October 26, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 27
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Welcome,
everyone. Joining us in the public gallery today I'd like to welcome Jordan
Noseworthy from Badger, who'll be the subject of a Member's statement today.
Welcome,
Jordan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members' Statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of
Lake Melville, Stephenville - Port au Port, Cape St. Francis, Baie Verte - Green
Bay and Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
like to introduce to this House of Assembly one of the youngest and brightest
authors from the District of Lake Melville, Ms. Breana Andrews.
Breana,
born and raised in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and a recent graduate from UNB's
kinesiology program, had the ingenious idea to educate on Indigenous languages
using her illustrations, along with translations in various Indigenous languages
and English.
Breana
published her first book, Learning and
Preserving, in February of this year, and her second book,
Searching For… Inuktitut Style in May.
Her
first publication, a colouring book, incorporates three Indigenous languages:
Inuktitut, Innu-aimun, and Mi'kmaq. Her second book is a word search with words
in both English and Inuktitut, both of which are available to buy online.
Breana
recently said, “I really wanted to create things to not only help people, but
educators to have a resource that would make it easy for them to teach the good
things about the Indigenous cultures without feeling like they are
overstepping.”
I would
like all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Breana on her publications
and her success in making the promotion of Indigenous languages accessible and
entertaining for all.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
Clyde
Russell is a member of the Qalipu First Nation and was born in Kippens in 1956.
A retired Canadian Forces Colonel with more than 33 years of command and staff
experience, Clyde has particular experience in counter-terrorism and special
operations. Since his retirement in 2009, he has done additional work with the
Canadian Special Operations Forces Command.
Throughout his career, he was an instructor and mentor at training facilities at
home and abroad. He's had significant command experience ranging from recovery
operations for the Swissair Flight 111 crash off Nova Scotia in 1998, assisting
the migration of Kosovo refugees to Canada in 1999, Commanding Officer of
Canada's National Counter-Terrorism Unit, director of the Counter-Terrorism and
Special Operations at Canadian National Defence Headquarters and chief of staff
for the Land Force Atlantic Area.
Outside
his military service, Clyde has served as a board member of the Bay St. George
Sick Children's Foundation, vice-president of Bay St. George Seniors
Transportation System, board chair for the Stephenville Historic French Cultural
Association, Grand Knight with the local Knights of Columbus, a member of Rotary
and as military advisor to the Town of Stephenville. He has also worked with
many service and community organizations on community projects such as food
banks and various fundraisers. Clyde was recently honoured with the Seniors of
Distinction Award.
I ask
all hon. Members to congratulate Clyde on his service to his community, his
province and his country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today I
take the opportunity to congratulate 15 outstanding young athletes from my
district who received the 2021 Premier's Athletic Award for Athletic Excellence.
On
October 4, several of my colleagues and I had the honour of attending this event
where the following athletes were recognized for their particular sport:
Nicholas Smith, baseball; Jacob Billard and Cassandra Blackmore, diving; Kyla
Piercey, gymnastics; Ronan Whitten, hockey; Ryan Crocker, Alexander Hollett,
Emma Bo-Yu Pittman, Emily Reglar, Alex Ryan and Noah Ryan, karate; Kate Hickey
and Ciara Molloy, soccer; and Sarah Power and Abigail Woodman, softball.
These
athletes were selected to receive this award based on their athletic
accomplishments in the previous year. This is certainly a testament to their
character and dedication to training in their chosen sport during a pandemic. In
addition to these athletes, I also recognize the contribution from their family
members. Without their support, these awards would not have been possible.
Speaker,
I would ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating these outstanding
athletes from the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis on receiving the 2021
Premier's Athletic Award for Athletic Excellence.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay.
B. WARR:
Speaker, today I'd like to highlight an amazing woman from Springdale known as
“Mama” to children in Haiti. Karen Huxter started a school in Haiti, which
reopened in March of this year as it was closed due to the turmoil, insecurity
and unrest in the Caribbean nation.
Karen
has worked with children in Haiti for over two decades, opening a children's
home and a school. At the age of 75, Karen would be considered at risk of
serious illness from COVID-19; therefore, the co-director, Luckner Estimable,
who is Haitian, moved his family into the mission when Karen returned home due
to a lung condition.
Karen
has an adopted Haitian son, Luc, who has cerebral palsy and moved to Springdale
with Karen. Luc is thrilled to be playing soccer with the local school team.
Although Luc does not have full use of his arms, he has good strength in his
legs and everyone is cheering him on.
Recently
while playing at a high school tournament in St. Lawrence, Luc scored his first
goal and, amazingly, both teams celebrated.
I ask my
hon. colleagues to join me today in wishing Luc much success in soccer and
applaud Karen Huxter for her compassion and her concern for others.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I take
my place today to honour a true champion in the world of mixed martial arts.
Jordan Noseworthy was born and raised in Badger, Newfoundland, and became
interested in MMA at the young age of 22.
Jordan,
upon completion of university, started training more frequently at several gyms
while teaching in Grand Prairie. He became more passionate about his fighting
career during this time. Years of hard work and dedication saw Jordan's dream
become a reality on October 16 of this year, when he defeated Hank Anderson in
the very first round to become the new Fight League Atlantic amateur heavyweight
champion.
Jordan
continues to work hard and train every day as he looks toward a professional
career in MMA. He has never forgotten his roots, where he is from and the people
that got him to where he is today. This includes his dad, Denis, and his mom,
Michelle, who still cannot watch his fights as she fears for her son, but
ironically is his biggest fan.
I ask
all Members to join me as I congratulate Jordan Noseworthy, a true champion. We
are very proud of you and look forward to watching you in the ring for years to
come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Speaker, October is
Cybersecurity Awareness Month.
This
internationally recognized campaign is focused on helping all Canadians learn
about the importance of how they can stay safe online using simple steps to
protect themselves, their devices and their information.
The
desire for information has never been greater, and it presents an increased risk
of being susceptible to phishing schemes and other socially engineered
cyberattacks. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, phishing was the
most common type of cybercrime in 2020.
Throughout this month our government will continue to highlight the importance
of recognizing phishing scams, how to stay safe on social media and what to
consider when using online services.
Cyberthreats to personal information and infrastructure can be limited by
following a few key practices: continue to be diligent in your daily activities
online; never disclose your usernames and/or passwords; never click on links or
attachments in emails from unknown sources, or ones that may be unexpected
without further investigation; regularly update security questions and
passwords; always lock your computer or mobile device when not in use; and make
sure you check the from email address if an odd request comes in that you're not
excepting.
Government continues its strong commitment for cybersecurity education and
awareness across the public sector. Information protection and cybersecurity is
everyone's responsibility.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to also stress the importance of
staying safe online.
We also
know that the online environment comes with scams and the potential for data
leaks and hacking, but in the past little while these scams and hacks have
become more elaborate and seem more realistic. A good rule to live by is that if
it seems to be too good to be true, it is.
The
minister provided some important suggestions for members of the public service,
but there are also precautions which members of the public can take to protect
their own personal information. These include: verifying websites before
entering information; not clicking links in emails if you do not know the
sender; not publishing personal information, like your birthdate or your
mother's maiden name, online, information that could be a security answer to
your online banking.
I
encourage all residents of the province to do their part to help each other in
staying safe online and to report any scams or online cyberattacks to the
appropriate authorities.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
The
protection of personal information is more important for our personal security
than ever before. People of all ages must be aware of the risks at school,
leisure surfing online or even in the workplace.
We
encourage the government to protect the digital information of our citizens so
that Crown agencies, like the workers' relations board, are held accountable
when workers' identities were leaked to the employer during a union drive.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
On
Monday, the CBC reported a memo sent
to the Janeway advising children in need of emergency care at the pediatric
intensive care unit that they would need to be sent to Halifax as beds were
short at the Children's Hospital.
We thank
the IWK hospital in Halifax for being onboard with the plan, but the parents of
the province are uneasy with this news.
I ask
the minister: Is the protocol to send critically ill children to IWK hospital
still in place?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Obviously, things like this are of concern; however, this is prudent planning by
Eastern Health. They had five out of their six beds occupied prior to the
weekend starting. No children have been sent out and it is my expectation from
information from Eastern Health that this protocol will be lifted shortly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
parents of Newfoundland and Labrador need to know help is going to be there when
there is need, whether it's at the Janeway or via medevac in Labrador. The
crisis in our health care system is also affecting the children of our province
at their time of greatest need.
I ask
the Premier: What is your plan to fix pediatric care in Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
welcome the opportunity to speak on health care yet again. As we've said, we
recognized before any other jurisdiction in this country that health care was a
problem here in Newfoundland and Labrador. A year ago, we set out the Health
Accord NL to examine the health care system, as it has existed since the 1960s,
Mr. Speaker. We're not running away from what we know is a broken system. We're
trying to fix it. Solution-driven by experts in the field from panels across the
province taking a collaborative approach; even now with Members from the
Opposition being involved.
We
welcome all solutions. We are solution-driven and the Health Accord NL will
deliver it, not just for pediatric patients around the province but indeed for
every patient in the province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree
with the Premier that we need to make solutions immediately but we need them
immediately now not kicked down the road five or 10 years. There has to be
actions taken immediately.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
The minister has yet to
recognize the health care crisis in our province while critically ill children
are being denied emergency care here at home and access to 24-7 medevac for our
most vulnerable children does not exist in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
the Premier: How is this acceptable health care in Newfoundland and Labrador
today?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I
think in reference to the minister's answer, that's not a fair preamble at all
by the Member opposite.
We have
said that we recognize that the system is not working well for everybody and
we're intending on fixing it, but different from the Member opposite who would
like solutions today, there aren't solutions today. This is a systems problem, a
paradigm shift that's occurring within health care.
We need
to have the courage, not to revert to our heuristics but indeed to look at
definitive solutions for the future of health care in this province. That's why
Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey, experts in their field, are mapping
the path forward. I'm happy that the Opposition are now involved, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
give the Premier some acknowledgement of things that can be done immediately:
Develop a cardiac centre of excellence; provide full medical transportation for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; change air ambulance programs so it's more
accessible for Newfoundland and Labrador; redefine the scope of practice for
nurse practitioners, RN, pharmacists and paramedics.
That's
just a few things; that's four things in four days. We'll give you 40 in four
weeks if you'll listen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association last week released a series of fact checks for
ministers in this government, including fact checks for the Minister of Finance
and Minister of Health. The Medical Association stated clearly five examples
where they say the minister has misrepresented the facts.
I ask
the Premier: Why are you allowing your ministers to present unreliable
information to the public in the middle of a health crisis?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy that the Member opposite has read the Health Accord and has identified
areas we're working towards in terms of fixing the system. It is not a myopic
political tidbit that we're going to throw off, we're actually working towards
solutions, Mr. Speaker.
With
respect to the specific question, I, for obvious reasons, am not involved, will
not be involved in negotiations with the NLMA, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
respect the work of the Health Accord and look forward to being a part of it.
What I am quoting there are directly from the PC Blue Book for the last two
elections, things that could be implemented very quickly and be very beneficial
to the people of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the Minister of
Health has yet to publicly apologize to a Labrador family who say the minister
misrepresented their story. The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association is
issuing fact checks for a number of ministers, while the Minister of Children,
Seniors and Social Development tries to discredit an organization during
contract negotiations.
I ask
the Premier: How are you going to address each of these problems?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you again for the
question.
Look, as
we've said many times and will continue to reiterate, we are addressing the
bigger problem, which is the system, Mr. Speaker. I've worked in the system, I
know the problems in the system; we've set out to fix the system. He references
the Blue Book; we started the Health Accord before the Blue Book, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
We recognized the first thing
when we came in that this was a problem. We knew it was a problem, we wanted to
set out to fix the problem but there is no quick fix. This is a systems problem,
we recognize that there are issues that have to be dealt with immediately and
that's why the Minister of Health and Community Services announced earlier just
last week that a change starts here with multiple issues addressed, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I just
want to remind the Premier that I sat on a Committee that helped develop some of
the recommendations in the Blue Book, and that goes back five years ago when I
was the critic for Health here. So it wasn't the last eight months or so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the minister has
repeatedly suggested the Opposition should ignore the facts and present a better
picture of the health care crisis engulfing our province. He wants us to ignore
the facts, while multiple people and organizations have told him to stick to the
facts.
Every
day we are providing real-world examples of the failures of this government to
take our health care system seriously.
I ask
the Premier: Will you stop hiding behind the Health Accord and address the
crisis unfolding right now before our eyes in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
First of all, Mr. Speaker,
I'm not hiding behind the Health Accord. The Health Accord is the answer to the
system's problem. The Member opposite refuses to acknowledge that there is a
system's problem. They're myopic in their approach; this is all for political
short-term gain when we're about long-term solutions.
The
members of the Health Accord NL, I'm not hiding behind them. In fact, the
Members opposite have joined the Health Accord NL. Finally, after a year,
they're sitting on the Health Accord NL. Because we recognize that this is not a
problem that you can fix overnight. This is changing the system that hasn't
changed since Tommy Douglas in the 1960s. We know that the province has changed;
it's time for the health care system to change. We're not running away from it.
We're owning it. We're driving towards solutions, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
interesting to hear that the Premier has recognized or say we recognize, before
any jurisdiction, the issues at hand. But we want to see solutions; we want to
see quick answers here that deal with the issues.
Speaker,
while this government sits and there's a raging crisis happening here in health
care, other provinces are taking decisive action to deal with their situation.
Quebec just added – Quebec, now – 2,572 full-time nurses after offering bonuses
in September. By taking their health crisis seriously, Quebec has seen dramatic
results in just 60 days.
Why has
this government been unable to demonstrate results to our nursing crisis in six
years?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
I could do no better than refer back to the announcement we made last week,
which is a package of $30 million of solutions in the short and medium term. The
short-term solutions address the fundamental issue that people out there have,
which is access to primary care. That will be dealt with through collaborative
team clinics. It's a team effort to provide primary care in metro and across the
Island.
With
respect to the nursing issues, we have announced extra seats and a rural and
remote program. We're going to put Bachelor of Nursing courses in Gander, in
Grand Falls-Windsor, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. And we are going to see an
increase in the number of graduating people from the LPN program and the
Personal Care Assistant Program, Mr. Speaker.
These
are tangibles –
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has expired.
J. HAGGIE:
– and will be ready this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker, but somebody seems to be having a problem with the word now.
Now is immediate. Now is in this time. Now is not down the road, when everyone
graduates. Yes, that's going to help out – that's going to help out.
Speaker,
Quebec has been able to recruit back into the workforce some 83 retirees and
1,628 who switched from part-time to full-time. These appear to be sensible
solutions to a staffing crisis now.
Why
hasn't government reached out to these two specific groups?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We
started planning for these changes some time ago. The Members opposite refer to
scopes of practice for nurse practitioners and registered nurses. It was myself
who brought those regulations and legislation into this House three years ago
for nurse practitioners. We have done that and we'll be doing that with
registered nurses for prescribing. It was myself and this government that
introduced broadening scope for optometrists.
It was
us that stood in this House in 2016 and brought in regulations to bring
midwifery back to this province, something that had been removed under previous
regimes, Mr. Speaker. We are working with the Pharmacists' Association actively
to bring in increased scopes of practice for pharmacists.
These
are not just now. These are –
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has expired.
J. HAGGIE:
– things that we have done already.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to talk about what you're planning to do because that could be – well, six
years ago they had a plan, too. And we're still waiting – we're still waiting.
Oh, I got a commitment – I got a commitment. God knows when it's going to
happen.
Speaker,
Quebec is also in talks with another 2,800 nurses in an effort to cut down on
forced overtime, nurse burnout and exhaustion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. DINN:
Now, does that sound familiar? It should. Forced overtime, nurse burnout and
exhaustion.
The
Canadian Federation of Nurses Union recently stated that we are 30 per cent
short on registered nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, the Health
Accord has called this a crisis.
What are
we going to do today to address it?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago we increased the number of seats in the LPN program
by something of the order of 90 per cent and we increased the number of seats in
the PCA program. These people are graduating this month and in December. There
are job adverts out across the regional health authorities for those graduates.
We are engaged actively with the Registered Nurses' Union in a very
collaborative way.
We can't
solve this by ourselves. They have come to the table and I would encourage all
other stakeholders, health care providers, to do just that, Mr. Speaker. We have
started, we are doing and that's now, Mr. Speaker, and yesterday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
the minister should contact Western Health because there are a number of nurses
in my district who are seeking full-time employment and they're only temporary,
so they're more than willing to work full-time. Secondly, I'm glad to see that
the minister will not be implementing the recommendations of the Greene report
and closing nursing schools in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
The Energy Minister has
acknowledged that the higher oil prices are eating into the province's deficit;
it's also eating away at people's pocketbooks.
Will the
minister set aside some of the extra revenue to help decrease the cost of
gasoline and home heating fuel in this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker,
for the question.
I will
say that even though we're seeing increased oil prices in the province and,
indeed, globally, it is not just the oil price that is a contributor to the
finances of the province, of course, it's the oil price, it's production and
it's also the exchange rate. I'll be giving a financial update sometime in
November that will demonstrate to the Member opposite that just because the
price has gone up does not mean there's extra money for the coffers of the
government.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I'd ask the minister if she plans on providing that fiscal update
before the House closes.
Secondly, will you turn around and lower the cost of gasoline, your own tax,
that you didn't do in 2021 and which you did do in 2019 when you implemented
increased carbon tax?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
To answer the first question
first because it was a double-barrel question, Mr. Speaker. The first question
is it is our intent to get the fiscal update as quickly as possible. I have
officials working pretty much round the clock to get the numbers prepared and
we'll be doing it as quickly as we possibly can. But I do commit to as quickly
as we possible can, we'll get those numbers out there.
The
second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, our gas tax is on par with the rest of
the country. We did lower it, we have lowered it since 2015 and we'll continue
to consider lowering the tax. I will say it is on par with the rest of the
country.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, last week, there
was an article in the paper that said we had become number one, which meant we
had the highest gas prices in the entire country so I don't consider that to be
on par with anyone.
It isn't
just gasoline that has become too expensive. On the Liberals' watch, the cost of
home heating fuel is also causing hardship for families and seniors in this
province.
Again, I
ask the minister: Will you consider using some of the extra oil revenue to
implement the home heating fuel rebate?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
like when people misinterpret my words so I'll repeat it again. The provincial
gas tax is on par with the rest of the country at 14.5 cents. Misconstruing what
I said, I had to correct that record.
I will
always consider how we can lower taxes in this province, Mr. Speaker. That is
one thing that this government always tries to do. We are considering our budget
for next year and we'll take it as part of that budget as to how we can move
forward. We're always looking to do our best for this province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
We may be on par with our tax
but we're not on par with our price.
Mr.
Speaker, motorists in this province are paying an additional five cents per
litre on gas prices because gasoline has to be imported. Yesterday, the minister
said, “We work with Come By Chance as it relates to the start-up of that
facility …” leaving the people of the province to assume that current Come By
Chance proposal includes gasoline production and failing to mention that the new
proposal centres on biofuel.
Minister, yes or no: Will Come By Chance return to gasoline production?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Happy to
talk about Come By Chance and the efforts that this government is undertaking to
get them back up and running with an updated facility.
The
reality is that last year we put in $16.6 million to keep that facility in warm
idle, keeping hundreds of people working out there. Since June, that has run
out, but there are still people working out there. There have been collective
bargaining agreements that have been renewed.
We
continue to work with the company, which, again, I would point out, as I did on
numerous occasions last year, it's a private entity. It's owned by a private
company who are in discussions with a private entity about the possible sale.
What we're doing is everything we can to get the facility up and running.
What I
can say is that I certainly get a lot of phone calls from people in that area
saying thank you for the efforts that you're doing to keep the place alive.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
I remind the minister it
wasn't last year, it was one day before the election this year.
Yesterday, I asked the minister when the extra five cents per litre on gas would
be removed. The minister said: “… we have to ask the Public Utilities Board as
they are tasked with the duty by the Legislature.”
I ask
the minister: Have you, as the minister, asked the PUB if and when the five
cents will be removed?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
apologize, it was in January of this year, but everybody will realize that this
year has felt like it's 15 months, then I apologize. It's been one of those
years.
I do
recall the Member opposite being quite happy about it because he was certainly
talking about it on the election trail about the deal we got done to keep that
plant open.
What I
would point out here, again, when it comes to the PUB, the Public Utilities
Board, they are an independent body. There is no legislative authority to direct
them to undertake this. I have written to the PUB, as a public entity, to ask
them to explain to the people of this province the process that goes into it.
But if
we want to have a conversation with the Member opposite about unregulated
gasoline prices, maybe that's a debate we should have here on the floor.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
According to an access to
information request, as of October 1, 2021, there are 32 RNC officers eligible
for retirement. With no current cadet class, how will these officers be
replaced?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you for the question,
Speaker.
That's
an issue that comes up every year. It's always looked at by the RNC to make sure
cadets are trained. It's an ongoing issue that they deal with on a yearly basis
and they'll continue to deal with that year to year, obviously.
The
number of cadets that come into each class is different every year and the
number of cadets that graduate each year is different, so it's not a set number
that the RNC will deal with on an ongoing basis every year; it rolls over from
year to year.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, there is no current cadet class and a vigorous recruitment program is
essential to a strong police force.
Speaker,
in July a new interim chief of the RNC was appointed, four months later the
position is still filled on an interim basis.
Can the
minister outline when a new chief will be named?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I do
want to thank the interim chief of police who stepped in at a difficult time and
taken over that. I think he's done an absolutely fantastic job. I also know that
members of the RNC, civilian members and the officers down there, are very, very
pleased with the work he's done and happy and it's humming along quite well.
We will
have a permanent chief of police in there in due course, but one thing we want
to do is make sure that we get it right; we want to make sure we have the right
chief in there. We've done a search across this country to make sure there are
as many applicants with the right résumés in there. When the time comes to find
that right person and appoint that right person, it will be done. When it is
done, the RNC will be a model for all police organizations in this country,
Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, there are still concerns, though. The RNC has only an acting chief,
much of the RNC leadership has left and there are now 32 officers ready to
retire with no one to replace them. The minister, we know, has initiated a
review, but why has the minister not been involved in implementing a new human
resource plan for
the RNC?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you for the question,
Speaker.
There
were five promotions within the RNC last week that I attended down at the RNC
offices here. I have to say it was very nice to see that these individuals
who've worked hard and served the community got the promotion that is so well
deserved and they will be leaders of the future of the RNC.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN:
So there are people being
promoted within there and they deserve it. I hope everyone in this House
recognizes that those appointments were deserved.
I will
note, too, once the permanent chief comes in, he or she will want to have a say
in who the other officers that are promoted within the organization are there. I
think that's only fair to the new chief to give him or her that ability to do
that.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We've
been receiving calls from residents in the Conception Bay North area and all
over this province regarding delayed appointments and frustration in the Motor
Registration division, many of whom are in need of essential service such as
drivers test, plate replacements and obtaining a new photo for their licence. We
have learned that the next available appointment at Harbour Grace isn't until
December 16, at the earliest.
I ask
the minister: What action is she taking to ensure that these people are looked
after immediately?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to say at Motor Registration, our doors are open –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. STOODLEY:
– and all of our staff are at
work. We have seen an increased demand for services. We are adding more and more
services online. We recently launched the ability to transfer a vehicle online,
Speaker. We've seen hundreds of people to go online to tell us about their new
vehicle. That frees up a very long appointment time, which frees up appointment
times for people in the province.
I'm also
pleased to say that in most of our offices you can get an appointment that same
week, which is an acceptable standard. I understand a long wait for an
appointment is not acceptable and we're working towards reducing that, Speaker.
We're looking at every lever we can to improve services for the people of the
province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I don't
see what the problem was before, I know you're trying to upgrade the system and
make it more user-friendly for people but not everybody depends on that. So it
should be looked at and you should get these offices open.
Speaker,
photos are circulating on social media of a large lineup of soaking wet seniors
walking outside Motor Registration in Harbour Grace during seniors' day. To
quote the ladies post: Imagine having these seniors susceptible to rainy, cold
and wet conditions during the flu season of all times.
Speaker,
this isn't good enough. The seniors of our province deserve better treatment
from the minister and our government.
I ask
the minister: What is she going to do to ensure that this never happens again?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
opened up Wednesday mornings as a special walk-in only. I've also said that if
anyone has an urgent or an important issue that they could walk in at any time.
Across the province, Speaker, we see, on average, 30 per cent of our
appointments are walk-ins just across the board. Harbour Grace is just a bit
higher than that.
We do
have contingency plans in place, Speaker, if there is an excessive wait outside,
people can wait in their cars and we'll communicate with them in their cars.
Mr.
Speaker, we've seen an increase in demand for services and if we open the doors,
the lineups would be much longer. If we got rid of appointments, the lineups
would be much longer.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
You know
it's going to be a good day in this House when the Liberal Premier references
Tommy Douglas, the founder of the New Democratic Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DINN:
You're welcome to join any
time, but there will be a vetting process.
Speaker,
when running for election, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi called
for attracting more doctors and nurses to rural communities; however, in a 2017
interview with CBC, the minister suggested that the province should not hire any
more doctors or nurses.
Where
are these doctors and nurses supposed to come from? From his own district?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Last
week we announced a medium-term, long-term package to address the issue of
health care professional recruitment, starting specifically with family
physicians. This will be informed by a needs assessment of new graduates from
the residency program at Memorial to make sure our offerings align with what
they would like. We will have a provincial recruiter housed in the department
along with the secretariat.
These
will rationalize recruitment and retention of physicians and a whole range of
health care providers. That is the medium- and long-term solution, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health informed the House that there will be a full
contingent of staff at the new long-term care facilities in Central
Newfoundland. Though this may be true, with the facilities not open, we can
assume that the staff of these facilities are employed elsewhere at this time.
I ask
the minister: Where is the shortage going to be after these facilities open?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed unfortunate, owing to contractor issues, that the two facilities in
Central are not yet open. My information from Central Health is that recruitment
is complete for these facilities. Staff that are currently working elsewhere
have had their positions backfilled and we will be taking advantage of the newly
graduated, larger number of both LPNs and PCAs from measures that we undertook
with CNA and the appropriate minister back in 2019.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Speaker, the Liberal government made a commitment to the people of Western
Newfoundland and Labrador that all the services in the Western Memorial Regional
Hospital will be maintained in the new acute care hospital.
A letter
from the Minister of Health and Community Services July 8, 2021, (inaudible)
released proposals on July 6, 2018, states all project elements identified were
reviewed with a number being recommended for removal. These recommendations were
presented to the Ministers of TW, HCS, as well as ministers representing Corner
Brook, excluding the Premier, who provided direction.
There
was only one minister for Corner Brook on July 6, 2018, and I doubt if he was
aware of this decision. Without the Premier being included, it is evident that
this process did not proceed through the Social Policy Committee, PMP or
Cabinet.
I ask
the minister: Who made this major decision without the proper vetting process,
and will you confirm that you had no discussions with Dwight Ball, Greg Mercer
or any member of the Premier's staff?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I recall
a meeting, several meetings in actual fact, on the infrastructure committee and
various other committees which are governed by Cabinet privilege. The decision
was taken to make sure that the new acute care facility only housed those areas
that were essential for acute care.
It is
simply the most expensive form of real estate government can purchase, either
directly or through a P3 partnership. As such, administration and laundry
services were taken out and this was then put through and is being put through a
separate process. Western Health are in the process of deciding what options
they wish to pursue.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
I take it the minister didn't
answer the question on if he had discussions with Dwight Ball, his staff to make
these crucial decisions.
On
September 13, 2021, after advising the minister that his statements were
incorrect, he stated in a letter of September 13, 2021, there have been many
briefings and discussions which included government officials, external third
party consultants, along with various ministers. These ministers were not
identified, contrary to your letter of July 28, 2021. This decision was not made
in the Cabinet according to your letter of July 28, 2021, where the
recommendations were not presented to the Premier – that was your words.
This
Liberal government broke another commitment to the people of Western
Newfoundland and Labrador. First it was the PET scanner; now it's the laundry
service, eliminating up to 75 positions.
I ask
the Premier: How can you allow this decision to stand when the minister states
himself that it was a decision made without the knowledge and consent of the
Premier of the province, Dwight Ball or Cabinet? Was the PET scanner removed
without Dwight Ball's knowledge or Cabinet's approval?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The PET
scanner is a commitment that was made to make the facility PET scanner-ready.
Money has been set aside and given to Western Regional Health Authority health
care foundation trust so that once the cancer care program there is operational,
a decision about what and when to purchase such equipment will be made by the
clinicians on the ground locally actually delivering the service.
That is
what we committed to. That is what is there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'd like
to serve notice of the following PMR:
WHEREAS
the Secretary-General of the United Nations recently stated “the alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable:
greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking
our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk”;
WHEREAS
scientists estimate that by 2050, if GHG emissions are not reduced, the average
winter temperature will be 3.4 degrees above pre-industrial levels here in St.
John's, six degrees warmer in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and 7.3 degrees warmer in
Nain (Government of NL, 2018);
WHEREAS
the province is already experiencing significant warming resulting in the
reduction of ice cover, particularly on the North Coast and across Labrador for
example;
WHEREAS
NASA (2021) states that “Earth's surface
continues to significantly warm, with recent global temperatures being the
hottest in the past 2,000-plus years,” and “Nineteen of the hottest years have occurred since 2000”;
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador, as a partner in the
Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, is
obligated to aggressively reduce provincial emissions despite increases over the
past 20 years (NIR 2021);
WHEREAS
Hibernia crude oil emits 0.487 metric tons of carbon dioxide per barrel, the 1.7
billion barrels of oil extracted from the province since 1997 (Government of NL
2018) would represent 830 million tons of GHGs based on EPA (2020);
WHEREAS
oil and gas development represents 25 per cent of the provincial GDP, 41 per
cent of exports, thousands of direct and indirect jobs and over $20 billion in
cumulative royalties to the province since 1997 (Government of NL 2018);
WHEREAS
in advance of COP26 in Scotland starts in a few days, the Beyond Oil and Gas
Alliance (BOGA) calls on the world to “Create
an international community of practice that can support governments in
delivering their commitment to a managed and just phase-out of oil and gas
production” and “Strengthen global climate ambition by aligning oil and gas
production with the Paris Agreement goal of well below 2ºC, pursuing efforts for
1.5ºC”;
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador is facing an unsustainable fiscal situation that
requires immediate action (PERT 2021) including being 'at risk of not being able to make its' –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. TRIMPER:
– 'financial
commitments such as paying salaries, operating hospitals, offering other public
services or making payments to pension plans which it is legally obligated to do.'
AND
WHEREAS the primary means of addressing fiscal imbalance and quality of service
delivery across Canada, that of equalization payments based on the fiscal
capacity of each province, has been inadequate for Newfoundland and Labrador,
particularly as a result of how oil and gas revenues are calculated.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to do the
following: Cease oil and gas exploration on inactive licences and any further
provincial investment in the exploration of active licences; Move to complete
planned production on the existing operational fields of Hibernia, Terra Nova,
White Rose and Hebron; Initiate discussions to join the Beyond Oil and Gas
Alliance with Denmark, Costa Rica and other national and sub-national
signatories; and –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. TRIMPER:
– Secure a climate crisis
agreement with Canada that recognizes the value of leaving oil and gas reserves
undeveloped. The carbon offset agreement would calculate projected emissions for
commercially viable hydrocarbons AND the federal price per ton of CO2
directed as $170 per ton by 2030.
For
example, Equinor estimates that the Bay du Nord field to have commercially
viable reserves of 300 million barrels of oil that would represent 146 million
tons of GHGs representing $24.8 billion of carbon offsets based on $170 per ton.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
There
have been several moose accidents on the Buchans Highway, Route 370. The brush
is hanging over the road and motorists cannot see moose until they are actually
on the road.
Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to take immediate action and cut the brush alongside the Buchans
Highway.
Speaker,
I've talked to the Minister of Transportation about this a couple of times now
and I've sent several emails as well to the Premier's office. We've had three
moose accidents – three moose accidents in one week on the Buchans Highway,
Route 370. I fear that if action is not taken within a very short period of
time, more or less immediately, somebody is going to get seriously injured or
killed on that highway.
I've
been all over the province and I know that brush cutting, everybody wants it,
it's a big issue in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I will tell
you for a fact that the brush is literally hanging on the Buchans Highway. You
cannot see the moose until they are on the road; not in the ditch, not on the
shoulder, until they are on the road.
Many
people use the Buchans Highway. We also have Marathon Gold, which is now set-up
up the Buchans Highway, lots of traffic going back and forth; lots of logging
trucks going back and forth; lots of traffic. We need to ensure that we maintain
a safe road environment for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador including
the people who use the Buchans Highway.
I'm
asking the minister if he would take a look at this and send brush cutters up
there and get at least the more significant areas, as soon as possible, before
somebody gets killed or hurt on the Buchans Highway.
I'll
advocate on that until it gets done. I hope to meet with the minister about
this.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Before we move into further
petitions, I overlooked Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
Eastern
Health has recently repositioned one of the ambulances from the Trepassey area
to the Cape Broyle area. This has left only one ambulance in the Trepassey area.
Residents of Trepassey and the surrounding area, Portugal Cove South and other
areas, are at least two hours from the nearest hospital.
Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to ensure the residents of Trepassey area have accessibility to an
ambulance in a time of emergency by repositioning a second ambulance back into
the Trepassey area to ensure the safety and well-being of local residents and to
meet the national standards for response times.
Speaker,
I've read this petition a few times now. It's a pretty serious issue that's
going on in the Trepassey area, Portugal Cove South, St. Shott's, Biscay Bay,
Peter's River and St. Stephen's. There's an ambulance that was stationed there
and they took it. First, they said they were moving it to Ferryland. It didn't
move to Ferryland, it moved to Cape Broyle.
Cape
Broyle is a half hour, I'm going to say, further north. You get a call for an
ambulance now, with one ambulance gone, you've got at least six or eight hours.
The first instance we had the ambulance was at St. Clare's for eight to 10
hours, or maybe more. It's not acceptable that there's no ambulance there.
Now,
they called it dynamic dispatching that they're going to move an ambulance
further up, but right now they can't check that.
This
area in the province, on the Island portion of this province, is the furthest
away from a hospital on the Island portion of this province, and to be away and
not have an ambulance could be catastrophic at some point in time. We're well
aware that there are two ambulances that were there and they could be away at
some point in time, and they live with that, but to leave no ambulances there is
not acceptable.
For
people that are driving these ambulances – or for people that don't know, I was
in the Trepassey area on Saturday night and when you're driving up there in the
fog and the rain – I was driving up to an event and it was only fog and rain,
that wasn't snow. It's not safe to be on that highway to be driving to Trepassey
with an ambulance. If you're coming out of it, you have to go, it's an
emergency, you got to go, but to be able to drive an hour to get there, that's
not acceptable for the people in the area. It's just not acceptable.
It's an
aging population and you got to be in the area. These people that are making
these decisions – is it the ambulance driver, the ambulance owner that's moving
this down because he's making more money on calls when it's further down the
shore or there are more people? This is not about money. This is about the
safety and the lives of the people in the Trepassey area.
Thank
you so much for this, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background of this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS
there are very minimal current operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication Site; and
WHEREAS
the site is a world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate the local
economy; and
WHEREAS
the residents of the area are troubled with the lack of local employment in
today's economy; and
WHEREAS
the operation of this facility would encourage employment for the area and
create economic spinoffs for local businesses; and
WHEREAS
the site is an asset of the province, built to benefit the province and a
long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and
WHEREAS
the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of province.
THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull Arm Fabrication Site,
petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
expedite the process to get the Bull Arm Fabrication Site back in operation. We
request that this process include a vision for a long-term viable plan that is
beneficial to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
FURTHERMORE, we request that government place an emphasis on all supply,
maintenance, fabrication and offshore workover for existing offshore platforms
as well as new construction of any future FPSO in nature.
Speaker,
I've presented this many times on behalf of the constituents of Placentia West -
Bellevue, but I feel today that I'm presenting it on behalf of the people of the
province. It affects just about every district in this Chamber.
There
are people coming from all over to work at the fabrication site, and I think
it's being underutilized. I just want to know, really, on behalf of the people,
what are the current operations and what are the future long-term plans for the
Bull Arm Fabrication Site.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology for a response.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for an opportunity to talk about Bull Arm. Certainly, he's
brought the petition forward on a number of occasions.
On a
number of times when I've answered this, I haven't had as much to say because
the reality is that it has not been utilized to its fullest extent. Although, I
would disagree with the first WHEREAS in the petition, which says that there are
no current operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication Site. Because of the asset
life extension being done on the Terra Nova, the reality is that there are over
300 people that are now working on the different work scopes, with about 160
people at any different time. A combination of people from Unifor, from building
trades and management that are actually working out there right now as we speak
right here.
That is
the culmination of months and months of work to see that happen, which we were
very happy to celebrate back in June, firstly, and then obviously the deal was
finally concluded later on. The reality is that DF Barnes still has a lease out
there until February. They've been doing the topsides portion.
But the
big point here is that it is an asset. It is an asset to the province. There has
been work undertaken to see what is possible. But I will say that some of the
stuff that has come in, I don't think would be in the best interests of the
province in order to do something for the sake of doing something to give it
away.
So the
reality is we will have it there. We look for more opportunities. Certainly we
look forward to see what comes with Equinor to see what comes forward. There's a
lot of good news. Things have changed a lot in the last six to eight months.
Right now, that is a bright spot and we'll continue to do what we can.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
petition is a climate emergency declaration.
We, the
undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, bring the
attention of the House of Assembly to the following:
WHEREAS,
according to the document, The Way Forward
on Climate Change, the province is already experiencing the effects of
climate change; Newfoundland and Labrador joined the
Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change in 2016
but is not on track to meet its 2020 targets; financial costs resulting from
climate change will unequally impact municipalities due to the responsibilities
set out in the Municipalities Act, 1999;
THEREFORE, the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
government to: declare a climate emergency; to establish a task force on
decreasing the effects of climate crisis while building community resilience;
and consider climate in all policy and decision-making.
This is
very important not only to my district, but all of Labrador and, of course, to
the province. I'll just refer back to Vital Signs 2021 that came out recently, a
report from the Harris Centre at MUN. It talks about how climate change is
impacting the environment, the economy and society in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Honesty,
Speaker, that's talking about our quality of life in the province. This is a
study done by the Harris Centre here at MUN talking about climate change
impacting our quality of life in the future.
Just
looking at the predicted temperatures, very, very important for us to realize
that it doesn't matter where you live in the province, the temperature is going
to actually change. The weather is going to change, but the biggest changes will
be seen in Labrador. The thing about it is, my fellow MHA, independent MHA from
Lake Melville, talked about climate change just recently, but the changes that
we're going to see in Labrador could make seasonal temperatures in Labrador feel
like the current seasonal temperatures here in St. John's. No offence to people
on the Avalon, but nobody wants your weather. We up in Labrador certainly don't
want it.
What
really concerns me; this is a petition for the entire province, directed at
government. But when you refer back to the increases in temperature in the late
21st century, Nain's temperature will have increased by 10.83 degrees, and
that's very alarming.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much for the opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague.
I think
she brought this forward last week and I ran out of time, so I'm going to try my
best not to run out of time. My hon. colleague mentioned the fact that we talked
about our Climate Change Action Plan. I'm happy to report that we've actioned
all 45 items and in process or completed all 45 items of the Climate Change
Action Plan.
We've
also signed on to the net-zero initiatives from the federal government, as well
as our 2030 initiatives that we want to meet. In addition to that, the hon.
Member mentioned something about a committee. I don't know if you've picked up
on it but last week we announced a net-zero advisory committee that was going to
be put in place, which is going to be some industry and experienced people
within that that's going to hold government accountable but also bring forward
ideas from other jurisdictions and other parts of the country and around the
world that we could look at to see how far and how quickly we can move to make
sure that net-zero is a distinct possibility and a must do for this.
This is
the make-or-break decade, as we've heard many times before, it is important that
we as a government – and I am happy to talk about it anytime. I am happy to have
critics that get the opportunity to come forward and voice their opinions with
me and my door is always open on that.
One of
the key things that I'd like to make sure that we all understand: We've invested
with municipalities; we've invested with community organizations; we've invested
with business to help them. Many announcements have already been done to the
tune of about $3.3 million from provincial money –
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any further petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order of
the Day.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And
Administration Act, Bill 43, and I further move that the said bill be now read a
first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration
Act, Bill 43, and that the bill now be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The House
Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act,” carried. (Bill
43)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 43)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 4.
Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that
under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday,
October 26, 2021.
SPEAKER:
The motion is that we do not
adjourn today at 5:30 p.m.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
Order 23, second reading of Bill 37, An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal
Officials.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality, that Bill 37, An Act
Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 37, An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials, be now read a
second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal
Officials.” (Bill 37)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Speaker, I'm very pleased to
speak today to the proposed new Municipal
Conduct Act, Bill 37.
This
proposed legislation addresses issues related to conflict of interest, use of
influence, harassment and professional conduct and will reach all municipalities
across the province, their councillors, staff and others acting on behalf of a
municipality in any official capacity, particularly volunteers.
Without
a doubt, these are priority issues for our government and municipalities. I look
forward to our debate and for the support of bill from my hon. colleagues to
pass this proposed bill.
In
short, the legislation provides clear guidelines for councils enabling them to
establish their own codes of conduct and, most importantly, improve the
workplace, safety and wellness for councillors, mayors and staff while helping
to reduce barriers for women, persons with disabilities, non-binary persons and
marginalized groups.
As we
conducted public consultations for the review of municipal legislation,
professional behaviour emerged as a key issue to be addressed. It was so
prevalent that we felt this standalone legislation was warranted. Over the
years, municipal officials have reported issues related to conflict of interest,
ethical behaviour and professionalism, and we felt this needs to be addressed
now.
The
primary concerns raised included inadequate and inconsistent definitions of
conflict of interest, no ability to reduce or remove the penalty when a conflict
occurs through genuine error, harassment and bullying in the workplace,
misconceptions about the authority and responsibilities of the council and the
relationship between council and staff as well as a lack of awareness and
training.
Code of
conduct issues can range from compromising public trust to something like poor
attendance, but it's clear whatever the issue is or the severity of it, it is
essential that councils have the legislative authority and the training and
tools necessary to appropriately and effectively address it.
This
proposed Municipal Conduct Act will do
that. It will increase clarity and harmonize procedures for conflict of
interest; it will define conflict of interest and related concepts; and require
municipalities to establish a code of conduct for all municipal officials,
including council members, employees, fire department personnel and anyone
acting on their behalf.
It'll
set out penalties and require council to administer these penalties where a
council member or senior staff member acts in a conflict in violation of the
code of conduct. It'll introduce mandatory training for councillors and staff.
The
proposed legislation applies to all towns and cities. The bill clarifies what
constitutes a conflict of interest and introduces a common set of rules for all
municipalities regarding conflict of interest.
The code
of conduct that municipalities will be required to establish must, at a minimum,
address such topics as use of influence, harassment and confidentiality. A
template for guidance will be provided by our department for municipalities to
use and build upon and shape to meet their own specific needs.
Municipalities will be required to establish a complaints procedure and, as they
already are doing, they can employ the use of an external investigator when
necessary to investigate or mediate any severe cases. Most complaints could be
internally resolved at a low cost to the municipalities.
The bill
introduces a reasonableness as a legal test for conflict and sets out procedures
for councillors' disclosure of interests and exclusion from participation in
matters where conflict exists. What that means is that if a reasonable person
were to look at the situation and determine that a councillor could act without
bias, then there would be no conflict.
The new
legislation also identifies an appropriate range of penalties for elected
officials found in violation of a conflict of interest, as well as rules
including the removal of a councillor from their seat. So we want to make it
more that the punishment fits the crime.
All of
these actions also aim to reduce gender-based harassment. Inherent in the
proposed legislation is the aim to reduce barriers for women and marginalized
groups.
Municipal codes of conduct will help increase respectfulness in council chambers
and municipal workplaces and they will contribute to more inclusive
environments, reducing barriers for women entering politics or non-binary
persons and other marginalized groups such as seniors, persons with
disabilities, members of the LGBTQ+ community, Indigenous peoples, people of
colour and immigrants. All of these people have something so diverse and very
unique perspectives to bring to councils and we want to make sure that they have
the opportunity to do so. We also want to make clearer the expectations of
municipal leaders upfront.
Speaker,
I would like to take a moment to speak specifically to the training aspect of
the Municipal Conduct Act bill. As I
referenced, the proposed legislation requires municipalities to provide code of
conduct training for all officials to which this code applies. This training
will be central to the establishment of the codes of conduct by the municipality
and, equally important, the extent to which it is followed.
With the
concurrence of the House on the proposed legislation, regulations will be
prepared on mandatory training requirements. These regulations will require
councillors and senior staff to participate in mandatory core training. If the
training is not completed then the duties of the councillor or senior staff
cannot be carried out. There will be comprehensive training and guidance for
communities from the department, as well as both Municipalities Newfoundland and
Labrador and the Professional Municipal Administrators.
It's
been extremely encouraging to share discussions with our partners and to hear
their vision for training on how we can move forward. It was certainly important
to have them at the table because, as I've said before, we can come up with
these things theoretically and make rules or legislation, but groups like MNL
and PMA are the boots on the ground, they're the ones who operationalize it, so
we needed their input.
I would
like to acknowledge the partnership that we formed with MNL and PMA and their
input and expertise in preparation of this proposed legislation. We look forward
to working with them in the future and ensuring that municipalities across the
province are prepared and trained to implement this important new legislation.
I'm very proud of the collaborative approach that we've built here and the
relationships that we're working on with our stakeholder groups.
Speaker,
this new legislation will provide municipalities with a framework, a clear set
of rules on what is acceptable and what is not and how to address an issue when
it may come up. It will improve operations, efficiencies and outcomes in our
communities. This will result in improved respectfulness and professionalism and
it will help councils and senior staff conduct business in a way that has a
positive impact on the business of their municipality and, ultimately, on all
their residents.
I'm
honoured to bring forward this legislation. I've seen first-hand in my former
life as a councillor and mayor, as many of you in this hon. House have, the
challenges that can come up because of a lack of understanding or information on
matters related to conduct and conflict of interest.
The
Municipal Conduct Act is in step with
or stronger than similar legislation in most other jurisdictions across the
country. I'm very pleased to highlight that the bill is gender-free legislation.
This means that it has been drafted without reference to his, her, she, him or
any other gender identifiers.
I'd like
to thank everyone who has contributed to the development of this legislation:
our municipal partners, MNL, PMA, the cities and towns across the province who
have worked collaboratively with us. This truly is a joint effort.
The
legislation aims to improve the functioning of communities, giving the councils
the tools they need to address matters of harassment and unprofessionalism and
to reduce their overall occurrences as time goes on.
This is
indeed quite a proud moment for me, a former young, female councillor and mayor
whose experience has been so positive and definitely life alternating. I
personally feel today I've had, in some way, a small impact on ensuring that the
many others who come behind me can experience the same. I look forward to the
debate.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to speak in this House as always. Today I'm very happy to
speak to Bill 37, An Act Respecting the Conduct of Municipal Officials. First of
all, I'd like to thank the minister, and of course her staff, for the briefing
that we had on this a few days back.
This
particular bill will require councillors and chief administrative officers to
file disclosure statements within their respective councils. It will define what
constitutes a conflict of interest, and the process to follow, should one arise,
within council. And of course to prescribe the process for complaints and
penalties and to allow for an appeal if necessary on to the Supreme Court.
Speaker,
the purpose of this proposed legislation will increase the clarity, as it
harmonizes procedures for a conflict of interest. It will require all
municipalities to establish a code of conduct for all officials. I'm glad to
hear that the template will be provided, as we do have many different ranges of
size of municipalities here in our province. And the template will provide the
continuity that's needed going forward, and I'm glad to hear that.
It
authorizes the minister to prescribe a code of conduct also for local service
districts. Not one that affects my district, personally, but I do know that many
districts here do have local service districts within them. Of course, that
would also be a prescribed code of conduct for those as well.
It will
set out penalties which may be imposed on councillors if need be. Right now,
it's very definitive if you are held in conflict, but this will set out a range
of penalties. Of course, it will introduce the mandatory training for
councillors and the senior staff. That is something that I advocated in the
first sitting of this Assembly when I spoke – one of my first times I spoke,
actually, Speaker – with respect to the need for mandatory training.
As a
former mayor myself, and I can firmly attest to the minister when she spoke, I
do welcome this code of conduct for municipal officials. This is a good step
forward. I'm sure, as you mentioned, we have many former municipal colleagues,
elected and staff here in this House who would welcome this change as well. We
all see what can happen and what has happened over the years.
We've
seen a number of councils who have become dysfunctional and unable to sort out
their own affairs. This is problematic when you look at the level of
volunteerism that you have in your community and you have the issues that do
arise. When this does happen, it does cast a shadow over the town and its
residents and, unfortunately, it does garner media attention. That has happened
in my hometown as well, unfortunately, before I came on council. It takes away
the importance of the community service that's provided by these volunteers.
This is going to be welcome.
As I
said, many times in this House, former mayor for 7½ years with the Town of Pouch
Cove, I had the privilege and was blessed to have an excellent working
relationship with my two terms on council and, of course, with the staff of the
town. That makes it much easier when everyone is pulling on the one oar and we
don't have to fight within council to try to get something done. It's hard
enough being an elected official on the municipal level, let alone when you're
battling with colleagues.
However,
during my 7½ years, we had very few questions with respect to conflict of
interest but, thankfully, we were very lucky to deal with them quickly. As we
all know, every council is not so lucky. We do have councils across our
beautiful province that become embroiled in disagreements and accusations with
respect to conflict of interest.
Speaker,
some individuals are found guilty of this and unfortunately, at this present
time, there is no other way to readdress it than to be expelled from council, to
vacate your seat. I'm sure there have been times that maybe innocent mistakes
result in vacating those seats. Then, of course, we're into an expensive
by-election, most things that small towns can't afford. This here does indeed
serve the public interest and, again, I'm happy to see this come forward.
Many
times in my 7½ years, I would always attend the training sessions for MNL and
from PMA, because that I found very beneficial as well. Many times it was
brought up at those training sessions, seminars, AGMs: What is a conflict of
interest? Am I in one? Is my colleague in one? If I am, what should I do; where
should I go? All these questions did come about over the years and,
unfortunately, they're questions that haven't got straightforward answers.
I know
that there could be many different examples of conflict. But what I may view as
a conflict, someone else may not. I do know that when you're putting it to your
council if you have a solid, working council, then the question can be answered
relatively reasonably and in good order. However, that's not always the case.
Speaker,
we also have to look at the public perception then for those who do serve on
council. We have individuals that serve, and they need clear rules, if those
rules are broken, and what will happen going forward. I believe this will
address most of that.
As we
all know, it doesn't matter what level of government you're in, public opinion
on social media can turn against you very quickly. Unfortunately, there may be a
decision made before council can even make a decision on that. So we do know
that we have friends and neighbours who have stepped up and offered themselves
for public office. We do know that these individuals deserve the proper
training, with clear rules, clear repercussions, if they are violated.
So I'm
glad that the department is finally, after, I believe, three years of
consultations, bringing forward these changes. I do applaud that we're here
today. I'm also equally as delighted to see the mandatory training for
councillors and for senior staff. It's something that I've advocated for the
duration I was on municipal council. It was something that I took part in
regularly, and you were better off for it. You served your residents in a much
better way when you are trained.
It's too
often over the years that people who get elected unfortunately don't have a
background in municipal service, in finance or in any municipal government
whatsoever. Yet, these individuals are tasked with overseeing budgets that can
range from $500,000 to several million dollars, to tens of millions of dollars
in operation.
So we
have to be mindful, and I'm glad that it's being addressed with respect to the
mandatory training for councillors and for senior staff. We do have to know when
staff and council – they don't cross each other's line. That's something that we
need to ensure that municipal elected officials and their staff know their
roles, they know what their job is that has to be done and they don't step
across the line to try to do someone else's job in that same time.
I firmly
believe that this will address that. I've been in this chair only a short period
of time and I've spoken to many people across our beautiful province with
respect to looking for advice on how to handle situations. I firmly believe that
this will curb a lot of that, having this brought forward, having the mandatory
training. I appreciate those who will take the time to do the training, to
educate themselves to better serve their residents and to have more productive
councils. It's very important to keep that in mind.
Speaker,
I know that the minister's department is looking at rolling this out. I do hope
that it's in a timely fashion and we'll get to some questions when I come to
that later on in this discussion.
I'm glad
to hear that she did say with respect to Municipalities Newfoundland and
Labrador and the Professional Municipal Administrators, two wonderful groups
that all of us can draw on, really, and moreover our municipal elected officials
to run the municipalities.
I'm glad
to see that they are part of the process. For many years, they have shouldered a
lot of the burden. I know many of the staff at MNL and they are quality
individuals who do great work and who do provide that service to our
municipalities. I'm glad to see that. I'm glad to see that this legislation has
finally come to the floor of the House.
I look
forward to asking some detailed questions when we get into Committee.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
always a pleasure to speak to legislation here in the House of Assembly and, of
course, to represent the strong District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
Again, it's always wonderful to do that and, of course, I'd like to commend my
colleague, the minister, for bringing in this long-overdue legislation.
For
those of us just tuning in at home, we are here today debating the
Municipal Conduct Act and how special
it is, of course, for me as Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality
to certainly partake in that; very important legislation, Bill 37, An Act
Respecting the Conduct of Municipal Officials.
Speaker,
our government certainly is – and as we've seen since we formed our most recent
government – committed to improving gender diversity and representation in
politics. Ultimately, working to reduce gender-based harassment and barriers to
professional advancement are critical steps towards achieving this commitment.
Codes of
conduct like this one are essential in setting standards, Speaker, and
expectations that help create safe spaces for all employees.
At this
time, too, I also want to throw a big congratulations and a bouquet to all
candidates across Newfoundland and Labrador who put their name forward in this
most recent municipal election. Again, a big round of applause for them for just
putting your name forward. It certainly is to be commended to step up and serve.
As we know, with the three levels of government, the municipal level, they are
the front line, ultimately. They deal with residents on the front line. Of
course, we also partner and collaborate with them, provincially, as well as our
colleagues at the federal level.
This
legislation will help promote equality and security in council chambers and
municipal workplaces, thereby improving opportunities for women and members of
the 2SLGBTQQIA community. This legislation will indeed assist in ensuring ours
is a society where diverse voices are not only heard, Speaker, but respected and
valued.
On that
note, as well, I did earlier in this session recognize the first transgender
person to be elected to our capital city in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ms.
Ophelia Ravencroft. I also commend the people who supported her, the people on
her campaign and, of course, those residents in the City of St. John's; it's
wonderful to see. We need to see more of this because, of course, ultimately,
society wants and needs to see councils that are reflective of society itself.
This
legislation not only strengthens municipal leadership but also brings in
mandatory core training and municipal employees on the code of conduct, which
will be essential in helping to reach the goal of reduced gender-based
harassment and discriminatory practices.
We know
that we need more diversity at decision-making tables, including more women and
gender-diverse individuals. If we just look around the room here in our hon.
House of Assembly here, only nine seats in this Chamber of 40 are represented by
women. Strong women, women who I commend and I'm very proud of and I'm happy to
call colleagues and friends, but we need to see more of this, Speaker. We know
that we need to see more diversity at the decision-making tables. We need to see
a reflection of society in which we live so that we can make decisions that are
meaningful and impactful for the people in our communities, our province and our
beautiful country.
That
said, too, Speaker, at this time, I would like to congratulate all MPs, of
course, for Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that the prime minister announced
and revealed his Cabinet today; very proud to see our prime minister take the
leadership in accomplishing gender parity in his Cabinet. I want to take this
time to congratulate MP Gudie Hutchings for making it to the Cabinet table, as
well, of course, our friend and MP, Seamus O'Regan. Wonderful to see two Cabinet
Members from this awesome province, small but mighty in population, at the
Cabinet table, of course, in Ottawa.
We all
know that the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles, including all
levels of public office, is a direct result of attitudes, systemic, situational
and institutional barriers that women and gender-diverse individuals face in
society today. It's important that we provide safe places for future leaders to
network with others, build relationships and foster mentorship and sponsorship
roles that will asset them in exploring their paths to the boardroom tables,
municipal councils and, of course, legislatures.
This
spring the Office of Women and Gender Equality actually partnered with the
wonderful organization Equal Voice Newfoundland and Labrador, which I'm very
proud of. I also want to commend them on the great work that they do to support
candidates across Newfoundland and Labrador.
We
partnered with Equal Voice to offer a campaign college for perspective
candidates. It brought together people of different backgrounds and ethnicities
and we were encouraged to see so many people taking part in the campaign. It was
an online forum, one of the workshops that I took place in, and it was just so
inspiring, Speaker, to hear the stories, to see the interest and the intelligent
conversation that were shared, of course, by women and non-binary candidates on
that call. I'll never forget that. These are some of the highlights of being in
this role as minister. It's such an honour to be around such inspiring people.
I'm
told, Speaker, that of the 26 participants, seven made the bid for election.
Just about all 26 were engaged in some way, either working on a campaign at the
municipal or the recent federal level.
I know
that considerable gains were made, particularly during this municipal election
to increase diversity. This year was an overall increase of 2.8 per cent in
nominations compared to the previous election in 2017 with 39 per cent
identifying as female, that's an increase from 33 per cent in 2017.
I want
to certainly take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs, for her work with Municipalities Newfoundland
and Labrador through the Make Your Mark campaign. These campaigns are integral
as well to encouraging participation in local politics.
We know,
too, that in the most recent provincial elections we saw an historic number of
women and gender-diverse individuals put their names forward. We need to see
more of that than the nine, of course, who are currently here. It is indeed a
positive step forward.
Speaker,
as an MHA, I'm sure we can all compare stories and times where members of our
councils within our local district reach out to us for direction with
situations, as my hon. colleague just brought up earlier. We hear the stories
of, dare I say it, corruption and unfairness and the harassment and the
bullying.
I'm very
pleased to see this long-overdue legislation be brought in. I also would like to
encourage all councils and organizations across Newfoundland and Labrador, we're
doing it here at the provincial level, but the implementation of a GBA+, that's
the Gender-based Analysis Plus lens, to be applied to every policy, every
program that's offered.
That's
something, of course, that takes from the genesis of every program that's
developed to see how women and gender-diverse individuals are affected by
everything that's put forward. It certainly is an eye-opener. I mean, you think
you would assume it's a simple boy versus girl matter, but it's really not.
At this
time, too, I'd like to commend the staff in the Office of Women and Gender
Equality for the work that they do that works with every department across the
provincial government to implement this and to ensure that everybody is best
represented and least impacted as possible as can be.
I knew,
personally, for me at a young age when I was interested in politics; I think I
was nine years old when it first triggered my interest. It was a family friend.
It was a male, however, who was running for politics and it was the first time I
got to see it roll out, the activity and the excitement around it. But one thing
that I did notice, looking around, it was a lot of men; you didn't really see a
lot of women come forward.
That
said, I am certainly happy I am where I am today and I'd like to thank all the
people who helped me get to where I am. Again, as a woman politician – the first
woman actually to represent the District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave – I
want to encourage all women and gender-diverse people who are thinking about it
to go for it. Just go, take the plunge. If you sit there and often wait for the
right time to run, sometimes, Speaker, as you can appreciate, probably that time
never comes.
Again, I
really commend this legislation. Certainly any way that I can me of support, as
well as the staff and the Department of Women and Gender Equality, anything that
we can do to enhance, to train and to better educate so that we can be better
representatives for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
At this
time, I also want to talk about and I want to commend the Premier for his
leadership on the Indigenous training that we recently underwent as a –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Please
stay relevant to the bill.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Speaker.
All the
training that we can do certainly helps us be better representatives for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I look
forward when this bill goes to Committee to hear the conversation, and I
certainly will be supporting this legislation, Bill 37, An Act Respecting the
Conduct of Municipal Officials.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is a
privilege to speak to this bill today. Just so I'll put it in the record, I will
go down through the Explanatory Notes that are contained in the bill.
“This
Bill would enact the Municipal Conduct Act.
The Bill would: require councillors and chief administrative officers to file
disclosure statements with the council; prescribe what constitutes a conflict of
interest for municipal officials; prescribe the process to be followed where a
councillor knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the councillor has a
conflict of interest in a matter before the council; establish a process
relating to complaints regarding conflict of interest of a councillor, former
councillor and administrator; prescribe the penalties to be imposed on a
councillor, former councillor or administrator who acted in a conflict of
interest; require councils to establish two codes of conduct, one code of
conduct relating to councillors and another code of conduct relating to all
other municipal officials; establish a process relating to complaints regarding
contraventions of a code of conduct; prescribe the penalties to be imposed on
municipal officials who contravene the code of conduct; allow the complainant
and respondent to appeal certain decisions under the Act to the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador; and require councillors and chief administrative
officers to complete training approved by the minister.”
I think
my colleague for Cape St. Francis had mentioned earlier as a past municipal
councillor, and myself – and I know there are many in this House who have served
on municipal councils. I myself served as the deputy mayor in the Town of
Paradise. I can tell you that code of conduct, conflict of interest were huge
topics that came up on a regular basis and seeing anything that can give some
more definition to these areas and make councillors more accountable and CAOs
more accountable, I welcome.
I
believe that people who put their names forward for council are doing so to help
out in the community, but they need guidance and they need legislation like this
that makes it more definitive and takes away the subjectivity when it comes to
some pretty serious issues that may arise.
This
provides that definition, provides the penalties because in the past, as well,
if you were found in conflict of interest, then the only option was to vacate
your seat. We talk about training, we talk about education and the conflict of
interest may be something that wasn't intended, something that they weren't
aware of, yet they could potentially lose their seat over that.
This is
welcome, to come in with this and apply this new legislation. You also got to
think about some of the councils out there. Some receive stipends. Many others
are volunteer. You've got volunteers stepping forward and they have the
uncertainties connected to some of the things they may or may not do. Giving
some clarity to that certainly helps those individuals. As we know, you look
around; you try to get people to run for office, so they need to be aware of
what they're getting into. I think that's clear for anything we do.
To
people who you say you should run for council, the next question is: Well,
what's involved in it? This piece of legislation certainly clarifies a lot of
that in terms of what's expected of them, what level of ethics and morals and
that is expected of them. It's that clarity then that they make an educated
decision on that. You talk about training that's allowed here, looking at
training for municipal councils, there's a handbook – I think it's still online
– a municipal training handbook for councillors, which is great. I've read it,
but not everybody is familiar with legislation and what it stands for. That
document does a very good job, but I think the people who may be new to a
council post, it may not be as clear to them.
Offering
and providing some sort of training program for them where there could be
questions asked and clarity given is certainly a step in the right direction. I
know from my own experience – this is not specific to Paradise council but to
councillors I've spoken to. A lot of them have not had the experience of sitting
in a chamber and making motions and voting on motions and the like. Training,
it's new to them. So having a training program or package available will
certainly give them more direction and sooner rather than later.
I think,
as well when I was looking through the bill here – and I think the minister
mentioned it earlier, talking about it's not just conflict of interest. She
mentioned the use of influence. She talked about unethical conduct. Individuals
in a particular position may not even realize that what they say is influencing
a decision. They may not even realize it. I've known people might get elected
and they feel they're up on a pedestal. But I mean at the end of the day, much
like our people here, the hon. Members in this House, we're elected to work for
the people. I think with proper training of councillors and maybe even MHAs, but
councillors, you're taught what role you're supposed to fill and what your
limitations of your role are.
When we
look at this, setting out the code of conduct, setting out what's required, I
think you'll see less unethical conduct and people will be a little bit more
focused on what's the proper way to behave and what's the proper way to do
business within the council chamber.
I think
the disclosure statement has been there before, but expanding it to include your
CAO – your chief administrative officer or town clerk. We know that, especially
in some smaller municipalities, there's quite a – I'll call it – familiarity
between counsellors and the staff clerk. Most of them may be from the same
family. So to outline this and have that information come forward to ensure that
there's no conflict of interest positions or you're put in a position where
you're voting on something you shouldn't, I think that's a good start there for
sure.
In my
time on municipal council and dealing with council, conflict of interest was
very much debated. We looked at the
Municipalities Act, 1999, and we looked at the definition on conflict of
interest in that. Now, this is a broader definition in here. I hope that we're
going to do some balancing act between the two to bring further clarity to it.
Because I think with the two definitions there are some areas that are up for
question there that we should look at.
The one
thing that we did when it came to conflict of interest issues within the chamber
– and I think the legislation is really there, in my mind, to protect the
councillor if he or she thinks she's in or he's in a conflict of interest. You
don't want to be caught in that situation where you're voting on something that
you may or may not have been impartial to because of a connection or monetary
gain or whatever. So I think it's there to protect that individual.
But the
problem I always had with it was that council voted on it – council voted on it.
So if I claim to be in conflict of interest and I truly felt I was in conflict
of interest, your own council would vote on it and say, no, you're not in
conflict, in which case you have to vote. Even though in your own heart and soul
you think you should be abstaining.
I'm
looking at the section 6 here and just a particular clause there, and I may ask
this question in Committee for clarification, or the minister may clarify it for
me. In section 6 – and we go down there I'm looking at 5, then section 6(5)
says, “Where a councillor is uncertain as to whether or not the councillor has a
conflict of interest, the councillor shall disclose the nature of the possible
conflict of interest to the council and the council may decide by a majority
vote.”
My
interpretation there is if I truly believe I'm in conflict of interest, I'm in
conflict of interest, which is a good thing because I don't think we've had that
clarification before. If I read this in concert with that, it says: if I'm
uncertain, I ask for a vote and council may vote.
I'm
hoping to get clarification on that. If I feel I'm in conflict, I'm in conflict
and I walk out of the chambers. Here I think this clarifies this a little better
for us. I appreciate that and, hopefully, I'll get that clarified.
Because
when you're thinking of some of these councils and individuals that have come in
and been elected, they're from all walks of life in some of these communities,
they come in with different experiences but they may not be adept to following a
process.
In fact,
I would say to you, we brought in in Paradise – I made the motion and we brought
in our parliamentary rules, the Robert's
Rule of Order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. DINN:
I'm sure for some in some
communities, they wouldn't know – and no disrespect, it comes from your
background and the lifestyle you come from, but I bet there are many out there
that don't know what Robert's Rules of
Order are. In fact, I suspect that in this House some of us don't know what
the parliamentary rules are at the odd time. But it's a pretty thick document,
so when we do proper training – and I connect it to the municipality's council
training handbook – it takes out those specific areas that councillors would
deal with more often and gives clarity on those.
So when
I look at the training piece and bringing councillors in and giving them the
proper training so they all have a benchmark area to start from, it's a learning
experience, no doubt about it. As long as everyone has a good understanding of
what is required of them; what would be considered unethical is an issue.
Some of
these communities, like I said, you may know everyone. In fact, some councils
may all be related. So this provides some clarity there. I know there is a
section that talks about quorums and such. I applaud that in terms of the
quality or the clarification.
I don't
know who's going to do the training or who would be the one to do the training
here. I'm going to make the assumption that government will come up with a
training package. There's the handbook, but are there training modules or will
there be videos or the like to deal with this? I think that's something that we
need to do.
Not
everyone, not every town is able to come up with someone to do the training in
terms of facilitating it. So it's something that needs to be considered as we
move forward. I think it's certainly needed. I think from a point of view of
independence and objectivity, I think it's useful that someone who does the
training is someone who is knowledgeable in municipal affairs, knowledgeable in
legislation and can speak objectively to the training. I think when you get the
trainer too close to the community, then you're dealing with, you know, issues
that have occurred in the community and some may not be described as they should
be in terms of an objective manner.
I'm
hoping to be able to ask a few more questions on this during Committee. I think
it's a long time coming. I know it's an attempt at clarity and I think it's done
very much on increasing the clarity around the code of conduct, so I'm pleased
with that. There are some areas, as I said, with the
Municipalities Act, 1999, in terms of definitions, I'm not sure the
two meld together in terms of the definitions of conflict of interest, but I'll
ask some questions on that when the time comes.
But it
is an area that councils I've sat on and councils I've heard from, and I'm sure
the minister has heard from, especially from her past municipal experience, that
some of these councillors are just unsure of how to deal with it.
It's not
easy when you point across the table and you call out someone for a conflict.
That's not easy to do. Sometimes people take offence to it. So this legislation
certainly allows us to take the personal nature out of it and look: Here's what
you're all supposed to abide by, here is what's considered unethical behaviour
and here is the conduct that's expected of you.
I give
credit where credit is due; there are not a lot of grey areas here. But with any
piece of legislation, there's going to be. You're going to see them. Someone's
going to come up and what about this and what about that. I'm sure, as
regulations come out, we'll see more clarity there.
This is
long overdue, and that's not a criticism on the current government. That's just
fact. In dealing with the many municipalities of all different shapes and sizes
– it's beyond me why some of these municipalities and these councils don't all
get some form of stipend. I mean, they're entitled to it. But, as we know,
depending on the size of the area, some get stipends more than others. So you've
got to realize that a lot of these councils are pretty close to volunteer. They
might receive a small stipend for, I don't know, gas and expenses like that. At
the end of the day, a lot of them are very much volunteer. And even though some
get the stipends, they'll probably tell you it's not enough to cover what I got
to do.
Anything
we can do to give clarity and make their job easier in terms of that because we
all know in this House of Assembly, as we're dealing with complaints and issues,
they deal with the right-in-front-of-you issues in the communities. Getting some
clarity on what's expected of you, what you can or can't do or some areas where
you may be in conflict or your conduct is out of order, at least they know that.
There's nothing worse than someone calling you out of order and you're there and
you really think you did something right and you didn't expect it. You apologize
all you want, but you're still called out.
At least
this sets the guidelines. The penalty issue, I think, is fabulous in terms of
not having that one option. You make a mistake you're gone. I do have some
reservation with the fact that you're still going to council or your CAO to make
a final decision. I do have issues with that, especially in smaller
jurisdictions. I think at some point in time – and I know it says you can go to
the Supreme Court as a final option, but I do look at that in terms of some
council, the council votes first; if not, it can go to your CAO and they would
look at it. I think we're putting a lot of increased work on your administrative
staff in the towns.
I would
have liked to see somewhere between the CAO and the Supreme Court, something in
there in terms – I know it can go to the minister, but somewhere else that you
can call and get a quicker decision on whether you are considered the conflict
of interest or not. Some towns are able to afford legal counsel; some are not.
Even your own legal counsel, I would argue they might be in a bit of a conflict
dealing with it, because they're being paid and work for the town. Something in
there I'd like to see a little different in terms of an independent place to
call and make your call.
Anyway,
I'm hoping to get a few questions during the Committee stage. I do appreciate
it. I think it's a long time coming. I'm sure we'll be supporting it, but we'll
have some questions.
Thank
you for the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
privilege to speak for the people of Labrador West but also on this. Like my
colleague there from Topsail - Paradise said there too, it is something that's a
long time coming. It's something we hear about often in our communities and
stuff. I only have two municipalities in my district and I look across there to
some of the other Members with going on 100 municipalities in their district.
I'm sure they hear it a lot more than what I would hear about these things.
Like he
said, there are a lot of communities in this province that are different shapes,
sizes, makeups, geography, everything all has effect. We're working with
hundreds of different little communities, big communities and everything in
between that do have a lot of different makeup and stuff. Like I said, some
communities, the entire community is one family.
Having
some guidance and some clarity and things like that is really important. We may
have to spell it out for them, but we have to have this guidance there to make
sure that there are checks and balances and a procedure in place that we avoid
conflict
Also at
the same time, like you said, we have disclosure statements, setting guidelines
and even a complaint process, the mandatory code of conduct. These are things
that most governing bodies today are required to have. You can go on to some
boards for some not for profits and they have a lot of these things in place
already. It's good that we're going to spell this out. We're going to have a
process that deals with it and we're also going to have the opportunities now –
if anything, this will actually help enhance communities further in the sense
that they know what's before them. They know their responsibilities and they'll
be able to point out conflicts of interest and other issues like that a lot more
readily, at the same time protecting the communities, protecting councillors and
finding that happy balance in between.
We're in
a stage now that just being on a council is a lot more than what people expect
these days. There's a lot more stuff going on now in society and in communities.
There are broader scopes of things being discussed now as we go forward. So
we're not just talking about day-to-day issues; things are getting a lot more
broad. Even talking with communities in Labrador West, the things that are on
their council table now is just a lot more than what we presume or the public
presumes to be the simple things. There is a lot of stuff going on. So we have
to have guidance; we have to have abilities to find these things.
I do
agree with the Member for Topsail - Paradise, too, about the processes going
from council and then to your CAO and then up. There should be some sort of body
or some kind of ability to maybe handle these things. Because some communities
may not even have a full slate of councillors and they can't probably attract a
full slate of councillors. These little small communities need a resource,
almost like a hotline, for them to work through these things. And there should
be a body of some sort set up to help this. But at the same time it's almost, in
a sense, that there needs to be a broader body.
Maybe
this body can also facilitate the training that's required that's in this act,
too. To go to community to community and teach people about a lot of this stuff.
Because most people may run for a municipal position with the full intention of
good in their heart and want to do the right thing, but when they get there and
realize there are a lot of big things on the table, you have this code of
conduct set down in front of them, they may not be ready, per se, then and they
will need some extra guidance and stuff to work through these things.
There
are a lot of these little communities now that their councils are made up of a
lot of retired people or people that came back from working away and come back
with all the best intentions and things like this. So maybe we should have the
ability to have some sort of body, agency or some sort of little thing that can
actually help people with the conflict of interest things, help with the
training and give people the ability to do the right thing.
We
encourage people to run for council because we want the best for our communities
and we want to get people engaged in the process. But, at the same time, we
should be giving them the resources and the abilities to work within this
legislation that's proposed right now, but also help them understand why this
important, understand the importance of it. Also, at the same time, encouraging
them to have healthy debate in their council, do what they think is right for
their communities and have the abilities to move forward with it.
So I
agree with this. Myself and my colleagues here, we agree this is very important.
We would like to see the importance this is, but also at the same time we agree
with our colleague from Topsail - Paradise that maybe there should be some kind
of body or something in between when it comes to these kinds of things. But also
my add-on to it would be maybe this body would also be responsible for training
councillors so that way we do what's right for them and best by them, because
this could be overwhelming for a lot of these people. We want to encourage
healthy communities, healthy debate and good active councils.
We've
all seen the community that couldn't get enough people to run. They're trying
their best. We want to encourage those smaller communities as well to be active
communities, active participants in debate and in their community and grow our
communities and grow our rural parts of the province.
We have
to make sure that we give them the tools necessary to carry out this, but also
if they call looking for a helping hand, we can also do that at the same time.
With
that, that's my thing on it.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, it's a pleasure for
me to speak to Bill 37, An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials.
I'll
begin by saying that the changes to the Municipalities Act have been discussed and requested for some years now. I'm pleased
that this government has committed to complete this very important piece of
legislation.
Dealing
with disclosure statements, conflict of interest, code of conduct, appeals and
orientation training is very timely given the fact that we just elected new
councils who will require training and guidance as they take on their new roles
as councillors.
I firmly
believe that the Municipalities Act will go a long way in the retention and
recruitment of new councillors and staff. This year's election was a great
election with a lot of towns having more than the required number running.
Elections were healthy and it's great to see that interest has improved.
Speaker,
I have served on seven different councils for a total of 28 years in municipal
politics. I've seen many new people elected and it has been a great experience
for me, as well as a lot of those that had been elected. I've also witnessed,
Speaker, that many find they are not prepared for the challenges that they face.
This bill will allow for the training required to help them as they pursue their
careers as local politicians. There is no greater act of volunteerism or no
greater service than serving on council and making a difference in your
community. This is what motivates people to run for council. Most of these
people that run four council have experience as volunteers within their
community and decided to step it up a notch and become involved at the local
level as a councillor.
Perhaps
one of the biggest issues with councils is the conflict of interest. Often we
hear that councillors and staff are accused of acting in a conflict of interest.
This has become a real problem and often councils have to engage in legal
counsel, at a significant cost I might at; a cost that does affect service
delivery, especially in our smaller municipalities in our rural districts.
This act
will clearly outline steps and procedures that councils need to take if a
significant conflict of interest occurs or steps to take to avoid such
situations. This section of the act also clearly provides penalties for conflict
of interest for councillors, former councillors and administrators. This is
certainly very beneficial and gives more autonomy and decision-making to the
councils, which they have asked for in the past.
Code of
conduct, another section of Bill 37, this is extremely important as guidelines
and standards are key to running an effective council. All too often we hear of
councils experiencing difficulties and issues that face council, which included
professional behaviour, confidentiality and harassment.
This act
makes it mandatory for councils and administrators to conduct training and
clearly outlines the complaint process and penalties for contraventions of the
code of conduct. Speaker, an act that is prescriptive and clear will give
councils the autonomy and knowledge to act, which in turn will save thousands of
dollars in professional and legal fees.
Councillors may have duties, Speaker, and being able to carry out these duties
requires individuals committed to their service in rural and urban communities.
I've often referred to the role of councillors as grassroots politics. You
represent your citizens in many ways in the areas of stewardship, sustainability
of the town, economic development, business attraction and infrastructure
requirements, just to maintain and mention a few.
This
act, Speaker, has had stakeholder consultations on the Municipal Legislative
Review. These consultations are very engaging and were very engaging. There were
small-table discussions focusing on municipal purposes and structure,
accountability and transparency, professional conduct, revenue and enforcement.
I was involved in some of the discussions, which involved 74 written submissions
generating 691 recommendations for the bill. Other feedback, which included PMA
and MNL surveys, saw another 220 recommendations; 11 in-person sessions
resulting in a total of 1,200 ideas generated.
What
people wanted, Speaker, in this reform was, one, a more user-friendly act, an
act that would allow councils to be able to interpret the act more freely, an
act that would allow people to understand what was being said and what the
regulations and rules were for running council meetings and other significant
parts of the act. They wanted an increase on openness, accountability and
transparency. Of course, that's important for all councils. Address councillor
and municipal staff conduct and conflict of interest. Clearly, what we're
proposing here today will do that.
Municipalities wanted to be empowered for increased local and regional
decision-making and service delivery; want to clarify the roles of
municipalities and the relationship with the provincial government; provide
municipalities with the ability to generate revenue and economic development.
Speaker,
a couple of years ago, I attended a conference in Montreal. It was a time when
the town I represented, the Town of St. Lawrence, we were trying to attract
businesses to come into our community. We were sitting on the largest fluorspar
deposit in North America and we were trying to attract investors into the
community.
We had
met with a number of companies from all around the globe but, eventually, we
managed to get a company interested. This company was, and is, based in the
United States. The company now employs approximately 275 individuals from my
district and the region. It's a real success story.
The
councils need to become involved, especially in the rural areas, promoting their
communities, being able to go out and attract investment to make their
communities sustainable and to keep people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
The act must be able to do that. The act has to be able to do that. The act has
to give us the flexibility to be able to go out and become our own economic
development board. That's what our council has seen itself over the last few
years.
The
Conference Board of Canada were really impressed with what we had done in St.
Lawrence, how we had gone about it. Not only have we attracted a mining company,
we've also gone out and we attracted a company to come in and operate a fish
plant that lay dormant for years. We also attracted a company from the United
States to come in and put up wind towers.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
I just
remind the Member to stay relevant to the bill, please.
Thank
you.
P. PIKE:
The bill hopefully will
enable us to do that.
Mr.
Speaker, cities and towns in this great province have been asking for a review
of the Municipalities Act for a number of years. I am so pleased to be part of a
government that recognizes that changes are needed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I next
recognize the Member for Bonavista, who I understand is seeking leave?
C. PARDY:
That is correct, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Seeking leave to speak to
another matter?
C. PARDY:
Correct, just two minutes at
the most. The leave is a request – veteran Doug Russell visited this House on
Thursday. Just wanted to issue a few thank yous and one short story that's
related to municipalities.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Does the
Member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
SPEAKER:
Okay, thank you.
Please
proceed.
C. PARDY:
Thank you to the House and
thank you, Speaker.
Veteran
Doug Russell, I did a Member's statement on Mr. Russell on Thursday. He visited
the House. And I just wanted to issue a few quick thank yous before I get to
have a few brief remarks on the proposed bill.
He was
greeted at the entrance by a security official by the name of Dennis Goodland.
Dennis is from Bonavista; his dad is Alex. He's a veteran himself and the
initial greeting of Mr. Russell when he came to this Confederation Building; it
couldn't be performed any better than what Dennis did at the initial greeting
when he brought him in and with the warmth that he did. Dennis himself has three
tours of duty in Afghanistan, and also in Bosnia.
When he
came into the Chamber, the Premier brought him up to the eighth floor and we
shared some good conversation up there. All my colleagues that are on this side
of the House, we had a picture and met Doug Russell here in this Chamber, and I
would say the Speaker and his officials shared in that moment as well and were a
great host while he watched the proceedings in the House.
So I'd
like to thank everyone who made that experience for veteran Doug Russell so
special.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
In fact, he had stated that
words could not express his gratitude for the very warm welcome that he had. So
I applaud the whole House and everyone who had a part in that.
The
quick story on Doug Russell: Part of my Member's statement was that while he was
a deputy mayor in the Town of Port Union at the time in 1986, the Sir William F.
Coaker bridge needed to be replaced, so he arranged for then MHA Charlie Brett
to meet him underneath the bridge to have a look at the infrastructure. But what
was memorable and notable about this particular occasion, Mr. Russell had
arranged for a transport truck carrying a D8 dozer to leave Seaport Inn, which
was less than a kilometre up the road, to drive over that bridge while they were
underneath and it had to occur at 12 o'clock, noon.
Well, I
tell you, when that D8, the story is told, passed over that bridge and when they
were both showered with concrete from the bridge, in the words of Charlie Brett
at that time, MHA, said: Doug I've seen enough. You will have your bridge.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
I celebrate that and it's a
nice segue into the bill. I promise only to have a few short minutes in
commentary on this particular bill.
In 2015,
I was a chair of the local service district in George's Brook-Milton. I would
throw that out because I know there are a lot of local service districts within
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have seven in my district and I
hope I have that number correct. I know my colleague in Terra Nova has 11. So if
we're looking at 17 in two districts, we've got a lot of LSDs of which these two
concepts, as far as looking at the code of conduct and the conflict of interest,
would be most applicable.
I'm not
sure in the act – and I'm sure that will be fleshed out now probably when we get
to Committee to see where it is in relation and certainly a code of conduct, if
we want to make sure that they're braced for success or prepared for success in
their governance model, then that would be in integral part.
In 2018,
the LSD that I was a part of and the six other members of the LSD, we became
incorporated as the province's newest town. Then we had the experiences of being
a council and we went through the training. The training is very significant. I
know that in the bill I see we talk about penalties; there will probably be no
need to discuss penalties if we do a good job with the training. I think that is
the key to it. My colleague from Topsail - Paradise mentioned about the
consistency of the messaging. So if we're talking about a vast province that we
have and the number of training sessions that must occur, a consistent message
is very important.
In the
latest election that we had, we had 16 candidates run in the Town of Bonavista.
It was wonderful; a diverse lot and it was something special and something that
we're very proud of.
Once you
have that you must have full disclosure of what your affairs are – financial,
land holdings – I'm not sure if that would be a deterrent for some. It is
significant and it is very important. The only thing I would say is that we
probably need to make sure we have the message out there to inform them when you
become part of these governance models, then here's what the expectations are
and what would be. So, upfront, I would hope that it wouldn't be a deterrent
because, again, it is necessary that that would occur.
I'm sure
my colleagues will have questions in Committee. One would ask that you present
these statements of disclosure, but what happens to them then? What is the
thinking around where they go; who has access to assure their confidentiality
once they're submitted? It may not be significant for everybody but I'm sure
it's significant for quite a number of people.
I would
say many people have stated here that they're supporting the bill. Our side
certainly does and out of respect for Standing Order 48, Redundancy, I think
that is most of the number of points that I wish to make.
I thank
you for leave, Speaker.
Mr.
Russell, who's watching today from his home in Port Union, this House surely
enjoyed his visit as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Next
speaker, please.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
normally say I'm going to take a couple of minutes, but I'm probably going to
take longer than that. Unfortunately, I only have 20.
Anyways,
Mr. Speaker – or sorry, Speaker, I'm still trying to get used to dropping the
mister part. Like everybody has said here, this is a good piece of legislation
and certainly something that I will be supporting. Having spent eight years on
the city council myself, with the City of Mount Pearl as councillor and deputy
mayor and also serving on the board of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador,
this is an issue that I have been aware of for a long time and certainly
something that's been raised by MNL and municipalities, in general, for many
years now. So when we say it's a long time coming, it's a long time coming, it's
just that.
Of
course, this is just one piece of the bigger picture because what we've also
been waiting on for a long time – I know in the City of Mount Pearl, even from
my time on council, we were being promised back then that there would be a new
cities act coming forward, a new City of
Mount Pearl Act and for some reason it kept getting delayed and delayed and
delayed and it never happened. That would've been back at least 10 years ago.
Even when I first got on council, which is like almost 19 years ago, it was
being talked about then and it didn't happen.
We still
don't have a new cities act; although, I understand that that's coming, I think,
in the next session, which would be I guess next fall or maybe next spring,
hopefully. This would be a part of the cities act or the Municipalities Act. Of
course, St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl would fall under a cities act
and the rest of the municipalities would fall under the Municipalities Act. I'm
of the understanding that there will be a new cities act and a new
Municipalities Act, updated ones, which will be coming before this House when we
sit again.
This
would have been a part of those acts, but I think the minister and the
government understand the importance of this particular piece and, therefore,
they wanted to bring it forward as a stand alone so at least we would be started
down the road of having a code of conduct for municipalities across the province
as opposed to waiting another several number of months or a year to have it as a
part of the bigger cities act.
I am
glad that it is brought forward today; it's something, certainly, that I would
be supporting. I'm glad to hear that other Members on all sides of the House
will also be supporting this piece of legislation.
Certainly, we have seen situations across the province over the years where we
have run into issues with conflicts of interest. We have seen the divide that
these situations have created. Not just on council, not just amongst council
members, but also staff of municipalities and indeed the community itself. We
have seen communities divided over these issues over the years.
Unfortunately, we have seen it where I live, in Mount Pearl, over the last year,
which was very disappointing and that is something that had never happened – to
my knowledge – before, but we did see that. Hopefully, by having these standards
in place, having these clear policies in place and having mandatory training in
place for councillors and for staff that we can avoid these types of unfortunate
situations in the future.
One of
the pieces, which I am glad to see here – there are a lot of good pieces in
here, actually – in terms of the levying of a penalty, if you will, against a
member of council or staff who find themselves in a conflict of interest and so
on, prior to this piece of legislation coming into force, the only option
available was to vacate the seats on the council. I know that was something that
came out publicly in Mount Pearl a few months ago when there were two seats
vacated on our city council. At the time, what was said by the remaining members
of council – and perhaps it was warranted, regardless; it depends on the
circumstances and we still don't really know. There is a lot of he said, she
said, as we see in all these cases, Mount Pearl being no different. But what was
said by the council at the time was that the only option they had available to
them under the act was to vacate the seats.
At least
now, depending on the circumstances of the conflicts or the infractions or what
went on, depending on the nature of it, the details of it and so on, the
seriousness of it: at least now there are a number of options available to
council to deal with somebody who violates the code of conduct. It could involve
the vacating of the seat, it could do that, depending on how serious it is, but
it does not have to automatically go there. There are other forms of discipline,
I'll call it for lack of a better term, to deal with these situations.
From a
more minor form, based on a minor situation, versus right up to and including
vacating the seat in the most serious of situations with a number of measures
that could be taken in between. I think that's a great feature to have here so
that the penalty fits the crime, so to speak, as we would say if we were talking
about a criminal matter, that the penalty fits the crime. I think that's a good
thing.
As I
said, having the training there is also very important. We have to realize that,
depending on the municipality, the size of the municipality – and this has kind
of been referenced one way or another in other speakers – that, you know, it's
one thing when you're with a large municipality, I will say a large urban
municipality that have huge budgets or significant budgets and a lot of
professional staff. And that's not to be demeaning to any of the town clerks in
the small towns. I don't mean it that way.
But in
very large municipalities, let's face it, you have people who are, in a lot of
cases, highly trained, educated and so on, making big salaries, getting paid big
salaries to have that expertise and knowledge in all these types of matters. So
when matters arise, you have that professional staff that can give advice to
councils on various aspects of the Municipalities Act, of legal implications, of
financial implications, of civil implications and so on. Or you have the
ability, because you have the funds, to be able to seek legal advice or advice
from consultants and so on because you have that financial flexibility to do so.
Whereas,
when we're talking a number of smaller municipalities: very, very small budgets;
lucky if they can hire somebody part time as sort of a part-time clerk or
whatever the case might be; just don't have the staffing, just don't have the
resources, don't have the resources to hire consultants and so on; in many
cases, all volunteers.
It's
important, in particular for those small towns – it's important for all towns,
regardless of size, but small towns in particular, it's important to have this
training so that everybody is trained and understands exactly what the roles,
what the responsibilities are and how to deal with these types of measures when
they arise.
Now, I
would say to the minister – and I'm sure she would agree – it's one thing to
conduct a training session to say you're trained, we're done, end of story. We
all know that's not going to work – we all know that's not going to work. This
has to be an ongoing process of training. A one-time training session just isn't
going to cut it.
I think
that's where Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador can certainly play an
integral role in rolling this out and in maintaining these standards and keeping
people trained up. Because anyone who's been involved with MNL who is a former
councillor and so on who've gone to not so much the convention that'll be
happening next weekend, but certainly the municipal symposium which happens in
the spring – that usually happens in Gander – that's usually, I'll call it, the
training days, if you will, more so than the other part.
So
they've always taken a lead role on training municipal leaders in many aspects
of municipal governance. I could see MNL having a very, very important role
here, not just in the rollout of this training, not just in the rollout of this
program, but in the ongoing education year over year over year, the refreshers,
the updates and so on.
I could
also see perhaps MNL having a role to play – which they do all the time anyway
with other matters – to be that resource if people have questions about how this
policy might roll out. Possible templates that might be available for
municipalities to follow and questions around the guidelines and so on.
I think
MNL is really the body that is best equipped to provide that type of training,
expertise and guidance for municipalities. I certainly encourage the minister to
utilize the expertise that exists with that organization, because they certainly
are a wealth of knowledge and have proven and shown over the years that they
have the ability to have a positive impact in terms of assisting municipalities
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
Obviously, we're going to be into a bit of a different situation as it relates
to local service districts. My colleague from Bonavista referenced the issues
around local service districts. Yes, he is right; there are 17 between those two
districts. There's a lot more of them than that. I don't know what the number
is, but I'm sure it's over 100 or more throughout the province of local service
districts.
The
legislation does contemplate local service districts as well. I think what it
says here is that for municipalities there will be guidance here saying that
municipalities must develop their own code of conduct, but then I think it's
also saying that Municipal Affairs – if I read it correctly – will provide a
code of conduct or a template. I don't know if they're going to impose one or
how it's going to work, but they will be directly involved with establishing
code of conduct for local service districts.
Obviously, training is going to have to be provided to those folks as well. They
wouldn't get through Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador because they
wouldn't be members of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, so there will
have to be other venues provided by Municipal Affairs to ensure that local
service districts are also trained in this code of conduct.
I think
with the training, the ongoing training and the ongoing education that we can
hopefully prevent a lot of these conflicts from occurring in the future. As
somebody said over here, we won't have to worry about the penalties because
everyone will know what they're doing. They'll be trained, they'll understand
and, hopefully, it will result in these incidents not happening.
Now,
does that mean they're never going to happen? I don't think so. I think we can
do all the training we want; there still will be incidents. Hopefully they'll be
less, but they'll be there.
That
brings me to a point that was first raised by my colleague from the District of
Topsail - Paradise and one of the first things that popped out at me actually
when I was doing the briefing; I actually asked about this at the briefing that
I received. I believe the Member for Labrador here raised it as well. The whole
issue around – I just lost my train of thought; the train just came off the
rails b'ys. Imagine.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
No, we won't stop –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
We'll have to recess until I
gather my thoughts.
I'll
take it –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
No, it won't be tomorrow.
I'll take a breath.
The
training, what was the point he just made?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
The what?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
You did.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You've made enough points
already, Paul.
P. LANE:
Yeah. They're saying I've
made enough points already.
Oh, yes,
now I remember.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. LANE:
The other point I wanted to
speak to was who will be the arbiter of disputes? That was the point, the
arbiter of disputes.
Right
now, as has been said, it kind of falls to the council, perhaps the CAO, and
from there it goes right directly to the courts.
My
thought process on this, similar to what my colleagues have said, is that there
needs to be some sort of an independent arbiter in between. Now, there could be
a person, as was said, whether it's MNL or whatever who can give some advice,
perhaps, to say here's what we think. That's one thing while you're sort of
still in the middle of sort of the dispute, but if parties can't agree, I
wonder, instead of the courts, because you go to courts, it could be very costly
on the municipality, costly on the individual councillor, and who has the
resources to do it? Perhaps, depending on the size of the municipality and the
resources they have, they may have the funds, depending on the size. A lot of
small towns wouldn't have the resources to take things and challenge it in
court. Certainly, as individual councillors, particularly those who are just
volunteers and so on, now they have to go to court to deal with something.
Now,
it's fine to say, well then just drop it and accept the decision of the council
that you were in a conflict. It's fine to say that, but then that's potentially
somebody's reputation gone down the drain, particularly, if they really feel
that they weren't in a conflict and they did nothing wrong, they should have the
right to appeal.
Perhaps
having some sort of an independent tribunal, I will call it, maybe binding on
both parties so that you have that dispute over whether there's a conflict or
whether there isn't a conflict. Perhaps Municipal and Provincial Affairs – I
think in here we were told – would get involved with maybe some mediation or
whatever, but, at the end of the day, you agree to disagree. Perhaps there
should be an independent tribunal or body or something that would hear both
sides and make a decision outside of the court process that they could say
you're either in a conflict or you're not. Perhaps that would be binding on both
parties.
I just
throw that out there. Maybe there's another form this could take. But I know,
for example, if somebody is on a workers' compensation claim, they can appeal.
They go to internal review and then there's the workplace review division, which
is no cost to the employee or the employer. I suppose there's a cost to the
employer in terms of its part of the overall system, but there's no cost per se
and it's an independent body who makes a decision. You still have the right to
go to court if you want to take it further, but at least that independent body
is there. Perhaps there needs to be something like that inserted into this
process so that these matters could be dealt with where parties can't agree.
I would
just sort of echo that point, whatever form it would take, that my colleague
from Topsail- Paradise mentioned, I think there should be something in between.
But
beyond that, I think it is a very good piece of legislation. As I said, it's
something that's been lacking for a long time, something that municipalities
have been asking for, for a long time. I'm sure it's going to be welcomed by
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and by all of its members. I think it's
going to serve our province well.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Are
there any further speakers to Bill 37?
Seeing
none, if the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs speaks now,
she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister.
K. HOWELL:
I would like to thank
everybody for what they've added to this conversation.
Speaker,
I think we have come to a consensus that this is certainly something that's
needed and will be beneficial to our communities.
Thank
you very much for the comments. I look forward to providing answers to much of
those questions during Committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 37 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Conduct Of Municipal Officials. (Bill 37)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials,” read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 37)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 37.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair so that the House can resolve into Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of this House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 37, An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials.” (Bill 37)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Chair.
Some
questions with respect to the bill.
Who will
provide the training that's coming forward?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Chair.
The
training aspect is something that we've been working on with our partners at MNL
and PMA. Our department also offers significant training as it stands, but it's
not mandatory.
So as we
move forward, we will make our training mandatory and work with our partners to
develop training that's adequate for all the councils that we serve. It'll
largely be based on the municipal handbook and just operationalizing that to
make sure that all of the important information gets out to the communities.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Who will
be paying for this legislated training?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
This training will be part of the work of our department as well as part of
MNL's mandate and the services that they provide to our communities.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
I'm wondering if this schedule of training will be offered to as many people as
possible. Will it be done in the evenings; will it be done on the weekends with
municipal leaders working?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Those are some things that we'll have to work through when we get to regulations
and to specific councils, but our aim is to make it as accessible as possible to
as many of the council members as we can.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Will the Innu community
governments in Labrador be covered under this particular code of conduct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
No, they won't be.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
I ask that because we have to
look at with respect to the training and materials will be translated. So that
is something that should be kept in mind.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
It is my understanding that
they are self-governing bodies, so we wouldn't have a role there. But if there
is any information that needs to be provided and they have any questions about
translating, then that is certainly something that our department would look
into.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Just wondering why the code
of conduct was not a part of the larger bill when we're going to update the
Municipalities Act, as we discussed earlier in the House. I'm just wondering if
you can provide a timeline on that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I think we carved off this
piece because it became such a prevalent issue when we were going around doing
our consultations for the Municipalities Act. Seeing that the councils were
requiring this type of information, we thought it would be prudent to bring it
forward quickly.
Given
that the Municipalities Act is 400 sections, it is a larger piece of work and
something that is going to take a little more time. We are still working
diligently on that and it is my aim, if possible, to get it to the House the
next sitting.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Just wondering what will be
done to bring the local service districts in line. Do you have a plan or a time
frame for the local service districts?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Our local service districts
are considered committees and not councils so, by that nature, they wouldn't
have to be included. They certainly could be included, if they chose to do so,
and the department can give them templates and give them options of how they can
implement code of conducts.
It was
our line of thinking that because these local service districts often have a
smaller capacity, they provide services with a smaller group of people, the
opportunity for conflict doesn't always exist in the same fashion. You have you
basic services that are provided, and the local service districts do a great job
of taking care of the immediate needs in front of them. Because they don't have
staff members, it wouldn't really apply to them. So that was our thinking there.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
I know
you're new to the role. But as this has taken three years to develop and it is
going to be a full four years before implemented, can you comment on why it took
so long to get to this point? I'm glad we're there but why did it take so long?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs
K. HOWELL:
I just got here in April and
I got it to the House today, so I think that's a pretty good timeline.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
K. HOWELL:
As I mentioned, it's been a
large chunk of work and this became, certainly, a pressing issue. We wanted to
make sure that we consulted with as many people and communities as we could to
get it right. So we're working on that diligently and hope to get it moving
forward.
CHAIR:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
J. WALL:
I thank you for the answer, and I appreciate you being new in the seat and I'm
glad it is on the floor of the House.
Can this
legislation be applied retroactively when you look at the previous issues that
have gone on throughout the province in municipalities?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
No, we're not looking at moving it backwards after it's enacted. We have a time
frame there where councils who would fall under this legislation, you can look
back at something that was conducted then, but we're not looking digging holes
20 years in the past. We're pretty much focused on moving our communities
forward and doing what we can to make things better for our communities now.
CHAIR:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
I know
we've discussed and you mentioned Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and
the Professional Municipal Administrators of Newfoundland and Labrador earlier.
Have they been fully consulted and are they fully on board with the legislative
changes?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
As I mentioned earlier and as
the media briefing today, I was flanked by members of MNL and PMA and I'm very
pleased with the relationship that we forged with them. They've been consulted
extensively on this, as well as our legislative review and we continue to work
with them. They are very strong partners, they represent the communities very
well and the staff members very well and that's something that we certainly look
forward to doing in the future.
CHAIR:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you and I'm glad to hear that.
With
respect to the disclosure statements: Does the department have any concerns
about the personal financial information of an individual and their spouse or
partner to be held securely in a small council office?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
It is the responsibility of the communities to have a records management plan, a
retention plan and a policy. So that's something that all councils and all
offices have to do. The records that would be held can be viewed by the public,
but it's within the purview of the community to do that. To quote a line from
earlier, we're giving them a lot of responsibilities here. They have a lot of
power so we're giving them a lot of responsibilities.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Does the
department have any concerns about the broad financial disclosure requirements
for individuals and their spouses or partners that may actually turn people away
from running for municipal office?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I think the same answer
applies. When we get quality people step forward to take on these roles, the
understanding is that they have a responsibility to the communities that they
are representing. We certainly do want to make sure that there are measures in
place to protect that, but at the same time they realize that this is a role
that they've stepped into and want to be fully committed and fully disclosed.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Given that we, as MHAs, in
this House have very stringent private interest disclosures, did the department
consult with the Commissioner on this particular piece of legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes, we did.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
What happens with the small
municipalities who do not have full-time staff? Does the minister have any
concerns about the professional capacity to implement this legislation and, if
so, what additional supports do you have to offer to help them comply?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
We do, in our department,
offer significant support to communities if they come forward and request that
from the department. However, I think I'm going to put my regionalization hat on
here now and use that as a pitch that, moving forward, if we consider shared
services, if there's something that communities can do better together then
that's certainly something that our department encourages and if we can be of
any assistance in that matter then they can certainly reach out to us.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
So what time frame do you
have that you're going to propose for this councillor training?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I think earlier today I said
about nine months, once we have a solid piece of legislation to work with. It's
going to take us about six months to get regulations in place, after this is all
said and done. We want to give councils an adequate time frame to complete their
training. We'll give them a three-month window to get everybody in and trained
up to par.
That
might take a little longer depending on some of the consultations and reaching
out to people that we have to reach out. It would be a timeline thing with them
getting back to us.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Will the government be
providing any financial assistance to municipalities to help them offset the
cost? I know some municipalities are struggling out there with respect to any
incurred costs.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Our department is always at
the ready to provide any training information that we can at no cost to our
communities but if there is a cost that's incurred, it's a conversation that we
can have. Right now, we haven't put a price tag on any of this, but we will
certainly look at that moving forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Just a couple of more
questions: Will this code of conduct cover part-time staff and seasonal
employees; there's many municipalities who have students on their work terms?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
The code of conduct will
apply to staff, councils and even volunteers as we move forward; anybody who
represents the community in any official capacity.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
With respect to volunteers, volunteers are the lifeline of municipalities, no
doubt. Have you consulted with the groups of fire departments or recreation
commissions throughout the municipalities?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Most of that consultation has come through our communities through MNL. We
realize that the role of the volunteers in some of our small communities, you
couldn't even put a price tag on it because they are invaluable. So as we move
forward it will be implemented through consultations with the communities and
seeing where that fits for them.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I thank
the minister; I think I might have alluded to some questions that are coming. I
only got a couple here.
I'm just
looking at Part II, the conflict of interest definition, and I alluded to
there's a definition in the Municipalities Act. Which one takes precedence?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I thinking seeing that this is the most-updated piece of legislation, I'm going
to wait for my staff to get back to me, but this one will take precedence
because we're going to improve the Municipalities Act as well.
Yes, I'm
correct.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Looking
at the same section of conflict of interest, under the definition it talks to
personal relationships.
What are
we defining as personal relationships?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
You're going to have to give me a minute to look for the definition. I think
that in some of the definitions outlined we have that. It could be any personal
relationships: relatives, spouses, friends, all of these things are outlined in
the definitions here.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
I take that as similar to what we would describe as immediate family?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
I think I got one more
question here – just going back here.
We've
talked about the whole process and how it follows through. So once there's a
complaint made against an individual that they're in conflict of interests, and
there's a whole process of reports and so on and so on, and it can go as far as
the Supreme Court. What's the status of the complainant from the point of time
when a complaint is filed until then? Is that councillor still considered –?
K. HOWELL:
I can't hear you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the – sorry.
K. HOWELL:
I can't hear him.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise, would you mind repeating, please?
P. DINN:
That's not a problem. I've
never been told you can't hear me.
No, just
looking at the point of where a complaint is filed against a councillor, and
there's a whole process that follows through in terms of there's the report and
then the CAO could be involved and then it can go to the Supreme Court and so
on. What's the status of that complainant from the point of complaint to
whenever it's resolved? Is that person still a councillor, or is he or she
removed from council? What's the status?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I'm just going to refer –
just give me a minute for my officials to chime in there. I think that the
council has the ability to set somebody off if they choose to. They can set them
back for three months; remove them from their duties or committees or whatever,
if that's what they choose to do. But until there's a decision then, yes, they
do sit back.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you.
Okay, so
they step back from their duties. So if they're found – we'll say for lack of a
better word – not guilty, are they reimbursed retroactively?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I guess that would depend on
whether or not there was any type of reimbursement in the first place; if they
were being remunerated for their council work. So if they are paid, they would
be reimbursed. But if not, then it would just be no.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
Minister, going back to the point I made in second reading, and my colleague
from Topsail - Paradise as well, was there any consideration giving to having a
step between the council making the decision and going to court? Was there every
consideration of having some kind of an independent body, tribunal, whatever? If
so, how come it's not there or what was the thought process in not having it
there?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
We talked about those things
and the conversation came up. But, ultimately, any decision of a tribunal or
outside group would still be subject to a judicial review. If they are going to
prepare for a tribunal, they would still incur the cost or the preparation of
preparing for that, similar to what they would if they were to go to court. So
removing that step and giving council the autonomy to make those decisions was
just another piece of giving them the ability to work within their means for the
communities and then, ultimately, they may still end up in a judicial review.
CHAIR:
The Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands.
P. LANE:
So I would assume that if a
councillor decided that he or she was going to take the matter further to court,
then, obviously, any court costs and so on associated, if that councillor won,
would be levied back on the municipality, I would imagine.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I don't have that answer
right now. I'm not sure; I'd have to get back to you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Just to
go back to personal relationship: Did I hear it correctly that it really
pertains just to the immediate family?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
That's outlined in the bill. It's a relative: a spouse, child, stepchild,
step-parent, sibling, parent-in-law, sibling-in-law or anybody who resides with
the municipal official.
CHAIR:
The Member for St. John's
Centre.
J. DINN:
So I'm thinking a personal relationship, especially if it's on matters that I'm
thinking in terms of, even the situation in Conception Bay South, if you have a
personal relationship with the developer, a friendship, or the company or
whatever else, would that not be classified as a personal relationship?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes, and that's something that we considered where we introduced the
reasonableness factors. If somebody looked at that and assumed that a person
could act without bias, then they wouldn't be in conflict. For example, I would
be in conflict in my community if there was a decision about the swim team
because I spent the last 25 years as a member and a coach, so I would excuse
myself from those decisions. Even though there may be no financial gain to me, I
would probably not be able to act reasonably without bias. So, you know, those
different things are applied to friends and businesses, as well as immediate
family.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
That's
my understanding here, even on the few boards that I was involved with.
With
regard to that: Who determines the reasonableness? Would that eventually be the
council?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes, it would be the council.
They would decide for that particular issue, but there is nothing that prohibits
them from going outside to phone a friend, ask another community if somebody
would weigh in on that decision.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
I notice here on Part II,
6(5), it says: “Where a councillor is uncertain as to whether or not the
councillor has a conflict of interest ….” But what about if the councillor says
unequivocally, yes, I am declaring a conflict of interest at this point. Is the
council still able to vote and say, no, you do not? Are they able to weigh in on
it or is that the end of the matter?
It says
here “uncertain”; but if the councillor, himself or herself, is sure on that, is
the council then still able to overrule that and declare that their councillor
is not in a conflict?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
The council could still vote,
but I don't know why they would. If somebody declares a conflict, then you're
out. I don't see why the council would pursue that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
I have an example where that
happened, but that's fair enough. That's my concern here. If I was declared and
someone then says no, you are not, that would be an issue with it.
With
regard to section 6 as well, I notice that it says here that where a councillor
knows or ought reasonably to know that the councillor has a conflict of
interest, the councillor shall refrain from participating in any discussion;
refrain from voting on any question, decision, recommendation; leave the room in
which the meeting is held for the duration. However, it then says the councillor
may remain in the part of the room set aside for the general public.
Two
questions: The purpose of having them refrain from participating, refrain from
asking questions – essentially, it would be to remain silent in the discussion,
correct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Correct.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
I should know better, Chair.
So if it
is to remain silent and they're not participating, what is the requirement to
have them leave the council room? If they're just sitting there, why would they
be required to leave the chamber itself?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I would assume that it is so
that you don't have that influence in the conversation, even implied influence
by your presence there. It would be intimidating for members at the table if
somebody was there. It guarantees impartiality on behalf of the council if the
person is removed.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
That's
exactly what I would assume. So, then why would you even permit that person then
to sit in the gallery or any place for the general public where their very
presence would be again an influence? I think, if I may, that's something that
that person should be out of there altogether if we assume, Chair, that their
presence will be intimidating or influencing even if they say nothing. Really,
they need to be out of there altogether. Why would that be –?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
They would still be a member
of the general public and a resident of the community and have the capacity to
sit in the public forum.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Again, they may be a member
of the general public, but the reason they are now sitting there is because they
have a possible conflict of interest. I think the fact that there's a conflict
of interest sitting on council, that supersedes that in that way. They have
declared that interest. And the minister has acknowledged that the very presence
of that person could influence the decision-making.
Secondly, it says there in (3): 'A councillor referred to in subsection (1)
shall not attempt, in any way, before, during or after the meeting, to influence
(a) the vote of other councillors.” Just to be clear, this also covers any
electronic communications such as through a cellphone and the like?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
While not explicitly stated,
yes, any form of influence would be covered here.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Chair.
I had a
couple of questions. Lake Melville is an interesting district in that we have
seemingly one of each: a larger community in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, a smaller
community in North West River, the Band Council operated and owned the directive
of Sheshatshiu, the local service district of Mud Lake; but one I wanted to ask
the minister about was Churchill Falls. It remains a company operated and
managed community, but I'm wonder if are there any elements of this that you see
applicable in this situation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
That's not a topic that's
come up in our conversations, no.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Okay, thank you.
My other
area of interest, based on some feedback I had – and by the way, the two
municipalities I have were very excited to see this legislation coming, so I
wanted to pass that along. I didn't have a chance earlier.
On the
code of conduct – and again, I'm thinking about the variety of communities that
are in Lake Melville and I'm sure across the province in terms of capacity and
capability. I would just like to propose to the minister – and maybe you've
already covered this – in terms of the idea of establishing a code a conduct.
I'm just thinking how cumbersome that might be. I mean, you've got criteria
there under Part III in terms of what should go into it.
Is the
department considering, perhaps, putting out a template that would be rather
robust in its text and say, if you like it, just adopt it. If there's something
to adjust, then please proceed in that direction.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes, the department will
provide a template, and the community will have the capacity to build on that,
should they so choose, or adopt it as written.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
Another
question just came to mind. Just wondering, what would happen if the majority of
the council is allegedly in a conflict of interest? So I'm just thinking that
you have a council, say, with five members, and we know in a lot of small towns
people are related. A lot of people might be related to one another. We've seen
situations in the past where councils have elected – quote, unquote – slates
that are there because they have some kind of a common or a shared interest or
so on.
So I
could see a scenario could occur where there are, say, five members on a council
and three of those members – being the majority of the council – may vote a
certain way on a particular matter because they have a shared interest. And
perhaps they're all in a conflict. But if there are only two remaining members,
then how does the council declare a conflict when the majority of the voting
members are in conflict, potentially? How would that work?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Chair.
Where
one or more of the councillors have declared a conflict of interest and the
number of councillors remaining is not sufficient to constitute a quorum, then
the number of councillors remaining – where not less than two – shall be
considered a quorum for purposes related to the matter. And where circumstances
arise that there would be less than two councillors remaining, the council shall
request direction from the minister.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That
answers it if the majority declare – I think you read declare – a conflict of
interest. But I'm throwing out the scenario they don't declare. As a matter of
fact they're saying we're not in a conflict of interest. But the other two feel
they are in a conflict of interest. So they haven't declared it. Now there's a
disagreement over whether they are or not, and the council decides whether they
are or not. But the three being the majority are the ones who potentially are in
the conflict to begin with.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I think you've presented a
very interesting predicament here. The onus fails back on the council to make
appropriate decisions, to enact a code of conduct that they've been presented
with and to act within their rights and realms as councillors. We give that
responsibility to councillors and we expect them to uphold that standard.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Minister.
I get
that point, I really do, but if we could just simply fall back on that then we
wouldn't need a code of conduct to begin with; we wouldn't need a process to
begin with.
Again,
I'm just throwing out there that, potentially, you have five people on a
council; three of them have a shared interest. They might have been, like I say,
elected on a slate, they might be related, whatever the case might be and those
three individuals may not declare a conflict of interest but clearly might have
some shared agenda, whatever that might be. The other members of council see
that and want to call them out on that and challenge that but they have no
ability to do it unless they declared.
There
should be a process in that case, I'm assuming, where those two members of
council could go to Municipal Affairs. I guess that must be the remedy.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Anybody who feels that
there's a conflict of interest has the capacity to approach the community, to
refer to the chief administrative officer and there's a process in place for
that. They can appeal it and then it would just follow through the procedures
that have been outlined. If it ultimately ended up in the department, then so be
it, but they have that capacity.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I do
have just one more. It came to light when I was looking at other things there.
My
colleague from Cape St. Francis asked an earlier question around: Does the
department have any concerns about personal financial information of an
individual or their spouse being held by a small council office? I think you
responded – and you can correct me in an answer – that you expect councils would
have sufficient information management plans for maintaining their information.
However, as we've gone through this discussion, a lot of these small councils
are very limited in their resources.
Who
ensures that they have an appropriate management plan in place that can secure
the private information?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
That would be the
responsibility of the town clerk or the chief administrative officer.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
I guess that's to my point in
terms of if you have small councils where they're all related in small towns,
who ensures – I know you say it's the responsibility of the town clerk, but
someone independently has to say you have a sufficient system in place.
It's no
different than the development plans that municipalities have to put in on a
regular basis; half the time some of them don't even submit them. So just for
something as serious as information that's being held, what are the checks and
balances for making sure it's held in private?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I think that would fall to
our department then. Our department does inspections and ensures that all these
regulations are upheld, routinely. If there was a community that had a question
or concern, then they could, by all means, reach out to us and our department
would inspect and find an appropriate answer for them.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
J. DINN:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
I'm sorry, I didn't see you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Is it possible to make an
amendment, propose an amendment at this time?
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is
a process to produce an amendment and that should've been arranged and discussed
with the Law Clerk prior to this piece of legislation coming to the floor.
J. DINN:
(Inaudible) to the minister.
CHAIR:
I cannot, I have to rule not
to accept that.
It has
to be a written –
J. DINN:
I have it written.
CHAIR:
Yes.
J. DINN:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
If you're ready to submit a
written amendment …
J. DINN:
Yes, (inaudible).
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
So is
the amendment to clause 1?
J. DINN:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Shall
clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 5
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 5
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 6.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 6 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
If I may, Chair, I would like
to make an amendment, moved by me, seconded by the Member for Labrador West,
that we amend the Municipal Conduct
Act be deleting clause 6(2),
“Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(e), where the meeting referred to in subsection
(1) is open to the public, the councillor may remain in the part of the room set
aside for the general public,” and renumbering clauses accordingly.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Committee will recess to take a look at the amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
House
Leaders ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
CHAIR:
So the amendment is deemed to
be in order.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What a Member.
J. DINN:
What a Member, indeed.
It's as
simple as this: If we accept the premise that just sitting silently in the
chamber has the ability to intimidate, then we must assume that sitting in the
public gallery is also equally intimidating or has the ability to influence the
decision of council.
I look
at St. John's City Council. It's not a huge council chamber. Even this Chamber
here, for this matter, is not a terribly big Chamber when you look at the
seating. But in St. John's City Council, it's easy enough for people to sit in
the gallery and be looking down straight on top of their fellow councillors to
see who's going to vote or what they're going to say, so on and so forth. So
there is that possibility of influencing.
I would
assume, too, that in many other places, especially in small communities,
especially where people are known to each other, related to each other, the
rooms are small, there is a possibility, always.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
J. DINN:
It's about maintaining that objectivity. It's about allowing the rest of the
councillors to do the work that they need to do. Even in St. John's, for that
matter, it's not that big a place, where you can have that influence.
So all
I'm saying here is that if the premise of why the councillor has to leave the
room in which the meeting is held for the duration of the consideration of that
matter and, I would assume, that many of the visitor galleries in many places
are actually in the same chambers where the meeting is taking place then,
really, let's move them out. They don't stop having an influence because they
walk from one chair to the other.
From my
point of view, too, yes, a councillor is a member of the public but once they
take on that role, they are a councillor first, a member of the general public
second. Same thing here; we all know that in this House, we are members of the
public but, first and foremost, we are MHAs and with that comes privileges and
responsibilities.
So I
think in this case, certainly it makes better sense if, indeed, this is to
remove any potential conflict of interest or undue influence on the decisions of
a council, it's a simple thing to remove that clause because, in the end, what
6(1)(e) is saying is: “leave the room in which the meeting is held for the
duration of the consideration of the matter.”
Once
that matter is over and done with, then that councillor is back into the
chamber. It's not precluding him or her from deliberating on other matters
before the council, just on that particular matter. I know in other
organizations that I've been part of, even if there's a spectator place, a place
for members of the public, the person deemed in conflict has to leave the room,
period.
Right
now, it said: “leave the room in which the meeting is held ….” If the place for
the public is to sit in that room, the general public, on one hand you've got a
clause saying leave the room where the meeting is held but, no, he or she can
stay in that room where the meeting is held if there's a gallery. Nothing's
stopping them from glaring at the person, making signs or other movements to
unduly influence the debate.
With
that, I ask for your support in this amendment.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Further speakers?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Chair.
Thank
you for the opportunity to speak to this.
I do
have three points. The bill already makes provisions for what is a privilege
versus a private meeting. So if we set a councillor aside, then that would be
considered a private meeting if they were to discuss that. That would create a
procedural fairness issue. Every one in the community would hear the discussion
about the councillor, except the councillor themselves. They wouldn't be privy
to that part of the conversation.
If they
were seated in the gallery and they became disruptive, then they could be
removed from the gallery because, truthfully, the code of conduct still applies
to those who are sitting in the gallery. If you are councillor and you are
sitting in the gallery, you still have to uphold the codes that have been put
out before you.
There is
a balance here of transparency and privacy. The legislation says that a
complaint about a councillor is not a workplace investigation, so a report would
be discoverable under an ATIPP. We want to make sure that everybody is being
held accountable because being part of being held accountable is the voting
mechanism and doing so in a public fashion where all can hear.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Further
speakers to the amendment?
Is it
the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division has been called.
I summon
in all the Members.
Division
CHAIR:
Order, please!
All
those in favour of the amendment, please stand.
CLERK:
David Brazil, Barry Petten,
Paul Dinn, Craig Pardy, Tony Wakeham, Chris Tibbs, Loyola O'Driscoll, Helen
Conway Ottenheimer, Lloyd Parrott, Joedy Wall, Pleaman Forsey, Jeff Dwyer, James
Dinn, Jordan Brown, Eddie Joyce, Paul Lane, Perry Trimper, Lela Evans.
CHAIR:
All those against the
amendment, please stand.
CLERK:
Andrew Furey, Steve Crocker,
Lisa Dempster, John Haggie, Gerry Byrne, Tom Osborne, Siobhan Coady, Pam
Parsons, Sarah Stoodley, Andrew Parsons, John Hogan, Bernard Davis, Derrick
Bragg, John Abbott, Krista Lynn Howell, Paul Pike, Scott Reid, Sherry
Gambin-Walsh, Lucy Stoyles.
Chair,
the ayes: 18; the nays: 19.
CHAIR:
The amendment has been
defeated.
On
motion, amendment defeated.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 6 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 6 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 7 through 28
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 7 through 28
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 7 through 28 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting The Conduct
Of Municipal Officials.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Chair, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that the House rise and report
Bill 37.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 37.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 37 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 37 without amendment.
When
shall the bill be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
What
shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 18, second reading of Bill 32, An Act To Amend The
Liquor Corporation Act.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity today to introduce a bill to amend the
Liquor Corporation Act to change the
statutory financial year of –
SPEAKER:
A mover and seconder, please.
S. COADY:
A mover and seconder, you'd
think I'd know that.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that this bill be now
read a second time.
SPEAKER:
And that's Bill 32.
S. COADY:
Bill 32.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, now be read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill
32)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm
clearly out of practice.
Today
I'm introducing a bill to amend the Liquor
Corporation Act to change the statutory financial year of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Liquor Corporation; it's referred to commonly as NLC. The financial
year of the corporation shall end now on the first Saturday in April in each
year. That's what's proposed in this bill, Speaker. The
Liquor Corporation Act prescribes that
the financial year-end of the NLC is to correspond with that of the province.
Meaning, on April 1 to March 31 fiscal year.
In 2008,
the NLC opted to move its financial year-end to the first Saturday in April. The
Auditor General identified the discrepancy in legislation with the prescribed
year-end in the act in the 2018-2019 year-end. This was the first year the
Auditor General conducted an audit on NLC's financial statements. It was
undertaken by an external auditing accounting firm prior to that. So prior to
'18-'19, it was done by an external accounting firm.
When a
year-end falls on a particular day of the week, rather than a fixed date, it is
referred to as a floating year-end because the actual date of the year-end will
vary each year. A floating year-end is a less common than a fixed year-end, but
is seen as beneficial in retail operations in particular. It permits four equal
reporting periods – so our quarters – of 13 full weeks each, making
year-over-year and quarter-over-quarter comparisons equivalent. And year-end
accounting cut-offs such as inventory counts can be conducted on a less busy day
of the year. Typically a Sunday in retail environment. And simpler accruals from
year to year, such as payroll, which tends to run in full weeks.
The
liquor authorities in New Brunswick and Quebec have also floating year-ends,
Speaker. As one of the largest retailers in the province, I think it's prudent
to change and will help simplify the year-end process for the Newfoundland and
Labrador Liquor Corporation.
So a
very straightforward amendment to the act, Speaker. It's simply one line. It's
substituting and ensuring that the financial year-end of the corporation shall
end on the first Saturday in April in each year. At very most, it would be up to
seven days outside of the province's year-end. I think it's prudent and
responsible for us to do this, considering the Liquor Corporation made this move
in 2008 and it was just picked up by the Auditor General recently.
So I
propose and ask for the House of Assembly's support in this act.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I quote
a colleague from Mount Pearl: I will only take a few minutes. I will be true to
that, literally. I have no problem with this change whatsoever and I think it's
prudent to do it.
The only
thing I will say is that I'm glad to see that we're bringing this in, and
despite a recommendation in a certain report named Greene that wanted to
privatize the Newfoundland Liquor commission, I look forward to many successful
year-ends for years to come and contributions of revenue to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
I guess I'll also follow the same thread. I myself do, as my colleague here,
concur on this amendment and the reasons behind it. So, like I said, it's all
good here.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Just for the record, I'm supporting the bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
I think that's a record, too.
Thank
you.
Any
other speakers to the bill?
Seeing
none, if the minister speaks now, they will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I won't
delay this but say thank you to the House for this small but important
amendment.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 32 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill 32)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 32)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider Bill 32.
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.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill 32)
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:
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 Liquor Corporation Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the long 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,
the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 32.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 32.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 32 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 32 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
L. DEMPSTER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Bill 18, second reading of An Act To Amend
The Lotteries Act.
SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
bill?
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
It's an
interesting thing here, as I understand it, in this Bill 18, it's going to
prohibit class-action lawsuits against the Atlantic Lottery Corporation,
province, minister and so on and so forth. I'm going to take this one in piece
with the sugary-drink tax – the Liberal sugary-drink tax that they passed
because, here's the thing, on one hand government has decided to victimize the
poor in one bill and we're about to do the same thing here.
I can
tell you that the people who will be affected by lotteries – and this is talking
to credit counselling services – are mostly the elderly.
SPEAKER:
I remind the Member to stay
relevant to the bill, please.
J. DINN:
That I am and why I have a
problem with the whole notion here. This basically is preventing anything from a
class action. It will allow an individual; a person may bring an action against
the Atlantic Lottery Corporation or any person acting on behalf of the
government: a person may but not a group, not a class action, as I understand
it, Speaker.
So,
eventually, those who end up in tremendous debt or who have their families
destroyed by gambling or who go into debt, bankruptcy, they will not be able to,
as a group, sue the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, who are the ones that are
providing, whether it is the tickets, as I understand it the VLTs, and so on and
so forth.
As I
understand it here, too, and only for the “… recover damages in an amount equal
to the loss or damage proved to have been suffered by the person as a result of
a negligent act ….”
So what
does it factor into, the loss of a family, addictions, the loss of a home, the
disruption of their way of life? No. I don't know if anyone else here in this
House itself, but if you've ever been in or go to any place when you look at a
casino and you walk in – and I have done that. I'll walk in with my $20 and I'll
walk out, either with an extra $20 or zero. That's where it ends for me. But I
can tell you right now that walking up to these machines I can see how people
can get addicted. There are no clocks in the room. Also, when you put that last
quarter or dollar in the machine and you pull it and you wonder, maybe the next
one will be where I'll score the big one, Speaker.
So if it
has that effect on a person who doesn't have an addictive personality, what
effect do these machines have on those who do? Because the people who are using,
I would say that most who are using it, taking part in the gambling, lottery
tickets, or whatever else, a lot of that I would say are people who are at some
stage where they're looking for that win.
In
speaking to Credit Counselling, Mr. Al Antle told me the biggest people who are
affected are senior ladies between 68 and 74, around that age range. Sometimes
they have lost a spouse and whether it's a comfort or so on and so forth,
whatever the reason is, he's pointed out that there are lot of people at that
age range, Speaker, who are basically facing financial ruin as a result of
gambling.
So I
cannot support this as it is, because it basically allows a corporation like
Atlantic Lottery Corporation – a multi-million-dollar business – to make money
from gambling and from people who might have gambling addictions, who might have
mental health issues. If we talk about addictions, again I go back to what many
school counsellors would tell me: Underlying just about every addiction, there
is a mental health issue of some sort.
In many
ways, when we're putting these machines out there, they fill a void. It may not
work on me; I may have other proclivities that draw my attention. But to the
people who spend their money on these machines, government makes a tremendous
amount of money on it and Atlantic Lottery Corporation makes tremendous mount of
money on it. There's got to be some way to hold them accountable, Speaker, for
that loss. Not just simply the loss of money or anything else, but the damage to
their mental health, to their family, to their job. Because many people that's
what it comes down to as well, it affects all aspects of their life, even to the
point of suicide. So put a value on that, please.
The only
way that people who are already in desperate financial straits are going to take
this on is with a group of others, class action. It's fine and dandy to say that
a person may bring an action against Atlantic Lottery Corporation or any person,
but if that person is already in dire financial straits that's not even based on
reality. The only way you take on large corporations and teach them a lesson is
in class actions. You allow the group to take them on and that's when it has
some meaning. Otherwise, each case is taken on individually. It's easy enough
for the corporation or I would even say the government to wear down individuals.
To me,
on one hand if you're taking the money in, you're victimizing them twice because
you're saying we're washing our hands of any responsibility and you're on your
own. We take no responsibly for the fact that you gambled away your life savings
or that you have an addiction problem but, by the way, call the Mental Health
helpline and we'll see what we can do for you.
So, to
me, the key thing about being in government is that we are the regulators as
well. This basically takes away any consequences from Atlantic Lottery
Corporation or persons acting on behalf of government of the province and so on
and so forth. I would assume by allowing class actions, we're actually holding
Atlantic Lottery Corporation to account so that when they make any policy
decisions or implement new games and so on and so forth, that they're having an
eye to the health and well-being of the customers who are making use of their
gambling products.
On one
hand, we have two bills that basically are victimizing vulnerable individuals –
simple. And this one offers more protection to the people who already can well
afford it themselves and it's victimizing the vulnerable people all over again.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, again, it's a
pleasure to speak on legislation or any time in the House it's always good to
speak. Every time we speak, I like to remind, we say we speak for the people we
represent but, in a way, we also speak for people in the province – we do.
Outside our critic roles and our MHA duties and everything else, the public, the
greater good, look to us for direction. Sometimes with this legislation it has a
good impact, bad impact and sometimes it has no impact. Ultimately, they do look
at us because this is where the laws are made. We always don't agree, of course,
as everyone knows that.
On the
surface when you look at this bill to amend the
Lotteries Act, you kind of think it's a housekeeping item, bringing
it in line with the rest of the Atlantic provinces, which makes a lot of sense
when you really look at the surface of it. But when you dig into this bill – and
I happen to be speaking from my own personal experience because when I first
seen this come up – this come up in our last session. This was introduced and
briefed in the last sitting, the spring sitting I believe.
At
first, I was like, yeah, that's pretty straightforward but then I actually took
more time, talked to some of my colleagues, the Member for Harbour Main namely,
and we had further conversation. The more we started thinking about this, it
wasn't so cut and dry, as you're stopping class actions against the lottery in
line with the rest of the Atlantic provinces.
You're
indirectly or directly, probably not intentionally, but you're targeting your
group of individuals that there's no mention made of. As politicians and as
people in this House, we sit here all the time, we talk, we say nice words, we
say mental health and addictions and we're all about it and we have an all-party
Committee. We do a lot of good things for mental health. We do a lot of good
things for people who struggle. We have all the answers. But when you leave this
bubble here and you go out to the real world, it's not so much like that.
I look
at a lottery machine; it's no different than going into a ticket booth. It's a
means to get to the end. It's a means to get to the end result. That's an
attraction to get to the bigger prize.
Gambling
is an addiction and no different than any other addiction out there, but just
imagine if you have both of those addictions, you have drugs and alcohol on top
of that, and gambling. So that $10, you look at that and it could be $100 or it
could be $1,000. But it's not so much the dollar figure as what it's going to
get you.
Just
putting that in perspective, that's the addiction. That's the raw addiction.
Someone addicted to gambling or any of this, they're not going to be the ones
forming a class action. The Atlantic lotto feeds into this addiction. It's been
long stated and debated, and the Supreme Court have been involved in some issue
because they don't bring in legislation to prevent this class action from
happening.
It's a
dicey issue. There has been class actions before and they failed. That don't
mean there can't be more, but this will prevent anymore.
But the
end result is not as much class action or costing government money, it's you're
affecting those vulnerable populations. So when the fog lifts and they get their
lives somewhat under control and they realize this was a core part of my
problem, they feel they've been wronged. Everybody has a right to defend
themselves, to try to right wrongs. When you get to the other side, so to speak,
you go in and you no longer have that ability.
Fortunately, on a personal note, I don't have any of those issues, thank God,
but trust me, I know a lot of people who do. I think we all do.
They're
losing that right. It's after the fact. So it's not about someone that's
gambling today. It's the after effect: what effects it had on their lives, their
families and their marriages. This is much bigger than a VLT machine or a
lottery machine in a store. It's much bigger.
It's a
societal issue out there. We all see it and we turn a blind eye, I guess.
I
challenge anyone here to stop into a convenience store on the way when they
leave here tonight, there's a good chance in a small convenience store someone
is buying them pull tabs or rip offs is probably the right name for them.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. PETTEN:
Nevada tickets, there you go.
You see
that everywhere – scratch tickets. They're only looking for that high, that
thrill. That's what it's about. But not always, that's compounded if you got
those other addictions.
So when
you look at this bill, you're going to take away the rights for individuals,
after the fact. Because that's a key point, and I'm no lawyer, I've never been
close to being one, I never will be. But that's really what you're looking at,
people's rights. They're not doing it when they're in the middle of the
addiction, that's not when it's happening. It's after the fact, because when
you're in the middle of that, it's a big turmoil, your world is upside down
anyway.
That
troubles me with this legislation. I guess where the big piece, again, is what
about the mental health and addictions piece?
We were
in conversation, actually, with the Government House Leader about this
legislation and we had suggested and we talked a lot about putting it to a
Committee, bringing people in to discuss first-hand knowledge, first-hand
experiences. I mean, it's all about life experiences; a lot of this stuff we
lose sight of, it's about life experiences.
Bringing
someone in that probably would consider a class action or would like to do it or
had their life turned upside down, because of that, now being told you have no
more rights, this is limiting your rights. Bring them in to a Committee and let
them – let's do this. If we want to have parliamentary Committees, that's what
we should be doing.
But it
would be narrow to do it in Committee now according to the advice we got from
our Law Clerk and what have you, which is fair enough. So now we've decided,
okay, that may not be the best avenue. We are going to be pushing it, requesting
a Select Committee to review the Lotteries
Act because I think there's a lot of people out there – the general public
would appreciate that. Personally speaking, I believe we owe it to the general
public.
Again,
I'll go back, we say all the right words – and I could go on and on, on this for
a long time. I'm not going to do it this evening, but it's something that's near
and dear to me, it's a mental health and addictions piece. Anyone who knows me
knows that. We say all the right words. If you're listening to what we say, it
really sounds great. I've heard the Minister of Health and Community Services,
very articulately tell the world that everything is wonderful. I challenge
anyone here, him included, to come and sit in my office some day and listen to
the concerns we get, in any of our offices on mental health.
When I
say mental health and addictions, that's a nice word, too, but that's so broad
and so in depth that people don't understand it. No one has all the answers and
I certainly don't, but you hear the stories. You go down to HMP and you'll hear
the stories there. I was on that Committee; I heard stories. I remember most of
them vividly. I have vivid memories of a lot of those stories. They can impact
you.
This
bill is taking away those people's rights; one way or another, taking away those
people's right.
Again,
I'll go back to mental health and addictions – it's all inclusive. If you're
hooked on drugs, no doubt you have a gambling problem because it's a way to get
there; it's a way to get your fix. That's what you do. Whatever mechanism, it's
beg, borrow or steal statement sometimes. Whatever way you can get there, you'll
get there. That's just one of the many avenues.
That's
like one of the doors: you're going in through which door? It could be the VLT
today; it could be a robbery tomorrow. It could be your mother; it could be your
brother. Trust me, it goes all (inaudible). I know first-hand. I live it; I see
it day to day; it's very close to me.
It was
only when I really got talking and discussing and getting the proper advice I
realized, you know, this bill sounds fine in theory. I know from my previous
life when they do bills they put all these lenses on it: a gender lens,
cross-jurisdictional scans, we do all these lenses. I hazard the question – I
mean, they might be told – I don't know if they really reached out and talked to
those people, the people that are really being affected, the vulnerable portion
of our population. Do they know what's happening here?
It's
about rights. We live in the best country in the world. We have rights and
freedoms. It's all about your rights and freedom. We hear it daily about the
VaxPass, about the mandatory vaccinations. We all hear it; we all get similar
emails.
Rights
are precious. I respect people's rights. I struggle sometimes, a lot of debate
they come up with all those issues.
Maybe
I'm throwing it out in a question form in the form of the reading: Did
government ever consider this? Did they look at this when they were doing this
legislation? Because I think that's where there's a missing point.
Again, I
know staff review this stuff and they listen to all of what we have to say and
the questions we'll ask in Committee and whatever we're saying. They make notes,
I get all that. They do a good job and they do a lot of hard work. I'm not being
critical. I really, truly wonder, because I don't think – at first glance it
doesn't jump out that way.
Because
when you read a lot of this stuff, it was as a result of a class action that
failed. So now they're going to change the legislation and the rest of the
Atlantic provinces are also in line. It's really, truly a housekeeping item when
you read it first.
But
people need to really pay attention to what's happening around us. Mental
health, people's mental health, whether it be through addictions, whether
through gambling, you name it, COVID, there are a lot of issues out there now
with mental health – a lot of issues. They're compounded by gambling.
You're
looking for that happiness. We all find happiness in our lives and, hopefully,
we all find it somewhere or another; we have different mechanisms. But some of
these people, winning $100 is the only happiness they'll get. It's the only
smile they put on their face. That's the only rush they get. They have nothing
else. When they get that $100, that's a means to feed their next addiction.
That's a vicious, vicious cycle.
I
believe they deserve to have a right to come back whether it be a class action –
but I have a problem, too, with these VLTs. I don't play them, thank God, but
they're attractive. They bait you. That (inaudible) Atlantic lotto model,
sometimes what we allow. We won't allow a casino, but we're letting this
Atlantic lotto stuff and Pro Line and all that. I question a lot of that because
if you got any addiction, no matter what your addiction is, this is one of the
many triggers. Lottos are no different; they attract you. Whether it's alcohol,
it's cigarettes – I have people that are addicted to Pepsi. Addictive
personalities – I have a friend of mine who is addicted to everything. But this
is no different.
You're
taking away their rights. That's what you're doing. I repeat again – because
this is the piece that people miss – you're taking away the rights of vulnerable
people. That's the key thing. You're taking away those people's rights that
can't defend themselves. Now they will never be able to. They'll be able to go
in and file an individual case, which we know they'll never be able to afford to
do it anyway. Class action is a different beast. There's a reason why we have
class actions.
When
officials get together and they do this legislation, like I say, I know they
listen. I really think the mental health and addictions lens was not given
proper coverage in this bill. I think that's where this bill fails. This bill
will pass because, as we just seen, government has the numbers to do it. But I
respectfully think that this is a flaw in the legislation. I know they're going
to bring it in. It's to protect the public purse but at what cost for vulnerable
individuals – at what cost? What price tag do you put on those?
That's
where you have to find a balance. That's the moral balance. When I listen to the
minister and a lot of people say the nice words about how great we do with
mental health and addictions, and a lot of things we do do good, but we
shouldn't be too proud because we could do a lot better – a lot better.
It's
nice to say them nice words. It sounds wonderful; it really does, but it sounds
pretty hollow to those people. Not only those people, if you know those people
yourself and you see what we do sometimes, we do a great injustice to that full
segment of our population: mental health and addictions. This here is another
example of the many missteps we make along the way. Again, we like to do things
because they sound good and they look good, but actual fact they're not really
worth the paper they're written on.
We will
be pushing for a Standing and Select Committee to review the
Lotteries Act because, like I said, I think that issue will draw a
lot of attention. I think that's what the public really – deep down they
mightn't realize it, but it may be the best thing we can do. I think it's the
most responsible thing that us, as legislators, should be doing in here,
bringing that to the forefront and get it debated in this Legislature, get it in
a Committee, let people come with a view of their personal lives and
experiences. Because these VLTs, this gambling and all the rest of it and
addictions is destroying families' lives; it's having a huge impact and a larger
impact than a lot of us want to realize. I realize it, but I think collectively
we all need to come together and realize it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further speakers?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance, that we adjourn debate on Bill 18.
SPEAKER:
The motion that we adjourn
the debate.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.