fair part of this bill was developed while I
was serving as the Province's Minister of Justice some year or
year-and-a-half ago. That is one
of the particular reasons that I am very pleased to stand and speak to it.
Mr. Speaker, a number of people, including the Premier,
has talked a bit about what is included in this bill.
I do not want to repeat a lot of that, but what I will say is that
the fundamental purpose of this piece of legislation is to provide law
enforcement with the ability to have greater access to information that will
find someone who is missing. In
its simplest form, that is what we are talking about.
Just to give a little bit of context to where this bill
came from, because I have heard a number of people raise questions about the
timing of the bill and the validity of the bill.
As a matter of fact, I read a transcript of a story from CBS with a
local lawyer who was wrong on no less than three fronts in information that
he supplied as factual about his interpretation of this bill.
The context of this bill, for those who are wondering
why this bill at this particular point in time, this bill started with
discussions back in late 2012.
As people would recall, there was a serious discussion throughout Canada and
I participated in any number of provincial-territorial meetings of Justice
Ministers around the whole issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
We made a significant commitment, as ministers across
Canada, that we needed to do something about this, that there were too many
instances in all of our provinces and territories where people were going
missing and collectively. As a
country of jurisdictions, we felt that we ought to be doing more but the
law, in its current form, did not provide us the opportunity to do more.
That discussion elevated itself to the minister's level
on any number of meetings that I attended and there was certainly unanimous
support for provinces and territories to move forward and try to either
enhance the legislation that currently exists or, where none exists at all,
bring forward legislation that would allow law enforcement in particular to
have the tools, the feasibility, and the ability to secure information that
would be extremely critical in assisting finding people.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about it could be your son,
it could be my daughter, it could anyone of our siblings here in the House
of Assembly today, our parents, our grandparents, or our spouses.
That is what we are talking about at
its most simplistic form. Most
of us on a day-to-day basis, we read about stories, particularly as I said
about the missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
Some of us recall, not that long ago, about a couple who were in
Halifax with roots from Newfoundland and Labrador who went missing for a
period of time and turned up somewhere I do not recall the exact details
I believe it was in New Brunswick.
Many of us, I think, will probably recall that story because it is a
little closer to home.
On any given day, Mr. Speaker, any number of us here in
the Legislature could have family members, children, or spouses affected in
a case where they go missing either because of their own doings or because
of some criminal intent on a part of someone else.
The thrust of this legislation, or the genesis of this
legislation, I should say, is all about recognizing the tremendous stress
that families are placed under when they have loved ones go missing and they
do not know where to go or where to turn.
We are recognizing in this legislation, as I think it has been
mentioned before, we are not the first Province to do this.
There is actually four, I believe, jurisdictions.
I think I have a list here somewhere: Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
and British Columbia are four in particular that have brought this forward.
So this is very much about our government's focus on
public safety, and on ensuring that our communities are safe places in which
to live. In the unwanted
instance where one of our loved ones go missing, we want to make sure that
we are providing the authorities with the proper tools and the ability, in a
better way than they had prior to this legislation, to find information that
will assist them in locating missing persons.
I wanted to share that context because I had some
personal background as more than a year and a half or so of serving as the
Province's Minister of Justice.
As well, people would remember, people in this Legislature who were here
would remember that we did an all-member resolution in the House under
former Premier Marshall back on March 18, 2014 where we called for a
national public inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
This is not a new issue to this House of Assembly.
That particular motion was debated at
length and supported by everyone unanimously in the House of Assembly.
The piece of legislation we are bringing forward today is following
through on commitments that the Premier has made, and that we, as a
government, have made in the past around wanting to make our communities
safer places in which to live and taking the appropriate steps, where
necessary, when someone goes missing.
What this does is it really strengthens the police's
ability to access information, as a number of colleagues have reiterated
before I am not going to repeat all the same things about what they can
do. There are two significant
pieces of information, I think, that people need to recognize here.
This does not provide a police officer on the street by themselves,
independent of anyone else, the ability to do anything different than they
can do today. That piece of the
legislation or piece of criminal law has not changed.
What it does do, however, is it provides two things.
It provides the police force, where there is imminent danger or a
suspicion of death, it provides that an officer or officers, with the
approval of their chief of police so there is a check and a balance there
can take steps that they could not take before this legislation was
brought forward.
The other thing it does is it gives the court the
second change and a judge search warrant powers greater than they have
today. To be clear, because I
have been asked this question a number of times, it does not give police the
overarching ability to simply go and come as they please and to access
information as they so choose, Mr. Speaker.
There are checks and balances in here, and it has to meet a certain
test before approval would be given by the chief of police or a judge in the
court.
The other thing my colleague for Burgeo La Poile
questioned a few moments ago, section 2(c).
He talked about the definition of a missing person.
His question was around what is the threshold or the time frame that
someone has to be missing before they fit this definition.
The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that it is the same
definition, the same threshold that applies today in criminal law.
That has not changed. It
depends on the information that police have.
There are times where police receive information where someone has
been missing for five or six hours, but in their estimation the person is
not missing. Other than someone
saying they are missing, there is nothing else to indicate that there is
something untoward.
There may be other instances, for example, where the
police get a call from a person who says my spouse called three hours ago
and said they are leaving to walk home from the club, maybe a small rural
community. It might trigger a
suspicion that there is something untoward and it might be enough for them
to proceed to investigate.
My point is, to answer the member's question, the
threshold or the time frame that he asks about is not defined here because
it has not changed from the current law.
The current law provides the police with the option to make the
interpretation as to whether they have sufficient grounds to deem someone to
be missing. If they do, then
they proceed to investigate.
That is determined by the police based on the best information available to
them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone for participating
here. I am going to conclude my
remarks because I know there are a number of other people who do want to
speak to this. I wanted, though,
to share my perspective since I was the minister who participated in the
development of the bulk of this bill while I was in the Justice portfolio.
I think it is an important piece of legislation.
I am very proud to stand here and speak to it.
I look forward to moving into Committee and doing my best to answer
any questions that members opposite have.
I do encourage everyone in this House to vote for and support this
bill because in its simplest form, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about any one
of our children, or our spouses, or our family members who could be
affected, could go missing at any time.
This, in my opinion, gives the police the right tools and the right
ability to acquire the information they need, as far as we are able to do so
as legislators at least in finding missing persons.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very happy to stand and to speak to this bill.
First of all, I would like to thank all the folks up in Justice for
the excellent briefing they gave us.
I am sure there were a number of people who worked on this piece of
legislation.
I believe the law that is before us, the act that is
before us, is well intended. I
truly believe that, as all my colleagues have indicated.
I think we are all in agreement of that and there are some very
important aspects to this act. I
will not go over what the intentions of the act are, because my colleagues
have done that so thoroughly. I
think we all understand that and the reason for this act.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation comes
from a desire to protect missing and vulnerable persons, especially youth
who are in danger, because how often have we heard stories of youth who have
been taken into sexual exploitation?
I received a call just on the weekend regarding that kind of
situation.
I believe also that the act is intended to help seniors
with dementia that may go missing.
I believe that the act is intended also to help people who may be
suicidal or are about to harm themselves in some way.
The act is intended to help them in some way.
I believe also that the act is also about protecting or helping women
who may be the target of violence or anybody who is the target of violence.
I applaud this initiative for those reasons.
For some of these cases I have outlined, time is of the
essence. It might mean the
difference of life and death or serious personal harm.
So this is a very important piece of legislation.
I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is major piece
of legislation. Not in volume,
but certainly in scope because any time we give police more access to a
person's private or personal information, we have to be cautious, and we all
know that. I would like to
applaud the police services in our Province, both the RNC and the RCMP, who,
under some of the most difficult circumstances, have to do the type of work
we are talking about, some who are very dedicated and who are so very
determined to help people, to help families find their loved ones.
It is tough work.
Sometimes there are people who do not want to be found.
Sometimes there are people who are in serious harm and sometimes
there are people who have been seriously harmed.
It is our police officers in these situations who are first on the
ground. I would like to applaud
them and thank them. Also, I
would like to thank them in what I am sure has been a consultative role in
this legislation.
My concern with this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker,
is the concerns that have been raised by my colleague from Burgeo La
Poile, but I also have some additional concerns.
I am hoping that I may be able to raise some of them in the Committee
of the Whole, but some of them I want to raise right now, Mr. Speaker,
because I think they are valid concerns, and again because this is a very
serious, major piece of legislation.
I know many people in the House are saying, oh, this is
really good. It is not
problematic. It is giving police
the tools they need to do their work.
None of us can dispute that but, again, the major part of the
legislation that I am concerned about is our need to be cautious in this
realm.
I would like to know, the word consultation has been
thrown about quite liberally here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to know, because I have done some consultation myself on
this issue. I have spoken to
women's groups, I have spoken to Aboriginal groups, I have spoken to
lawyers, and people who have not in fact been consulted.
The two different organizations that I did speak with who were
consulted said it was done very, very briefly.
My concern, Mr. Speaker, is the level of consultation.
We have to not throw that word around in such a cavalier manner.
How comprehensive was that consultation?
How thorough was that consultation?
How methodical was that consultation?
Again, because what we are talking about is access to people's
privacy, which is a fundamental right that we have here in this Province,
that we have here in our country.
I would like to know, who was consulted?
How was that consultation done?
Was the Native Women's Association of Newfoundland and Labrador
consulted? Were the women's
centres in the Province consulted?
Was the Human Rights Commission consulted?
Again, how was that consultation done?
Was the Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter of the Canadian Bar
Association consulted? I would
like to know that.
This government talks about being an open, transparent
government but its relationship with civil society when it is making laws,
they do not have a good track record.
I am concerned about that.
I am particularly concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, because we do
not have a standing committee, a committee process that this act was vetted
through.
If we had a functioning committee process where this
act was taken before the committee, we would know that there would be a
public, transparent consultation process.
That is what is not apparent here.
That needed to be done with such a major piece of legislation, not
because of its volume but because of the scope.
In terms of our own democratic principles, this should
have gone through our standing legislative committee where we can talk about
what are the ramifications. We
need to be able to call in experts on this type of legislation.
We need to consult thoroughly and comprehensively in an open and
transparent way with civil society, with people in the field.
To just, in a cavalier manner, throw around the word consultation
does not do it.
This type of legislation needs absolute scrutiny.
My colleague and I, myself, as well
would raise the issue of what is the definition of a missing person?
What is the threshold?
How long is a person missing before we would go through this?
This type of legislation needs to be constitutionally sound.
It still needs to be able to advance the goal in a safe and sensible
way, we all agree to that. We
all see how necessary that is.
We can commend the government for taking the stand and
for taking the initiative to introduce this kind of legislation.
The portion on minors or vulnerable persons quite possibly is
constitutional, but beyond that this piece of legislation might be
constitutionally vulnerable in the definition of missing person.
We need to address that.
For instance, when someone's records are found, how
long will the records be kept by police?
Once the person is found, are those records that have been accessed
then destroyed? We do not know.
I am sure we will be able to talk about some of this in Committee.
However, if we had a standing legislative committee structure, we
would have been able to examine these kinds of issues before coming to the
House, thereby making our debate more focused, and also meaning that a lot
of these problems would have been addressed before coming to the House.
One of the reasons I also am raising some of these
issues, Mr. Speaker, is because of the concerns.
We know that Manitoba has this legislation, BC does, Nova Scotia, and
Alberta. What I have here is a
letter written by the Privacy Commissioner in BC.
She wrote to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General at the
Ministry of BC, February 14, 2014, addressing some of the concerns that she
has in their legislation.
Government is saying our legislation is based loosely
on the number of provinces that already have existing legislation now, and
more so focused in on Manitoba's.
She has identified some very significant concerns that she has.
One of them in particular is when the police do an emergency access
to information, when they do not go before a judge, she asked that that
request for access to information not only go to the supervising officer but
also directly to her office, because she said she needs to be able to
understand.
She said, I understand and endorse the need to
expedite the production of records in instances where a missing person's
life or safety may be in danger we can all understand that or where
there is imminent risk of destruction of those records.
No one has brought that up but we know it can be a danger that
someone may destroy cellphone records or records on somebody's computer.
We know how important at times it is that the police can work in a
very fast manner around these.
She says, However, I am concerned that Bill 3 which
is their bill authorizes this expedited access without providing for
sufficient transparency or oversight of emergency demands for records by
police forces, and without limiting subsequent disclosure of that
information for purposes other than locating missing persons.
Mr. Speaker, she is raising some concerns.
She had three proposed amendments to their act.
This was only February, 2014.
These are things we need to look at.
If we had gone through a legislative committee process we could have
been raising these kinds of issues.
Also, the issues that are raised by other civil society groups that
have not been consulted in our Province.
I know they have not been consulted because I have asked them if they
have been consulted.
For instance, the Native Women's Association here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, the Women's Centres have not been consulted.
The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women was consulted
very briefly she told me, very briefly.
I raised with her some of the issues that have been raised by Transition
Houses in BC; she did not know about that.
MR. KING:
Transition Houses were consulted.
MS ROGERS:
Transition Houses were consulted, and he said it was a very brief
consultation as well. He was not
able to meet with them.
This is a major piece of legislation it is a major
piece of legislation and we need to have a public, transparent,
accountable consultation process.
MR. KING:
You are talking about BC legislation; this is Newfoundland legislation.
MS ROGERS:
I know that is what it is.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I can hear what the minister has to say; however, we know that
this requires very open and transparent consultation processes, and that has
not happened.
Again, if we had had a legislative committee where this
act would have gone through that legislative committee we could be sure that
civil society was thoroughly involved, that any expert on the ground would
have had the opportunity to have input.
Was the Newfoundland and Labrador chapter of the
Canadian Bar Association consulted?
Was the Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador
consulted? I doubt it, Mr.
Speaker, because the minister is not saying that they have.
Again, this is serious, serious legislative changes,
and we are suffering a democratic deficit in this House because we do not
have a committee structure that would look at these kinds of situation.
The BC Society of Transition Houses has complaints on theirs.
The Aboriginal of Alberta says that their act is not helping missing
and murdered Aboriginal women.
The Nova Scotia folks, civil society, have problems with theirs.
Mr. Speaker, we know that this act is very important.
We know why this act was introduced.
I believe that the intent was honourable, but I am concerned for a
piece of legislation that has a such broad scope is being rushed through
this House. It is being rushed
through this House because why
MR. KING:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of
order.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is no piece of legislation being rushed through
this House. We are in second
reading, and every single member on the floor of this House today has the
right to speak to this if they want to.
The member is absolutely wrong to use that kind of language here
today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to members of civil
society, whether it be lawyers or women's groups, people who are concerned
about this bill, some of them have major concerns.
It could be possible that their concerns could be alleviated in
Committee; maybe that is possible.
However, if we had had a true consultative process, we would not be
at this point here today raising these kinds of issues.
Certain organizations we have seen across the country
have raised issue and have raised concerns with similar acts in their
provinces. We know that it is
important that we have to again, I applaud government's attempt at this.
I applaud the intent of the legislation; however, we have to leaven
it with important discussion and we have to hear from experts on the ground.
So, I need to hear from government exactly what their
consultation process was, how thorough and comprehensive it was.
It certainly has not been open and transparent, unless government in
fact unless the minister is willing to deliver notes on the deliberation
and consultation with outside groups and organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat at this point.
I do want to reiterate that I have concerns with this.
I have concerns with the process of how this act has come to the
House, that it should have gone through our Standing Committee legislative
process before it came to the House in this way.
Again, I want to stress that I have concerns with the level of
consultation that took place with people on the ground, with organizations
in civil society, because this is a piece of legislation that will affect
many.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Placentia St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to be able to offer some comments on
Bill 36, a very important, very significant piece of legislation, a bill
that enhances the powers or the abilities of the police in missing persons'
investigations.
As the minister said earlier, it is a bill that has
been on the go for some time. A
lot of discussion, a lot of deliberation has gone into it and a lot of
consultation, contrary to what the hon. member across the way just got on
with. In terms of Aboriginals,
all the Aboriginal groups were consulted: Innu Nation, Sheshatshiu, and the
Qalipu, as well as the Status of Women and Transition House.
There has been no end of consultation, Mr. Speaker, on this.
I will speak to that more in a minute.
Mr. Speaker, in talking about missing persons, we have
all had at some time or other some experience with a missing person, albeit
maybe missing for a short period of time.
We have all experienced some anxiety or trauma over somebody who has
been missing, who has not shown up on time, who has been gone for a little
while, whether it has been out to sea and have not returned on time, was in
the woods and have not come out on time.
Whether it is a parent and a son or daughter who has not been on time
at night and you are wondering where she is, and you cannot find that person
and all her friends are home, and you do not know where the person is.
There is an anxiety and trauma that goes with that.
That pales in comparison, Mr. Speaker, to a missing
person as defined under this act, a person who has been missing for days or
a person who has not made contact, who has not shown up for work, who has
not been in contact with the people who they ordinarily make contact with,
or if the person has a mental or physical incapacity and is in a vulnerable
position. These are all
situations that create a tremendous amount of anxiety and trauma on the part
of loved ones and families. We
have all experienced a little bit of that or know people who do.
There have been situations and I have been in this
situation, I am sure many people in this House have where you go into
public buildings and you see posters of missing children or missing persons.
They have been missing for some time.
We realize these people all had families.
They all had mothers and all had fathers, and the anxiety and trauma
that these people go through when these people are missing and they are not
being found.
The member across in the NDP mentioned the murdered and
missing Aboriginal women and the minister referred to that.
I myself attended a number of summits, when I was minister, of
Aboriginal leaders and political leaders on that very issue.
I listened to the impact statements given by relatives and friends of
murdered and missing Aboriginal women.
It was traumatic and the emotion just to hear the pleas from these
people for help. This House
supported a demand for a federal inquiry into that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. F. COLLINS:
The whole issue of trauma and anxiety of that
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Standing Order 9 of our Standing Orders says if the
business of the House is not concluded by 5:30 then the Speaker would leave
the Chair and return at 7:00 o'clock.
I understand from the Government House Leader there may be a will to
do something different than that.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With leave of the House, we consulted with both
Opposition parties and an agreement is reached that we would continue on
until we finish debate on second reading.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, we are certainly pleased to stay here and debate this bill as long as
necessary.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, leave?
MS MICHAEL:
(Inaudible) the same way, we are here to debate it as long as necessary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There was an in camera Management Commission meeting
scheduled for 5:30, and depending on what time this debate ends tonight, if
members would be willing to come to the Speaker's boardroom after and we
will conduct that meeting but
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Placentia St. Mary's to continue.
MR. F. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the experiences that we
all share pale in comparison to some of the cases that are reported to
police. I am not going to go
into details in this act with regard to what missing persons are; previous
speakers have already done that.
Mr. Speaker, when these cases are reported to the
police time is of the essence.
Time is of the essence and it is crucial to get as much information on the
missing person right away. That
is where this act comes in.
If I remember correctly from the press conference the
other day, I believe I heard the RNC Chief saying that 1,200 files were
reported last year of missing people.
Granted, a lot of these people were not missing for long and some of
them showed up, but there were 1,200 files of missing people.
That is quite a lot. It
is crucial to get timely information, to strike while the iron is hot in
other words, to get information right away.
The quicker you get that information the better off the investigation
goes.
Mr. Speaker, currently police cannot do that, as the
Premier pointed out in his presentation.
Police are restricted by the Criminal Code of Canada because there
has to be evidence of a criminal activity before this kind of information
can be sought in a missing person investigation and there has to be evidence
of a criminal wrongdoing. Police
cannot compel a third party to give this information.
They cannot compel a third party to give this information, whether it
is personal information, identification information, banking records, or
telephone records. They cannot
compel a third party to do that unless there is some criminal activity on
the go and some criminal investigation on the go.
Currently, the code restricts that.
If there is no criminal offence, then they cannot get the
information. It is as simple as
that.
To get around that limitation that is set up by the
Criminal Code of Canada, that is where this act comes in.
A lot of jurisdictions in Canada have enacted this missing person's
legislation. It is not rocket
science here. We are not
reinventing the wheel, as the Member for St. John's Centre might suggest.
Four or five other provinces already did that.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Uniform Law
Conference of Canada has adopted a model code for missing persons.
It is based on the Manitoba model, and our model is based on the
Manitoba model. When you are
talking about the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Mr. Speaker, you are
talking about a group of people, government lawyers, private lawyers,
analysts, law reformers, who get to (inaudible) early in the last century to
discuss law reform in this country.
If they have adopted a model piece of legislation that ours is based
on, then I think we have done pretty well.
I do not think there is much to worry about.
Now, I want to just briefly touch on the disclosure and
the privacy bit. Every time a
law is made it restricts or impairs somebody's liberties.
That is the nature of laws.
They restrict a person's liberties.
They have to, but when that happens there are always people who come
to the forefront, and we are seeing them here today.
We have seen them in the media: we are creating a police state;
giving too much power to the police; interfering and impairing civil
liberties.
Mr. Speaker, we have Charter rights to protect that.
If according to the Charter the interference or the impairment is
only minimal and not enough to restrict the intent of the act, then that is
a perfectly good law. Mr.
Speaker, this law strikes a good balance between access to information and
protecting people's rights. The
rules for disclosure are clearly set out, what you can do with this
information.
For a person like myself, who has been involved with
this kind of legislation in many occasions, I have no concerns whatsoever
with the use of this information, or the disclosure of this information by
the police. I think it is
necessary. It is a minimal
impairment on people's rights in order to be able to enhance investigations
of missing persons. It is a law
that protects residents. If
there is a complaint in the way the information is used, you can complain to
the police commission. There is
an avenue there for that.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker I will not take
any more time on it. The purpose
of this bill is to help the police in missing person's investigations so as
to get information in a timely fashion as quickly as possible because that
is crucial. The rules for
disclosure are clear, and it is a good balance between access to information
and then protection of privacy rights.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to speak for a few minutes also to Bill 36, An
Act Respecting Missing Persons.
This Bill would allow members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to access records about a missing person
that may assist them in locating the missing person; and to enter a dwelling
or other premises to search for a missing minor or vulnerable person.
Mr. Speaker, I took a couple of days last week and I
was having a look over the bill, like a number of my colleagues.
While the overarching theme of this is wonderful, of course there are
a couple of concerns that I want to outline.
The intention here of Bill 36 is to speed up the search for missing
persons. We will all agree here
in this House that is paramount to the safety of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, I was involved last winter after Loretta
Saunders, a young lady from my home area of Labrador, went missing in
February ironically enough, I have to add for the record, at the time
doing her thesis on missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
At that time our provincial Legislature and all three parties joined
with groups across Canada calling for a national inquiry into murdered and
missing Aboriginal women.
Mr. Speaker, we know that Aboriginal women are five
times more likely to be violently attacked than non-Aboriginal women.
There are over 800 cases right now of missing and murdered Aboriginal
women in Canada.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Over 1,000.
MS DEMPSTER:
Over 1,000 now, my colleague corrects me, the Member for Torngat.
He would know because he is from a district that certainly have their
share of issues related to this, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker.
We know that in the first twenty-four hours, Mr.
Speaker, when somebody goes missing, anything that we can do to help
expedite that, the more likelihood the person will be found.
I have been in circumstances unfortunately where we have had close
ties to people who have gone missing.
During that time of the search, I can tell you that every hour does
seem like days and months.
Anything that we can do, Mr. Speaker, to expedite that,
then I believe we have an obligation, and it is important to do so because
we know that too many in our Province go missing every year.
That is one of the reasons why we called for a federal inquiry for
missing and murdered Aboriginal women after the Loretta Saunders case.
Mr. Speaker, some of my questions are around: How will
the legislation be enforced? I
guess I am wondering: What resources do the police have to be able to use
the legislation effectively?
When I was looking through the briefing, the bill, it
talked about the information now will include cellphone records and text
messages. I come from an area in
the coastal communities where we do not have cell coverage.
So, we are not going to help increase finding missing persons through
their cellphone records or their text messages, I do not believe.
Prior to my coming in the House, we had the sad story
of Burton Winters. My colleague
for Torngat was involved in the search.
It was my colleague who reached in his pocket and found his
cellphone, Mr. Speaker, and that was no good to him.
I feel it is important to share that.
Many times we stand in this House and we bring
petitions forward and we are looking for things like cellphone coverage.
Maybe it is not feasible for every small community to have cellphone
towers and there is only so much money, but I believe we can be doing more.
There are things like Wi-Fi repeaters at a much, much cheaper cost
that we can put into some of these communities.
They may not have cellphone coverage, but most people now have
iPhones and things like that and we can actually have a connect with people
through Wi-Fi, Mr. Speaker.
I want to draw attention to that because while this
information includes things like cellphone records being able to be
accessed, there are a number of communities, Aboriginal communities
predominately, I would say, do not have this so it will not be applicable to
them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know there are concerns that easier
access to personal information could violate privacy, but I think we must
ensure the access is used properly.
I was thinking back, as I was looking at the bill, for over eight
years I sat on a health authority and there were a number of times that
board members we received letters from people whose privacy and
confidentiality had been breached.
They felt very exploited, very exposed.
They felt very violated in their personal rights.
I have not been there myself.
I hope I am never there.
So when people are saying we are very concerned about
easier access to personal information and the privacy that could be violated
there, they are very justified in those concerns.
I believe we have to have confidence and some faith in the RCMP and
in the RNC that they will be very careful and only use the information that
they have access to for the purpose it is intended for.
I also want to commend the RCMP and the RNC for the
work they do back in our coastal communities.
A lot of times, Mr. Speaker, they are operating with very little
resources in some very challenging conditions.
It is a small area. You
come in as professionals into those communities and you get to know some of
the families very well. They
feel the weight of the search that they get involved in and they do some
tremendous work. I want to
acknowledge them here today for that.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take my full time, but
while it is a good piece of legislation, anything that we can do to reduce
the numbers of the people who go missing every year, I think it is a
wonderful thing. We still do
have a number of questions. I
have enjoyed listening to the debate here this afternoon and I will listen
intently to the rest of the speakers.
The purpose of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to give
the police another tool. Any
time I believe that we can play a role with legislation like this to give
police more ammunition no pun intended to do the work better, then that
is a positive thing. We will
just have to trust that the access to information records that they will
have that they currently cannot access will be a positive thing, will be
held in strictest confidence, and will not be abused in any way.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, without this provincial
legislation we know that the police need to use the Criminal Code of Canada.
Nobody wants us to continue there because oftentimes in many cases
and we know of circumstances in our own small communities where a missing
person's case is often not criminal in nature.
Mr. Speaker, in our small communities I want to say
that most of the time family and friends co-operate anyway.
Family and friends will provide whatever information that they deem
is necessary because everybody wants to bring that missing person home safe.
Mr. Speaker, we know that similar statutes exist in the
Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia.
I am happy now that it is being brought into our Province.
I look forward to listening to further debate.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 36 today.
It is certainly a privilege to follow the speakers who have gone
before me today, who can certainly explain the bill in a lot more detail
than I can, especially our Premier, who introduced the bill; my colleague
for Placentia St. Mary's, former Justice Minister and lawyer; our House
Leader, of course, who was Justice Minister; and the Opposition House
Leader, who is also a lawyer.
So, these people are well informed on the actual bill itself and what it
entails.
Basically what we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker,
is another tool for our police force to apply best practices and that is
what we are trying to do here today.
As was stated before, consultations were done, were done with the
women's groups, and the Aboriginal groups, and also with the Privacy
Commissioner, because that is an important piece as well, protecting
people's privacy.
Basically, the bill would allow members of the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to access
records about a missing person that may assist them in locating the missing
person and to enter a dwelling or other premises to search for a missing
minor or vulnerable person.
Now, Mr. Speaker, like I said, the bill was certainly
explained in detail and adlibbed by a lot of people.
I would just like to speak on basically two definitions of the bill
today, and just make it more clear and it is in print, and it is easy to
basically understand it. The two
definitions one is missing person; 'missing person' means (i) an
individual whose whereabouts are unknown and who has not been in contact
with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual.
So, that is basically the definition of a missing person.
The other definition that I would like to touch on is
the record access order. That
particular one, A member of a police force who has reasonable grounds to
believe that a person has records respecting a missing person may apply to a
judge for an order requiring the person to give members of the police force
access to, and if requested, copies of, the records set out in subsection
(2) respecting a missing person that (a) may assist the police force in
locating the missing person; and (b) are in the possession or under the
control of the person. (2) The
records that may be accessed under a record access order include (a) records
containing contact or identification information; (b) telephone and other
electronic communication records, including (i) records related to signals
from a wireless device that may indicate the location of the wireless
device, (ii) cell phone records, (iii) inbound and outbound text messaging
records, and (iv) internet browsing history records; (c) global positioning
system tracking records; (d) video records, including closed circuit
television footage; (e) records containing employment information; (f)
records containing personal health information; (g) records from a school,
university or other educational institution containing attendance
information; (h) records containing travel and accommodation information;
(i), records containing financial information; and (j) other records the
judge considers appropriate.
This, in itself, is going to be a great tool for our
police force to be able to locate a missing person in a reasonable time,
hopefully. Like my colleagues
prior who spoke earlier to this particular bill that is a very important
piece of legislation that is going to help the police force to hopefully
find that missing person, especially ones who are vulnerable and possibly
could cause harm to themselves, which is very important.
It seems like most of the members here today in this
House are supporting this piece of legislation because of the need for it
and being able to provide the police force with this very important piece of
legislation, this very important tool, to apply best practices.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time; it was a
privilege. Hopefully, we will
all support this piece of legislation.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to have some time to make some points with
regard to Bill 36, An Act Respecting Missing Persons.
I will not go into all the details of the act that have been made,
points that have been made by others when they have spoken.
I think we all do recognize the need for an act to assist in the
situation of people who are definitely missing and who could be in danger.
There is no doubt about that.
I would like this act to have some fine points in it
that are not in it, yet when the time comes I know that we will vote for
it because we do need an act, but I am going to bring forward some thoughts
that I hope the minister is listening to and will take seriously.
It is not frivolous to bring up these points.
I want to make a general comment first with regard to
the whole thing of going to judges to seek court orders for different
situations. I am going to use an
example that does not have to do with missing persons but does have to do
with seeking court orders.
Judges make their decisions based on the information that is brought to
them. I know that if they need
clarity they will ask questions of clarity, but I have had stories brought
to me about court orders being given with regard, for example, to children
being taken from what were deemed to be serious situations.
A couple of the ones that I can think of where a social
worker it is a different situation, but it is a parallel turns up at a
door at night maybe, some of the ones brought to me were at night, and even
police with the social worker saying that they have a court order to take a
child out of the home because there has been some indication that the child
is in danger.
I am aware of situations where the information was
completely false and that the child who was taken out of the home went
through trauma for three or four or five days while they were in a foster
situation, and after days it was proven the child had not been in danger and
the child was returned home. The
judge who gave the order that allowed that to happen was basing his or her
decision on information that was being presented to him or her.
Based on that information, the judge gave a court order.
So, concern that has been raised on some of the points
around this bill are similar to that.
Concerns that I have read coming from some of the people who spoke
out in other provinces, on whose legislation we have based this piece of
legislation, are concerns around the whole issue of even court orders are
being sought, why isn't there somebody present to give maybe there is
another side to the story that needs to be presented before a court order is
given for accessing the private information that is being sought.
I am speaking to the general of going into the judges
at this point on trying to seek a court order in able to access the private
information that is being sought.
I think that point about court orders, when they are sought, the
judge is only hearing one side of the story.
I think that is a very, very valid situation.
For example, when the BC Society of Transition Houses
raised issues out in British Columbia when their legislation was being put
in place, they made the point of what if the person who is missing is being
abused by a partner, and the police are acting on the information from the
abusive partner that the person is missing.
They get a court order or they take an emergency action, one or the
other. They are doing it based
on the information from somebody who is abusing the person who has tried to
run away.
We have a weakness in our system and I do not know, I
am not sure that you can put it in legislation how you make sure you get
protection for the person who may be in that kind of an abusive situation.
You can have a minor, for example, who is also in an abusive home and
the minor has run away because of abuse.
I know the people at the Department of Justice did have
some answers for that when they were questioned in the briefing.
I do thank them for the briefing.
I was not part of that, but I do understand it was a very good
briefing and people were very, very pleased with it.
They do have answers for that and, in some cases, the answer would
work.
For example, if you have somebody who is being abused
and if the police do get the access to private information from the abuser,
not knowing it is an abuser, and then when they find the person who is
missing the person indicates that she in most cases it is a she; it could
also be a he is actually living with an abusive person and that is why she
has run away, then the police would not bring her back to that place.
That sounds nice on paper, it sounds nice and neat, but it might not
always work that way. You may
end up finding the person who is missing and she is so terrified of the
abuser that maybe will not say that and will go back.
There are complications.
It becomes more complicated when it is happening in an emergency
situation, which the bill allows for, and the police are making a decision
based on a moment I can understand the reason for it, the fear that maybe
the person who is missing, that their life is in danger.
They have to take some immediate actions in order to make sure that
an emergency does not happen.
That is understandable, but you do have the possibility of somebody being
returned to a situation that is not a good situation.
As I have said, maybe it is not in legislation that
kind of thing gets dealt with.
Maybe that gets dealt with in regulations, but I think it is a consideration
that the minister needs to give attention to and address.
It also has to be dealt with in an open and transparent way.
Open and transparency is something I want to look at as well.
In British Columbia and I think it is legitimate for
us to use some of the reactions or feedback from organizations in a province
that has the legislation on which we are basing our legislation.
In British Columbia, the Information and Privacy Commissioner wrote
the Minister of Justice with regard to their legislation that was put in
place. Her concern was openness
and transparency when talking about the emergency disclosure, police going
after an emergency disclosure as section 10 of our legislation discusses.
One of the things she points out again, I put this
forward for the minister to consider.
She recommended that her office be notified after an emergency
disclosure demand is made. Her
reason for that, is so that as the Information and Privacy Commissioner she
could monitor, number one, how many times throughout a year this mechanism
was used by the police and also evaluate over time whether they are being
undertaken in an effective manner that is proportional to the privacy
impacts on the individual whose records are disclosed.
This privacy dimension is extremely important.
I think there is another piece that adds to that.
Is that if people have had their information accessed in whatever
form that is, whatever records they are you know there are many, many ways
in legislation that have described the records that may be accessed and what
they are.
Sometimes a third party might have records accessed as
well. The Information and
Privacy Commissioner is very concerned that anybody who has had their
information accessed should be notified within a reasonable time that their
information has been accessed. I
think that is extremely important.
As she put it in her letter to the Minister of Justice
in BC, individuals should know who is in possession of their personal
information and the purpose to which that information is being put.
She also recommended that individuals whose information is collected,
pursuant to the Missing Persons Act, be notified of that fact within a
reasonable period of time after the information is collected.
Now, I do not see that in our bill.
However, that is something that could be put in a regulation.
We do not have to rewrite the bill.
That could be put in a regulation.
I think it is extremely important.
While I know we want to protect people and that is the intent of this
bill, and I realize that, and we
do not want to speak against that, at the same time we have to be concerned
about the access to one's own personal information.
So, listening to what an Information and Privacy Commissioner has put
forward I think is extremely important.
I think I may have one more point that I would like to
make, if you will just give me a second.
The dangers that are inherent in this are dangers that can be dealt
with. There is no doubt about
that. That is what I would
encourage the minister to look at.
I am going to come back to the earlier point I made.
The bill says, A judge who is satisfied on oath or affirmation that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that a missing person who is a minor
or a vulnerable person may be in a dwelling or other premises may make an
order authorizing members of a police force to enter, by force if necessary,
the dwelling or other premises and search for the missing person.
That looks really logical but, again, the judge is
making a judgement on reasonable grounds based on limited information.
So, I think we really have to make sure there is a process.
Now this is part of the larger judicial system, I do realize, but we
do have to make sure there is a process whereby a judge can be satisfied
that he or she has all the necessary information.
I cannot overstate that point, Mr. Speaker.
These are the two major points for me.
Making sure that, in general, when a judge's approval for a court
order is sought, that the judge has all the information that one can have.
Again, that may be something that could be put in regulation.
Once again, the process is not finished just with the bill.
The second one is my concern about the seeking of the
emergency information and whether it is an emergency situation or
information sought by a court order.
In both of those cases, people who had their information accessed
should, within a reasonable time, be notified that has happened.
They should know. They
should be able to find out who is it who actually has that information.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and look
forward to some responses from the minister.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader speaking to close debate at second
reading.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity to close debate on this
particular bill, and I will try and take a few minutes to address a number
of points that have been made by various speakers.
To set the stage for the closure of the debate I
think the clock needs to be fixed here as well, Mr. Speaker, just a point of
interest.
To set the stage, I will share a couple of comments
that I shared when I spoke at the beginning of this debate.
The geniuses or the initiation of this particular piece of
legislation was several years ago.
A number of colleagues of mine had a hand in this, I did as well.
My colleague from Placentia St. Mary's was a part of the initial
discussions, national discussions that occurred with justice ministers where
there was a very strong identified need to do what we can to provide police,
law enforcement, with more tools and more opportunities, perhaps is the
word, to seek the necessary information required to assist them in finding
missing people.
There was a national debate around missing and murdered
Aboriginal women, as I already alluded to.
A result of that debate at the national level was strong consensus
and commitment by all justice public safety ministers across Canada that we
would work to try and strengthen or enact new legislation with respect to
this, and that is the reason why we are here.
The second reason why we are here with this today is because of this
government's continued commitment to public safety and to keeping our
communities safe for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
As has been mentioned by previous speakers, we are
really talking about a change here from the current legislation which really
necessitates the demonstration that a crime has been committed by police in
order to gain court support and court access to records and documentation
that would assist them in an investigation.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that it has been noted over
the last number of years, with the increased focus on individuals' rights to
have protection of privacy, that third parties have become very much
reluctant and, in some cases, not willing at all to participate in sharing
of information because of fear that they in some way were violating
someone's rights. So, the fact
is that the police's ability to solve these types of crimes has been, if
anything, more restricted in the last number of years because of the
heightened sensitivities around individual's rights to have their privacy
protected.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, does not violate the
rights of people's ability to have their privacy protection.
It speaks very strongly to that, in fact, and provides a litmus test.
For example, in this particular legislation, we are talking about an
ability to apply to a court to have access to records, and any number of
members have talked about the kinds of records.
The records we have talked about here today are just examples.
Any number of records could help police solve a missing person crime
if it happens to be a crime, Mr. Speaker also, search orders. The one
instance where a court order is not required is if there is some reason to
suspect that there is imminent danger or, in fact, a death may occur.
In all cases, an individual police officer cannot make
that determination on their own.
If they do not apply to the court, they have to go to their commanding
officer. That is the first point
I want to make on that. It is
very important for people to understand that.
We are not giving police on the street the ability to do what they
want, when they want. They still
require the support of either their commanding officer, or the court, Mr.
Speaker.
As well, I want to touch on a couple of comments that
have been made here in particular.
First of all, I want to reference the Member for Cartwright L'Anse
au Clair, and I want to thank her for her commentary around the work that
the RCMP and the RNC do in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I agree with her.
Having spent almost a year-and-a-half as the Justice Minister, they
do tremendous work. There are
always going to be instances with them where mistakes are made, no different
than whether you are a teacher or a doctor or a lawyer, mistakes get made.
On par, the work that
we
get from law enforcement in this Province is superb and all of us ought to
be thankful for the commitment we receive from them.
I want to thank the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au
Clair. She also strongly
endorsed the legislation and thought it was a very positive thing.
She made the comment to make sure that it is not abused.
I agree; we have to make sure, any time we bring in this kind of
legislation, that there are checks and balances so that there is not an
abuse of the legislation. That
is why again, I reiterate, that this does not give police the ability to do
what they want, when they want.
They minimally have to seek the approval of their commanding officer and, in
most cases, they have to seek the approval of the court.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that is important because
a number of members from the Third Party talked about transparency.
Under this legislation, in all instances where these emergency orders
are sought by police or their commanding officer, there has to be a
published annual report made public, highlighting all of the cases and all
of the instances and times where they had used this emergency order to
access third-party information.
In fact, it is a very transparent process, Mr. Speaker.
None of this can be done without it being documented and available to
the public. I think that is an
important point that needs to be underscored here.
The other point that the Member for St. John's Centre
focused on was a lack of consultation.
I take exception to that in a very strong way because, if anything,
we have consulted widely on this particular piece of legislation.
My colleague for Placentia St. Mary's and also for Exploits talked
at length about that. I have a
list here, Mr. Speaker; I can table it, if people want to see it.
We have consulted with Aboriginal groups, the Innu
Nation, the Sheshatshiu First Nation, the Nunatsiavut Government, the RNC,
the RCMP, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the
Transition House of Newfoundland and Labrador, other women's groups, and,
most importantly because I challenged the Member for St. John's Centre on
this a little earlier, talking about legislation in other provinces like BC,
then introducing challenges with the BC legislation, and a letter that was
brought forward by the Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.
I want to make two points on that.
First of all, we are not debating British Columbia legislation here
today; we are debating Newfoundland and Labrador legislation.
Secondly, we consulted the Privacy Commissioner of Newfoundland and
Labrador. What is relevant to
this legislation is not what the commissioner of British Columbia had to say
about British Columbia legislation.
What is relevant is what the Newfoundland Privacy Commissioner had to
say about the Newfoundland and Labrador legislation.
In this Province, our Privacy Commissioner supports this bill as is
being brought forward before the House.
I think it is very important for people to be reminded
of that as often as we can because if you only catch and small glimpse of
the debate, the Member for St. John's Centre simply paints a picture that is
totally false and inaccurate about how this legislation was developed.
There was significant input sought from many groups.
Like developing any legislation, you do not get to include sometimes
everything that everybody wants.
We recognize that. I am sure the
member could raise points and say yes, I talked to this person who wanted
this in there, I talked to another person who wanted that in there, but that
is always the case when you are developing legislation.
You can never please everyone, but you cannot accuse us of not
consulting because we did not necessarily include everything everybody
wanted.
There was extensive consultation completed on this and
we have the support of those groups and we have the support of the Privacy
Commissioner. That, for me, is
extremely important. The other
thing that is very important is it is really a smack at democracy and a
smack at the Members of the House of Assembly when a member stands here and
says you are rushing legislation through.
Our process is very transparent and very defined.
For anybody who has been in this House of Assembly very long and read
our rules of order, it is very clear that we do Notices of Motion, which
lets the public and the House know we are going to debate legislation; we do
first reading; and once second reading comes, every member of this House who
wants to speak is entitled to a time allotment.
Generally, it is twenty minutes, other than for those who introduced
the legislation and the Premier, and I believe the Leader of the Opposition.
When we get to Committee stage, as long as there are
intervening speakers, members can speak as long as they want.
Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to stray off topic, but I think it is
important for people following the debate to understand that.
There is no rush to this legislation.
Like any other piece of legislation, the debate stops when members of
the House have had their say or they do not want to speak or they feel that
the debate has been exhausted.
That is it and if members want to continue speaking
MR. EDMUNDS:
Filibuster.
MR. KING:
I hear my hon. colleague for Torngat Mountains chatting there and he is
absolutely right. Members can
filibuster and talk all day. As
long as there are two speakers, legislation debate can continue, so there is
nobody rushing this legislation.
I want to make that point very clear.
This legislation is far too important to the Premier
and to this government, and I hear at least from Members of the Opposition
and I do believe the members of the NDP, in spite of raising concerns with
this, I do believe they support this legislation and they recognize that it
is a good piece of legislation.
There is no one rushing it, Mr. Speaker.
We will stay here as long as it takes to debate this piece of
legislation.
The Leader of the Third Party also raised concern
around whether or not there is opportunity for abuse here in terms of
engaging a judge for purposes of court order and whatever other process is
required under the legislation.
I can only say that I have confidence in the justice
system. I qualify that by going
back to my previous comment that nothing is perfect.
There are times when things happen that could have been done a little
better, there is no question about that.
We have to have faith in judges to make appropriate decisions.
We have to trust that our law enforcement officials are bringing
forward the appropriate information that will assist judges in making their
decision.
I did hear the hon. member make mention to the fact
that maybe judges need to hear the other side of the story.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the other side of the story is why the
legislation is here. That is the
missing person. If someone puts
in a claim that a person is missing, the only one to debate the other side
of that story is the person who is missing.
That is very difficult to do, but I do accept the member's concern,
no question.
All of us have to strive to make sure that legislation
that is brought before here that gives police enhanced powers, that there
are strict controls over that so we do not abuse the power.
I accept that and commit that we will relay those concerns to our law
enforcement officials. None of
us want to see something like that happen, where there is an abuse in any
particular way. The focus here
is intended to be positive and to support us in finding persons who are
missing.
The other comment I want to speak to is the Leader of
the Third Party talked about that it is possible I think she said based on
her understanding, but I do not want to put her words in her mouth.
I think she made reference to a situation where it is possible that
the police find someone and return the person to an unhealthy relationship
or unhealthy situation. That
cannot happen here against the person's will.
The legislation provides for the police to find the
person. Once the person is
located, if the person self identifies that they are there because they want
to be there, for whatever reason the case is closed.
It is over, and nothing further is disclosed to anyone about where
the person is, including the location.
There would be no opportunity for a person to be
located and returned to an abusive relationship unless the person
acknowledged they wanted to do that.
I suggest to you that is a different issue that we do need to debate
because that happens every day as well.
The legislation provides the protection there, that
once a person is located, Mr. Speaker, if the police open the door and the
person is located and they say I am fine, I left because I wanted to leave.
The case is closed.
Nothing more is said and the person's whereabouts is not disclosed or
identified to anyone, including the person who made the complaint.
I wanted to make sure that point was made, because the Leader of the
Third Party raised it. It was a
good point, but it is important to point it out.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I am going to conclude
my remarks. As I said a few
moments ago, I think this is a strong piece of legislation.
Undoubtedly, in the coming weeks, months or years as the legislation
is enacted, we will find ways that we ought to tweak it and make it better.
Hopefully, we will do that, but I do believe this is a very positive
step, because for me it is all about reducing it to the fundamental basis.
That is it could be my son or daughter, your son or
daughter, or someone else in this House tomorrow who has a child or a
sibling or a spouse go missing.
All of us want nothing more, in a very short time, then for the police to
find them for us. There are far
too many cases out there where people are never discovered, Mr. Speaker, and
legislation like this, in some instances, may have prevented that from
happening.
So, I think this is a very good piece of legislation.
I want to thank all members of the House for their contribution to
the debate. In spite of some of
the questions raised, I do read the House that everybody is supportive of
this legislation.
In particular, as I said at the beginning of my closing
remarks, I want to thank the Premier, because this is a fundamental piece of
what he has talked about for some time here around focusing on public safety
and ensuring that we do all that we can to make our communities safe.
In instances where that is disrupted, this is the kind of legislation
we need to help police do their job, and do their job very quickly.
Thank you all for participating.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party on a point of
order.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to say that the minister did offer to table the
list of people who were consulted.
He wanted to know if we would like that.
I wanted to let him know that we would like that.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader to the point of order.
MR. KING:
Yes, just to clarify, Mr. Speaker.
I can happily provide my notes, but I can give you a more accurate
list from the department. It is
up to you. Either one is good,
but I can get you this is my written notes.
I can get you a better list.
MS MICHAEL:
(Inaudible).
MR. KING:
Sure, okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second
time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting Missing Persons.
(Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole House?
MR. KING:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, a bill, An Act Respecting Missing Persons,
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on
tomorrow. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I moved, seconded by the Minister of Health and
Community Services, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at
1:30 p.m.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.