April 5, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 40
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements
by the hon. Members for the Districts of Conception Bay South, Burin - Grand
Bank, St. George's - Humber, Mount Pearl North and Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
it's with great pleasure that I rise in this hon. House to honour two very
special ladies who celebrated their 100th birthday on March 26.
Ms.
Mabel Dawe and Ms. Alice Clarke, better known as “The Janes Twins,” were raised
in Paradise. Mabel resides in Long Pond, Conception Bay South, and Alice still
resides in Paradise. These identical twins are strong, independent women who
both live in their own homes, where they are cared for by family. Both have very
sharp minds and are known for their great sense of humour.
What
makes their journey through life so inspiring is not only the memories the two
have created, but also the inseparable bond they've formed with one another.
Their favourite pastime is knitting; they chat with each other daily, have
frequent visits and get their hair done together.
Both are
truly amazed at how much the world has changed throughout their lifetime. They
have worked very hard for the things that they have and are very appreciative of
the little things that life offers. Their life experiences have modelled them
into the role models their families look up to. Their motto is, “If you can't
help someone, don't hurt them.”
Please
join me in wishing Mabel Dawe and Alice Clarke a very happy 100th birthday.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador is so fortunate to have so many Lions Clubs, which are
located throughout our great province and in many communities.
Today I
would like to acknowledge the Garnish Lions Club in the District of Burin -
Grand Bank. The club has been serving our region for 47 years. The Lions Club
has been involved in a number of major initiatives, but the one that I will
focus on today will be the Lion Morgan Knitting Project. This involves
purchasing wool for seniors and other citizens, with the finished products being
donated to the homeless and health care.
The
Lions Club has donated items to The Gathering Place, the Grace Sparkes House, NL
Housing & Homelessness: Burin Peninsula Network, the Salvation Army, Ches Penney
Centre of Hope and to the Burin Peninsula health care system for newborns.
Most
recently, they have decided to make items for Ukrainian families. Last Sunday,
the Garnish Lions Club collected donations for the displaced Ukrainian families
coming to our province. It's great to see that all communities in the District
of Burin - Grand Bank are eager to help.
I ask
all Members to join me in expressing gratitude to all volunteers and for the
kindness displayed in this great province of ours.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's - Humber.
S. REID:
Speaker, it is a pleasure
today to rise to recognize the work of Humber Valley Trailers, a group of
volunteers from the Humber Valley Resort, who have been maintaining and
improving recreational facilities in their community for the last seven years.
The
group initially focused on organizing group outings. As those became more
popular, they expanded their activities to improving trails and facilities.
One of
the trails they have been instrumental in improving is a decommissioned forest
access road that runs along the north side of Deer Lake. This group has
organized dozens of brush-cutting trips and cleanups along that trail.
Another
recent initiative of the group has been the Humber Valley Kitchen, a structure
with a stove and tables, seating area, close to the resort to promote year-round
outdoor activities.
This
group continues to upgrade trails, including culvert installation, construction
of a wooden bridge and construction of a steel bridge along those trails. Their
work has resulted in a significant rise in the use of these trails by people of
all ages year-round.
I ask
all Members of this House to join me in recognizing the work of the Humber
Valley Trailers.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
L. STOYLES:
Speaker, Mount Pearl has
always been a great place to live and raise a family. Over my lifetime, I have
seen much growth and improvement. With that, also comes the need to care for one
another in our community.
The
local churches noticed a need and started helping families at Christmastime with
food hampers. It was soon apparent that the need extended long past the holiday
season.
Almost
25 years ago, food banks officially came to Mount Pearl. Today, we have three
major food banks: two operating under the banner of the Society of Saint Vincent
de Paul, one at Mary Queen of the World Church and the other at St. Peter's
Church. The third food bank is at the Salvation Army on Ashford Drive.
The
volunteers who operate these necessary food banks are very caring and giving
people. They normally operate five days a week for a few hours a day, but this
is only the tip of the iceberg. Hours are spent stocking shelves, picking up
food and sorting donations, answering emergency calls and recording the
necessary paperwork – it all takes time.
These
volunteers are to be commended for their dedication to their fellow neighbours.
Speaker,
I ask all Members to join me and thank all these wonderful volunteers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am so
very proud to rise today and honour William Lorne Goudie who was born in
Springdale on September 13, 1966, along with seven brothers. He has earned four
degrees: a B.A., a B.Ed. and a M.Ed. from Memorial, along with an MTS from
Tyndale University and Seminary.
During
his teaching career in Grand Falls-Windsor and Bishops Falls, Lorne found time
to become a published author, as well as a travelling ministry musician.
In
Lorne's other career, he served with the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment. In October 2020, Captain Goudie moved to Petawawa, Ontario with his
wife Dawn, where he served as a commissioned logistics officer and 35th Field
Battery captain until he retired last month.
My good
friend and hero to so many, Captain William Lorne Goudie retired so he could
jump on a plane and head to Poland and is currently in Ukraine doing what he
does best: helping people. The heart Captain Goudie has allowed him to do God's
work throughout his lifetime, and I am so very proud to call him my friend.
Please
join me today as we let Captain Goudie know just how proud we are of him as he
is in the Ukraine. Burgers on me when you get home. Stay safe, brother.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
As we
are nearing the Easter break in schools and looking toward the end of another
year, it is time to once again recognize educators that have gone above and
beyond for students and school communities.
Today, I
am pleased to announce the opening of nominations for the second annual
Premier's Award for Teaching Innovation and the Minister of Education's Award
for Compassion in Teaching.
Last
year, we were pleased to introduce these awards that recognize teaching
excellence in areas that have, at times, been overlooked but which are
meaningful and impactful for our province's K-to-12 students.
The
Premier's Award for Teaching Innovation recognizes primary, elementary or
secondary teachers in all disciplines who have demonstrated innovation in
instruction and a commitment to preparing their students for future success.
The
Minister's Award for Compassion in Teaching recognizes inspirational and
compassionate teachers at the primary, elementary or secondary level who have
demonstrated a commitment to supporting the social, emotional and mental health
of their students, colleagues or school community as a whole.
Speaker,
last year we held the first annual award ceremony here at the Confederation
Building and it was a very special ceremony. Members from both sides of the
aisle joined the festivities and I think all who took part can agree that it was
extremely gratifying to see the pride of the educators who were recognized,
their families and their colleagues.
I
encourage students, teachers, colleagues and administrators to nominate a
deserving teacher today. The deadline for submissions is May 20. Information
about the awards and the guidelines are available on the Department of
Education's website.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
like to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement. Speaker, I
join the minister in noting the opening nominations for Premier's Awards for
Teaching Innovation and the Minister of Education's Award for Compassion in
Teaching.
Given
the unprecedented challenges of the past two years, teachers are to be commended
for their innovation and compassion in the classroom. So many of our teachers,
administrators and staff have risen to the challenge of COVID-19 by providing
exceptional leadership and ensuring children receive a quality education. We've
also heard so many stories of teachers going the extra mile to ensure students
get a helping hand on their journey through the school system.
Sadly, I
continue to hear from teachers with concerns related to overcrowding in the
classroom, lack of supports and respect from this government, and this was even
before COVID-19. I do hope the long, long-promised review of the teacher
allocation formula that is finally under way will provide some structural change
to address some of these issues.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Teachers continue to go
above and beyond as we emerge from the challenges faced at the height of the
pandemic. We encourage the department to go further than symbolic awards; reduce
class size and ensure teachers have the resources they sorely need to prepare
our future generations, our children, for the world we are building for them.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Speaker, I am pleased today
to notify Members of the House of Assembly that the provincial government is
lifting the current moratorium on wind development, creating an opportunity for
industrial customers to generate wind energy –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A. PARSONS:
– for their own consumption
and wind generation for export.
Speaker,
a moratorium on wind development has been in place since 2007 and was a barrier
to investment and development.
Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the best wind resources in North America.
These can be used to power wind turbines and generate electricity for industrial
customers; export through transmission lines; for the production and export of
hydrogen or ammonia; and to supply energy to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Speaker,
my department has been engaged with a number of companies interested in
exploring industrial development. By lifting the existing moratorium to enable
onshore wind development, we are allowing companies to proceed through an
approval process for wind development. Details on this process will be released
in the coming weeks.
Our
government launched the province's Renewable Energy Plan in December 2021. One
of the short-term commitments in the plan was to review the moratorium on the
Island Interconnected Electricity System. This is an initial step in a
multi-stage process to enable wind generation in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Speaker,
this is a significant move and is supporting our transition to a greener
economy. This supports government's focus on working with the private sector to
find new export markets for the province's underdeveloped renewables.
Newfoundland and Labrador possesses valuable and abundant developed and
undeveloped renewable energy resources, as well as experience and expertise in
the province's technology and energy sectors. Our renewable energy industry is
growing and today's news will continue to grow on the experience and economic
potential of the sector.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Speaker, our province is
rich in abundant resources. I'm a firm believer that all of our resources,
including wind energy, should be developed to the benefit of our province, our
residents and our industries.
While I
believe this announcement by the minister is a good first step, it is a first
step. There are still unanswered questions. The minister must outline what the
appropriate process for a company who wishes to set up a wind development and
the relationships between the province and the industry. For example, will a
royalty on energy generated be collected by the province?
I also
believe that our publicly funded college, CNA, should offer training so that
this becomes an industry, which can employ Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for
many years to come.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. This is wonderful news and
shows that we can capitalize on opportunities for a just transition, when the
political will exists. However, we must ensure that any development is
sustainable, that energy resources remain public assets and that their primary
benefit, and all benefits, remain for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Are there any further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
health care system in this province is broken. Doctors, nurses and front-line
workers are desperately calling out for help. The Health Accord called for
investments into the system, yet the Greene report called for a 25 per cent cut
in funding.
I ask
the Premier: Which hand-picked expert will you follow in this year's budget?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course, we know that the health care system is incredibly strained and
challenged, that's why we asked Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey, two
well-known experts, to evaluate it, including over a year co-operating with
stakeholders and seeking input. We're thoroughly investigating that analysis
right now to see the best path forward, Mr. Speaker.
We know
that there is going to be required an investment at some point in the health
care system; we understand that. We need to make sure that we are providing the
utmost care for the patients of this province, Mr. Speaker, and that's what this
government is all about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
happy to hear that the Premier acknowledges that we need to do an investment,
but we're in a crisis. That investment should happen this Thursday for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador (inaudible) health care system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the Premier promised
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a chief economic recovery officer in the
last election campaign. It's been over a year and the position has yet to be
filled.
I ask
the Premier: Are you going to keep this promise and the many others that you've
made?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That
vacancy has been advertised, as I understand it. I'll check and see where it is
right now and report back to the House, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
good that we're moving on some of the promises. There are a number of other ones
that the people of this province expect the Premier to deliver on.
Speaker,
during her presentation on the Greene report, Moya Greene said she would be
happy to serve the province further in any way she can.
I ask
the Premier: Are you holding this position open for Moya Greene?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
good we've got a distinct answer there. Good, we can move now to hopefully
getting somebody in play who can actually help move the economy in the right
direction.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, a family physician
in Grand Falls-Windsor has taken to Twitter to illustrate how desperate the
situation is with local emergency rooms on constant diversion. Dr. Lynette
Powell, who is also a former president of the Medical Association, has painted a
grim picture of patients with chest pain and respiratory distress being turned
away from local hospitals.
Speaker,
this Liberal government has been in power for seven years. Will the Premier
finally agree that this situation is a crisis?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
sure about finally, because I've always acknowledged that the health care system
has incredible strain and is incredibly challenged. I've worked in it; I think I
know probably perhaps better than anyone in this House the challenges that the
health care system is facing right now, aside from COVID-19.
It's
been chronically underfunded. We need to make sure that we are doing the best to
recognize that as we emerge from this pandemic, this time of disruption, that we
are re-imagining the health care system to provide the best care possible, to
drive the ultimate outcomes. We've been spending the most per person per year on
health care for year after year after year, yet we have the lowest life
expectancy, the highest burden of disease. We can't continue to invest in the
old paradigms; we need to create a new one, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
to acknowledge that, to the Premier, the people of this province see the
difference between a challenging health care system and a health care system in
crisis. We're in crisis, and that's the effect it's having on people in the
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Similar stories to physician
shortages are all too common, in Fogo, St. Alban's, Twillingate, Springdale,
Baie Verte, Buchans, Harbour Breton, New-Wes-Valley, Bell Island and the list
goes on. In emergencies, patients are being transferred hours and hundreds of
kilometres away.
I ask
the Premier: After seven years, why has the government been unable to get its
act together to save rural health care?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's
exactly why we put the Health Accord in place, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that we
need to deliver health care differently. The old paradigms of the past, the old
GP practices of the past, they are simply not going to cut it. We need to make
sure that we are investing in a new health care system, one that's been
re-imagined for the first time since the '60s, Mr. Speaker.
The
population has changed, the demographics have changed and technology has
changed. We need to make sure that we are harnessing that change to create a new
health care system for the people of the province that drives ultimate outcomes
as close as possible to home, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Dr.
Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis have acknowledged that part of their work
will take 10 years. What they need is immediate investments here. So I would
hope that immediate investment comes this Thursday, with a commitment to the
people of this province that health care will be improved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, thousands of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are one accident, one heart attack or one
stroke away from losing their lives because the Liberal government can't get its
act together. Dr. Powell has compared the current crisis to pre-Confederation
health care.
Speaker,
last week the Premier boasted about the 73rd anniversary of Confederation. Does
he share Dr. Powell's assessment of health care in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Frankly, Mr. Speaker,
pre-Confederation, it's a false analogy completely. You can look at the data
yourself. The life expectancy, the neonatal mortality rate, the maternal
mortality rate, that's an unusual comparison. I recognize that the health care
system is challenged, but frankly, to compare it to before Confederation is
wrong. It's statistically wrong and it's not accurate.
We are
moving, as this government, recognizing the Health Accord, working with people
like Lynette Powell and the NLMA to ensure that we are delivering the care that
is required in the communities. Inventive, innovative solutions like harnessing
technology, using collaborative care clinics, just to name two, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I tell
you, the government has had seven years to get it right and we're still waiting.
Speaker,
I'm delighted the government has finally taken my suggestion to have the Auditor
General review Memorial University.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
B. PETTEN:
Funny it may be, but it's
true.
While
it's unfortunate that it took a year of asking, the minister also indicated all
changes to the Memorial University Act
are on hold until the review is complete.
So,
Speaker, will the changes to MUN's accountability and autonomy also be put on
hold?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Members know, we have been working on having the Auditor General go in to
Memorial University since last year. In fact, there were two pieces of
legislation changed in this Legislature, one specifically, the
Memorial University Act and section
38.1, and the other more broad and looking at all government agencies, Mr.
Speaker.
But to
answer his question specifically, the
Memorial University Act amendments are looking at autonomy, looking at
accountability. We will await the independent review by the Auditor General to
add that to the work that is already being done on the
Memorial University Act and feed into it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
in the minister's news release yesterday he said an unbiased overview of how the
university allocates their investment is critical before changes to the act are
brought forward. If the minister can hold off on all amendments of the
Memorial University Act until the AG
report is complete, will he also hold off on increasing the tuition at MUN as
planned for this September until the AG has completed a review?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I don't
know what purpose that would serve. Memorial University had given notice to
government – as they have the right to do; the Board of Regents has the ability
to change tuitions at the university. They had given government notice months
prior to last year's budget that they were increasing tuitions.
So with
or without removing the tuition freeze funding, which is meant to freeze
tuitions, tuitions were going up. We made the determination that we would take
that funding and direct it into student aid and student loan programs, Mr.
Speaker, which is where the money was needed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
fallen on the backs of students. Everything else stays as it is, but everything
else falls on the backs of students and that's something the minister is
missing.
Speaker,
government has sat by while tuition is supposed to double; lavish renovations
were completed to the president's office and dubious spending on a personal
trainer. Yet, the students are struggling with the high cost of living, as are
the rest of us in this province, and will face a tuition increase later this
fall.
Again,
is everything else on hold? Why are the students the only ones being penalized?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Again,
we don't make determinations or the decision on tuitions at Memorial University.
I do trust that the university has done their due diligence, Mr. Speaker, in
determining the tuition rates. I understand from the president that they are
still very competitive when compared to other Canadian universities. I also
understand that applications for the upcoming semester have remained stable.
So the
tuition freeze funding, Mr. Speaker, was to freeze tuitions. That wasn't
happening. Without taking that funding back, we wouldn't have the funding to put
into additional grants and loans for students, Mr. Speaker. Many of the students
who graduate are eligible for loan forgiveness in this province, unlike many
other provinces.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
This is
a case of passing the buck, Speaker. The minister is well aware. We've debated
this. It's not a new topic. We've debated back and forth in the House, outside
the House and in person.
Six
months ago, we passed legislation to let the AG come in and review MUN's books.
What are we waiting for now? Six months later, we announced yesterday – we don't
know when it's going to happen, when they're going to come in and do it. They
could have announced this six months ago, Mr. Speaker.
Now we
are looking at least a year or so before the AG gets her final report, so we're
not going to see a MUN act for 2023-24 – maybe after the next election. And
hopefully someone else with the right sense are in power to make the right
decision and not follow what's happening across the way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, if we're waiting
for the other side of the House to make the decisions of this province, we'd
have another seven years cleaning up their mess.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not even
going to comment on that particular point, other than to say that right now,
yesterday, the government announced that they were going to do a review. They
were inviting the Auditor General to come in to review the books of MUN and talk
about transparency and accountability. At the very same time, the Minister of
Finance and President of the Treasury Board received the Rothschild report and
quickly told the people of the province she has no intention of releasing it to
the people to see it.
So I ask
the minister: Will you ask the Privacy Commissioner to take a review of the
report and cross out or redact anything that is, quote, “commercially
sensitive”?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of the Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker,
and thank you for the spirited question.
I will
say to the Member opposite that I'm sure he does not want to have a detrimental
effect to the people of this province. He would not want to put any type of
assets at risk. I will say to the Member opposite that I know why he is asking
for the report, but I will say to him that we have to protect the public
interest. It is important that we do so and we will continue to do so on this
side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, yesterday the
minister said she would do the responsible thing. The responsible thing would be
to ask the Privacy Commissioner to examine the report and to redact anything
that might be commercially sensitive.
I ask
the minister: Will you at least release the report and tell us exactly what
assets – a list of the assets – you plan on selling off?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, I am sure that the
Member opposite understands the ATIPPA legislation; I have to believe that he
does. When he speaks about the Commissioner, the Commissioner's role is
oversight. The Commissioner's role is not to come in and redact. The Member
opposite must understand that. Either he is misunderstanding it or he is
misinforming.
I will
say to the Member opposite, the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
Sorry, Speaker, I am getting
interrupted.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
If he doesn't understand the
legislation, I'd be happy to walk him through it. I will say that it is very
important that we protect the public interest. There are a lot of commercial
sensitivities. We wouldn't want to have it impact the commercialization of any
asset.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, the only one being
misunderstood or misunderstanding are the people of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador who this minister refuses to allow to see the report that they
spent $5 million to commission. It is about time that the people of the province
saw this report.
We also
notice that it is the same government, of course, that have hid the secrets of
the whole deal that was done with Canopy Growth. They still never released that,
yet they ask for trust.
A senior
in my district, yesterday, called me up and talked about why is it the
government can spend $5 million on a report but can't do anything about the
price of furnace oil.
I ask
the minister: Will you implement a home-heat rebate program?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, I am sitting,
literally, I don't know, 12 feet from the Member opposite, he does not need to
shout. I can hear him completely. I have an earpiece in my ear as well just in
case there is chirping or comment.
I will
say to the Member opposite that the report will be reviewed; it will be
analyzed. What we're trying to achieve here is making sure that we're protecting
the people of the province. I am sure the Member opposite does not want to have
a detrimental impact on the people of the province.
With
regard to the home heat rebate, I will say again to the Member opposite and,
again, to the people of the province – and the people of the province understand
this, I can't understand why the Member opposite doesn't – the home heat rebate
has been rolled into the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit and that
we've increased.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I will
make sure that the minister clearly understands what I am saying, but let me
clearly say to the minister the program that she talks about that was introduced
in 2016, at that time, the price of fuel oil per litre was 61 cents. Today, it's
at $1.83; three times the amount when that program was introduced. So that's no
excuse for not implementing a home-heat rebate program. As a matter of fact,
we've gone so far as to ATIPP. In two years, we could not find any
recommendation or discussion by this government about even looking at a
home-heat rebate program.
So,
again, I ask the minister: Can you please implement a home heat rebate program
for the people of the province who really need it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm sure
the Member opposite understands, because he just admitted to it, that the home
heat rebate was folded into the Income Supplement. We've just raised the Income
Supplement. We've raised the Seniors' Benefit. That is included, people are
getting their cheques; they'll get them four times a year. Speaker, there may be
other things in the budget coming in a short two days that may be helpful for
the people of the province on the cost of living.
We all
recognize that these cost of living concerns are very real, we understand that
and we understand that it's not just locally; it's nationally and
internationally. We are all concerned about the cost of living, it's not just
the Member opposite; it certainly is this government. I'm sure he'll see more in
the budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
manager of a food bank said: “We've kind of got a new demographic really. We've
always had some working people, but we certainly didn't have this many working
people ….”
Why did
the minister fail to support these people who are now forced to look for
assistance from food banks?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to respond.
Recently, we were talking to and have been working with Food First NL and we've
provided them some additional funds this year to support food banks and food
programs across the province, while we work through the very difficult time in
the community in terms of accessing food.
Also, as
the Minister of Finance just mentioned, we have a five-point plan, we've
increased the Income Support payments for individuals and families, we've
increased the Income Supplement and we've increased the Seniors' Benefit. So
we're putting out as much money as we can at this time until we wait for the
budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Well, I can appreciate some
of the work that's being done. It's the people that are actually keeping our
economy going that are struggling now. They still have to buy their lunches and
put gas in their car to get to work. We're talking about a lot of people that
you increase stuff that, yes, it's important for them as well, but it is a fixed
income.
It's
getting more expensive to live here, simply. That's pushing more people to food
banks in my district and the whole province; people who once donated to food
banks, now have to look to them for food.
What
additional supports will the minister implement to lower the cost of food and
provide more supports to food-sharing organizations?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Again, thank you, Speaker,
for the opportunity to respond.
We
recognize, as a government, that the cost of living is increasing. We're doing
what we can, where we can and how we can to address that. We have the five-point
action plan, but more specifically to your question, we are working with Food
First NL. We have just put out additional funding to them to allow them to
receive applications from the community for those food banks and food programs
that need assistance to support the clients that they're working with right
across the province. We've started that process and we'll continue to support
them in the weeks and months ahead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia -West Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
everybody has seen the rally we had on the Burin Peninsula about health care.
According to the local health care committee on the Burin Peninsula, the Health
Accord team has informed them that they will strongly recommend that speciality
services such as surgery, obstetric care and intensive care units be removed
from the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre.
I ask
the minister: Will these services be removed?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker,
for the opportunity to reply to the Member's question.
The
Health Accord has delivered its summary report to the department and we are
currently analyzing that. We are, however, still awaiting their second document,
which is an implementation report. All of these discussions are currently
conjecture. Once that report is received that, too, will be analyzed before the
department and government make any decisions about these kind of things.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
personal care home subsidies in the province haven't seen an increase since
2017. Since then, they've seen substantial increases in costs such as a 21 per
cent increase in utilities, a 22 per cent increase in groceries and supplies, a
30 per cent increase in labour costs and over a 100 per cent increase in
insurance premiums.
I ask
the minister: Will this budget include an increase to personal care home
subsidy?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
obviously can't speak to the budget, that's not my mandate, and it's not Budget
Day anyway.
In terms
of the personal care home sector, I have met with groups representing their
owners. We know that the review done by Deloitte some years ago contained
recommendations around subsidies, and time has passed those by.
We have
asked Deloitte to go back to their figures and revise them in light of some of
the cost-of-living changes. I would however like to point out that we've
provided considerable financial and in-kind support to the personal care homes
to cover their administration costs and all their PPE during COVID. So they're
not falling on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Contrary
to what the minister says, the Minister of Finance spoke to the departments
actually (inaudible) into the budget. So he should know what's been asked for.
To go
back to the Deloitte report, having that redone, that's not going to change our
demographics. That report looked at seniors doubling. So that's not getting any
better.
Speaker,
without an increase in the subsidy, some personal care homes, especially outside
the Northeast Avalon, are in danger of closing, displacing seniors from their
homes. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have taken progressive steps to increase
their subsidy rates.
I ask
the minister: What is the plan to ensure personal care homes continue to be
viable and provide high-quality care to the vulnerable seniors of this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
For
clarity, I think the Member opposite may have his Deloittes confused; there are
at least three reports done by Deloitte governing the personal care home sector.
The one I reference was simply around the figure for subsidies. The others are
relevant but not germane to his question.
In terms
of small homes outside the Avalon, particularly, we are conscious that a per
capita bed subsidy has not worked for them in the past. It is crucial that
whatever we do with funding for personal care home beds, it takes into account
the importance of small homes in rural areas that provide a service and
employment, which cannot be managed the same way as the large 100-bed homes.
We're working with the operators to achieve that, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
It's – I don't know what to
call it, I was going to say amusing that the minister would say that the
increase and the reports of increase and the huge numbers of our seniors over
the coming years is not germane; not germane to this issue. Wow.
Speaker,
we hear regularly from our constituents around long delays to be assessed for
admission to personal care homes and reassessment for higher levels of care. We
only recently saw the instance of two seniors, one who has unfortunately passed
away. This means that seniors are left waiting for extended period of time to
access the care they require.
I ask
the minister: When will he take action to ensure timely access to personal care
homes and other care seniors may require?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, for
clarity, the issue of the numbers of seniors requiring support, either in their
own homes, in personal care homes or in long-term care, has been very much front
of mind. We have our Home First philosophy to deal with the first group.
Personal care home sector itself has built an additional 1,800 beds, of which
1,500 are still empty because they have a vacancy rate and that is not due to
placement issues.
There
are, however, placement issues, particularly in Avalon. The other regional
health authorities less so. This has been occasioned by COVID; has been assisted
to some extent by the Good Neighbour Agreement with the unions; and we're
working with Placement Services in Eastern to streamline their process, Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
The teacher shortage issue in
Labrador West is well known. The minister must be well aware of the staffing
issue crisis at Menihek High School. A former teacher described the situation as
a house of cards. There are not enough replacement teachers and teachers have to
cover other classes since September. Now with four teachers set to be off for
the rest of the year, the house of cards is collapsing.
I ask
the minister: What short-term and long-term measures are being put in place to
ensure Menihek High School can continue the necessary teaching and maintain
staff for in-person classes?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question because it is a concern for the NLESD and the
department. It is the area of the province with the greatest pressure. It is due
to the ability to get teachers in that area based on pay and the amount of rent.
One of
the issues that we are undertaking in that area, Mr. Speaker, is a building that
is owned by the NLESD with apartments in the building itself. We're constructing
additional apartments and they should be in place, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, for
September so that we can use that to help attract additional teachers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
We are
hearing across districts from Torngat Mountains to St. John's Centre that
critical supports patients need to achieve health outcomes are not effective or
not available to them. Supporters were here yesterday in the House of Assembly
advocating for a patient that is having difficulty getting proper medical
supports and is feeling abandoned.
I ask
the minister: Are patients supposed to accept this and just give up or will this
government review the patient outcome supports and ensure that cases like Simeon
Poker and many others across the province can succeed and not fall through the
cracks?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Speaker.
We
recognize that as the health care system with its specialization and
sub-specialization becomes increasingly difficult for individuals to navigate,
we have adopted across the RHAs a technique we used in cancer care, which was to
institute the role of care navigators. Each regional health authority has them.
They are straightforward to contact.
We are
working with our Indigenous partners to ensure that those people for whom there
may be cultural or language barriers to accessing care have those barriers
removed. Indeed, as recently as yesterday, Eastern Health, for example, were in
contact with Indigenous groups to provide support for families from Labrador who
don't find English their first language.
I would
argue the supports exist, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time is
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
There are 800 residents in
Western Newfoundland on wait-list one for cataract surgery and will have to wait
up to a year to 18 months, many in your own district, Premier. Many seniors who
cannot even see this broadcast today. Many seniors had their driver's licence
taken away from them and can't even read their medication instructions.
The Sir
Thomas Roddick Hospital hasn't performed any cataract surgeries since January
2021, 15 months ago, due to equipment and medical packs. There is a backlog of
surgeries at Western Memorial Regional Hospital with limited time available for
cataract surgeries. Three specialists can eliminate the wait-list in a timely
matter with more OR time available at the Apex building.
I ask
the Premier: Will you immediately convene a meeting with yourself, the Minister
of Health and Community Services and the three specialists on the West Coast to
resolve this issue?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
For the
information of the House, the number of cataracts performed in Western Health
has increased by just over 20 per cent in the last five years. The number that
were done in Western Health facilities in the last year dropped by 99 per cent.
The reason that there have been no cataract surgeries performed in Western
Health is because when there was a defect with the microscope, the individual
concerned said he was not going back to Stephenville.
It has
been fixed on the direction of the department and we are awaiting the return of
the surgeon. There are some contractual issues, which we are looking into with
Western Health.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, you can say how
much you like are done, there are still 800 waiting to be done. I have a letter
from Western Health saying because of equipment failure and because of the
supply packs they could not perform the surgeries. So are they misleading the
people of Western Newfoundland, I say to the minister.
Eight
hundred people need this surgery and want their eyesight. They want their
dignity back and quality of life. If the surgeries were completed at public
facilities, MCP would be billed. Funding is not the issue now. It is where the
procedures are performed. The OR time at Western Memorial Regional Hospital is
limited. The backlog would only increase if it's not eliminated.
Premier,
residents I have spoken to don't care where they get this surgery done. They
want their eyesight. Premier, you said on many occasions the buck stops with
you. While your government are arguing where the surgery should be performed,
the eyesight of 800 residents is in your hands.
Would
you please resolve this very difficult situation and perform your job as the
Premier and meet with the specialists?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Part of
the arrangement with the Medical Association around cataracts was a provincial
approach to cataract waiting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. HAGGIE:
There is capacity in a
variety of facilities across the Island and I am delighted to hear –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I heard
the question. I want to hear the response.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
There is capacity in a
variety of facilities across the Island. I am delighted to hear from the Member
opposite that his constituents are prepared to travel for the cataracts. We
bought extra cataract surgeries over and above. We bought 5,000. We did not
expect that the RHA list would be abandoned in favour of a more lucrative
approach.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports
by Standing and Select Committees
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 17 of the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy Applicable to Complaints
Against Members, I am pleased to present this report respecting the review of
the policy conducted by the Privileges and Elections Committee.
I thank
the Members of the Committee for their due diligence and hard work, and I
recommend this report to the House of Assembly.
Thank
you. Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Other presenting reports by
Standing and Select Committees?
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the
following motion: That the House concur with the report of the Privileges and
Elections Committee tabled on April 5, 2022.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
These
are the reasons for the petition and the background to this petition, and it's
hopefully for the minister that's leaving to go get a glass water and not the
room.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You're not supposed to say
that.
J. DWYER:
No, I said he was going to
get a glass water.
SPEAKER:
Order!
J. DWYER:
I apologize. I withdraw.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J. DWYER:
Oh, okay.
Roads in
our province are in various states of disrepair. Many rural communities are
concerned that the deplorable road conditions will keep visitors away from the
Come Home Year celebrations. We are inviting the world to come to our province
this summer, yet many rural roads are unfit to travel and many local vehicles
are damaged by huge potholes, unrepaired washouts and uneven shoulders. This is
a real deterrent to tourists and family members from out of province who wish to
join our celebrations this summer.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the provincial roads program
budget to address the need for repairs to many rural roads throughout our
province.
This one
here is signed by people from Petite Forte and Rushoon. I presented one for
Chance Cove and I'm sure there are going to be more to come.
I'd say
the only ones that are upset with me presenting this petition are probably the
mechanics, because they're the ones that are going to be the busiest this
summer. I hope they don't make any plans for their own vacation this summer,
because I'm sure they're going to be backlogged with the state of the roads.
So I ask
the minister to have a look at it and fight on behalf of the people in rural
Newfoundland. I mean, I know what I was grandfathered into and a lot of it comes
to maintenance not being done for a while and stuff like that. So if that takes
buying some new equipment like brush-cutting attachments to do it ourselves
instead of contracting out, we might get a little bit more done because then we
can take that attachment and put it in different depots as needed.
There
are many ways that we can fix our roads, but we have to have a willingness to
want to do it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
WHEREAS
Newfoundland has the highest incidence of cardiac disease in Canada and we need
to do what we can to improve the ability to save lives; and
WHEREAS
the implementation of a new registry can be completed for less than the cost of
a new vehicle; and
WHEREAS
after implementation, the annual cost will be five cents per resident;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly: To urge government to enact legislation requiring all AEDs in the
province to be registered with an online registry. This registry must be linked
to the 911 system to enable faster response time in the case of cardiac
emergencies.
Speaker,
this is not the first time I've presented this petition in the House. It's the
first time in this session probably in a while now, but this is something that
I've spoken about in the House on numerous occasions over the last number of
years. I believe we may be the only, or one of the only provinces in the country
without this registry.
The
simple fact of the matter is that it's been able to make sure the AEDs are
operational when needed, which is a big thing, batteries up to scratch and what
have you. In government facilities and whatever, they probably are looked after,
but not in every facility.
The key
point to it is – and I emphasize this because I have a family in my district who
suffers from ACR, the very deathly heart condition, actually, and they all
operate with pacemakers, who pushing this issue. But the biggest point to this
registry, and I hope government gives this serious consideration now that we're
dealing with 911 again, is if you have an emergency when you call 911, they will
know where the nearest AED is. You could be down on Water Street and you have a
medical emergency, they'll tell you this building here is the closest AED on the
street. That saves lives. AEDs are saving lives.
This is
a very serious issue. In fairness, every time I brought it up before government
were receptive to it, but it had to be depending on when 911 was in place – 911
didn't have the capabilities in the old system; the new system would.
I'm
looking at the minister when I say this, but this is one I strongly think you
should consider. It's not the first time I've talked about this; I'm sure your
officials may be aware. This needs to be brought in place. AEDs save lives,
simple fact of the matter, and they should be included in our 911 system that
they have an active registry, not only to keep the batteries up to scratch, but
know where one is, should an emergency happen.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to rise on petition again today on the cataract surgeries in Western
Newfoundland. I'm going to read an email I got from Western Health. The Minister
of Health and Community Services –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member has to read the petition.
E. JOYCE:
I already did.
SPEAKER:
No, you have to read it each
time you present it.
E. JOYCE:
I have it here somewhere.
You go
ahead, Mr. Speaker. I'll find it here.
SPEAKER:
Okay.
The
Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, the
undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our
leaders to return the marine shipping service between the Island portion of our
province and our Northern Labrador communities of Rigolet, Makkovik, Postville,
Hopedale, Natuashish and Nain.
This
marine freight service was removed in the spring of 2019, resulting in freight
having to be trucked now to the port of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and then shipped
to our northern communities. Since then, the additional shipping has directly
impacted prices of food, building materials, vehicles, including trucks and
off-road vehicles, household goods and many essential services to our
communities.
Our
Northern Labrador communities are totally isolated with no road access and
marine transportation services are limited to just five months per summer, on
average. With the cancellation of the direct marine freight service from the
Island portion of our province to our communities, residents are now witnessing
exorbitant price increases of basic needs impacting overall quality of life.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition is really important to the people in my district. In
actual fact, it's the reason why I ran. It's the reason why people actually
asked me to run. Because it was this actual Liberal government that took away
the freight service from the Island portion of the province to the North Coast
communities that drove up the price, not only of food – we see in the stores now
four frozen pork chops costing $28 – but also building materials. In actual
fact, the contractor services now have ballooned. A serviced lot, without the
house, costs $250,000. That's what they can charge us.
It
impacts household goods and materials; most people are forced to haul wood using
a snowmobile. Well, a snowmobile now from Goose Bay costs a minimum of $2,500
more than we would have paid if we could had gotten it from the Island. From the
Island, we would save $2,500 to $3,500 off the price and were thrown in bonus
materials that actually improved the quality of the machine. Now, we have to pay
these high costs.
It's
impacting families. With the price of food and materials now, families are
struggling, not just low-income families.
Mr.
Speaker, this service, in actual fact, is not just about marine freight service.
It's about the ability of our communities to have quality of life. The removal
of the freight boat was so unacceptable to people in my district that they asked
me to run. That's one of the things they asked me to do. I have hundreds of
pages of signatures and I tell you, every time this House is sitting, I'm
actually going to read this petition because it's not right, it needs to be
returned.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I read
the petition as follows:
WHEREAS
there are approximately 750 to 800 people, mainly seniors, who are on a
wait-list for cataract surgery in Western Newfoundland; and
WHEREAS
it will take almost 14 months for these seniors to have the procedure carried
out; and
WHEREAS
many of these seniors have had their driver's licence suspended, they can't read
the instructions on their medication, they can't read a book or watch TV due to
cataract problems affecting their eyesight, which is having an impact on the
quality of life in their later years; and
WHEREAS
a one-time allotment of funds will eliminate the wait-list for cataract surgery
in Western Newfoundland and Labrador and give these seniors, and others awaiting
surgery, a better quality of life which they deserve.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the necessary funds required to carry out
these life-changing surgeries in a timely manner.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services just got up and said they
can perform surgeries at the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital. I'm going to read an
email, and if they give leave, I'll even table it in the House. Here's what
Western Health said. Now, the minister can take it up with Western Health,
that's up to him, but do not take it out on 800 seniors that need this surgery
and make statements like that, which is easily proven false.
I'll
read what they said: “There have been no cataract procedures performed at Sir
Thomas Roddick Hospital since January of 2021. Of note, there were equipment
challenges from January 15 - Sept 2022. One list was booked in November 2021;
however, it was cancelled due to Code Grey. There have been also challenges with
availability of custom supplies.” That's the letter from Western Health.
The
Minister of Health and Community Services can stand in his place with 800
seniors who can't see and say they can do it in Stephenville. That is just
false. For God sake, Government, theses are seniors. This is a personality
conflict with the minister and somebody else – 800 seniors.
Now, the
minister is giving the impression in this House of Assembly that now they can
travel anywhere across the province. Instead of getting it done in Corner Brook,
now they can come to St. John's.
I ask
the Premier of the province: How many of your residents are going to have to
travel to St. John's? The Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay: How many of your
seniors now are going to have to go to St. John's instead of Corner Brook?
That's what the minister is saying.
How many
from Corner Brook? How many from the Humber Valley area? Stand up. How many are
going to go to St. John's now because there is capacity in St. John's? You can
get it done in Corner Brook, but because of a personality conflict, none in
Stephenville; one or two days in Corner Brook, one of those is for
ophthalmology. He does the whole province, so he can't do cataracts for that day
when there's a listing that he can do what he like.
For God
sake, Government, this is fact. Information that is being put out in the general
public is false by the minister. Here's a letter, if I have permission to table
it, I'll table it right here.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
The
Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure.
WHEREAS
many commute to Bull Arm, Long Harbour and other areas for work as well as the
commercial and residential growth in our region has increased the volume of
traffic on the highway.
Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: Upgrade to this
significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic
to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.
We, the
undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to get this done.
Speaker,
I spoke on this a number of times and it is a piece of infrastructure that
certainly needs to be upgraded. Each year there are thousands of tourists that
use the Witless Bay Line as access to the Irish Loop. Right now, starting this
week, you're going to have crab trucked across the Witless Bay Line as well. You
also have all kinds of people that travel it to go to Soldiers Pond, Long
Harbour, Bull Arm and wherever across the way.
Some of
the complaints that I get, certainly from campers, are they will drive the
Southern Shore Highway and go out the Trans-Canada rather than go across the
Witless Bay Line because it is so rough. A couple of our Members have driven
across, to cut across to get up to Bay Bulls and they drove it and they were
astonished at the state and disrepair of the road.
You
know, they did an upgrade last year, I think they did four kilometres.
Certainly, maintenance on this is a big issue and trying to get in and get some
of those holes filled. I understand this time of the year that you fill it up
and then it's gone again on the next snowfall, plowing it out and not being able
to hold the asphalt that they put in or the cold patch.
I hope
this year in the budget the minister looks good on it and be able to see some
pavement hit our district in the Witless Bay Line area and up in Irish Loop and
Trepassey area.
Thank
you so much.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.
E. LOVELESS:
Actually, I am going to
respond to a previous petition that was from the Member for Torngat Mountains
who was talking about the ferry service and painting a picture that the sky is
falling.
Well, I
would like to say to the Member that facts do matter. Last year, the passenger
numbers were up, the vehicle numbers were up, the cargo numbers were up and
overall it has been classified as a good service. So the sky is not falling and
facts do matter, I want to remind the Member for Torngat Mountains.
Now, to
the petition on roadwork. The road plan is coming out. The ask is enormous, but
I always have to live within my budget. But it is duly taken under
consideration, his concerns as he has brought them before this House before.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 6.
Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that under
Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 5.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 48.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 48 be now read
a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Financial Administration Act. (Bill 48)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 48)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 4, Bill 53.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 53, and I further move
that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety shall have leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 54, and the said bill be
now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Judicature Act,” carried. (Bill 53)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Judicature Act. (Bill 53)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
L. DEMPSTER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 53 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 9, Bill 41, An Act Respecting A Province-Wide 911
Service For The Reporting of Emergencies.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Thank
you for the opportunity to –
SPEAKER:
A mover and a seconder,
please.
J. HOGAN:
Sorry, I have to move again.
I knew I was missing something.
Thank
you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 41, An Act Respecting
A Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting of Emergencies, be now read a
second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 41, An Act Respecting A Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting of
Emergencies, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting A Province-Wide 911 Service For The
Reporting of Emergencies.” (Bill 41)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Thank
you for the opportunity to speak to this new piece of legislation. Just so
everyone knows, we're updating and revising the
Emergency 911 Act, which will now be
entitled the Emergency 911 Act 2022.
The new
act will assign responsibility of the 911 system in the province to the
Department of Justice and Public Safety. This government's decision to integrate
NL911 into the Department of Justice and Public Safety is in line with our
government's desire to streamline delivery of services, specifically with
reference to the public safety part of the department. There have been numerous
recent initiatives to broaden the scope of emergency services in this province.
The
Emergency Services branch includes the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre,
the future implementation of a province-wide radio system, Fire and Emergency
Services and the implementation of recommendations flowing from the Ground
Search and Rescue inquiry.
Residents of the province are well aware of the use of 911 in emergency
situations. This is why this service fits within the Emergency Services branch.
In recent years, there have been many developments that have highlighted the
need for a more strategic review of emergency management and response throughout
our province. The GSAR inquiry and subsequent recommendations is one example, as
well as the Nova Scotia mass casualty inquiry in relation to the shootings in
Portapique and various severe weather events that have cut off residents and
communities from emergency providers and their economic supply chains, including
the recent rainstorm on the Southwest Coast of the Island, Hurricane Larry and
Snowmageddon.
Emerging
issues such as cybersecurity, which we have now seen, not only around the world
but here at home; the federal government's use of the
Emergencies Act; and, finally, the health emergency in COVID-19 that
impacted all aspects of society. Clearly, the landscape of emergency management
is changing and this government is positioning itself to make sure all facets
are aligned and complementary to one another.
We view
911 as a key communication tool within a larger emergency management framework.
It only makes sense to have it all under one roof, so officials within the
department, those who live and breathe emergency services every day, know
exactly what each facet of our emergency system is doing at all times. Officials
and experts will know how they can all work together. Having a single emergency
service operating in isolation is not prudent. In fact, it would lead to gaps or
a failure to communicate, and we all know in an emergency situation every second
matters.
Integrating NL911 into the department will provide for direct oversight of this
service and allow for identification and development of synergies within
government as we move forward with initiatives such as the implementation of the
Health Accord and regionalization of local government. Including this service as
part of core government is consistent with the approach of other jurisdictions.
Eight jurisdictions: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon have their 911 services as part of
their government department structures.
As a
government, we are taking steps to ensure that the integration of NL911 will not
change the 911 service for residents. The public will still be able to rely on
the service just as before. I do think it is important to explain how the
service works so the public will understand how the call-taking service will not
be impacted by the changes in governance.
The
basic process is an individual requiring emergency assistance dials 911. The 911
call is answered by one of the two Public Safety Answering Points referred to as
PSAPs based on the location of the caller. NL 911 Bureau contracts these PSAPs
with the City of St. John's and the City of Corner Brook. The two PSAP system
ensures that there is redundancy in the system and each provides backup to the
other in the event of a problem. When the call is answered at the PSAP, the call
taker determines the correct emergency service provider for response and then
forwards the call on.
The bill
we are introducing here today keeps this model in place. Furthermore, the bill
does not change the contractual arrangements that are currently in place with
the PSAPs. Staff currently working these PSAPs can rest assured that the
introduction of this bill will not impact their employment or job function.
As we
transition NL911 staff into core government, we are hopeful that they will see
the opportunity that this integration presents in terms of potentially expanded
scope of work, new projects or career development and other or new learning
opportunities.
The cost
for implementation of the Next Generation 911 system is unknown at this time. We
are estimating it to be in the range of several million dollars. The date for
introduction of the Next Generation 911 system is dependent on decisions of the
federal CRTC, which regulates the telecommunications industry in the country.
It is
important to note that this is not a decision of NL911 and it will therefore not
be a decision of the Department of Justice and Public Safety. Nothing is being
taken away from NL911 and we will follow the process and decisions of CRTC.
Next
Generation 911 is not available in any jurisdiction in Canada. So as other
provinces make changes, so, too, will this province. Government's intention is
to move forward with Next Generation 911 and so we will be working closely with
our partners to move this project forward when the time comes.
Funding
requirements for Next Generation 911 service will be addressed through the
annual budget process, again, when the time comes.
The move
to bring 911 service into core government is about looking for new opportunities
to find synergies and expanding and co-ordinating the emergency service in the
province. There is no downgrading of service in any way.
To the
board members who have worked so hard to develop the 911-telephone service
throughout this province, I thank you for your contribution. Many of you are
also representatives of the emergency partners that my department officials
interact with on a daily basis. So I expect that we will continue to enjoy
productive, collaborative relationships on the various aspects of emergency
management. We will continue to look for opportunities to engage with our
emergency partners as we move forward.
Finally,
I want to take a couple of minutes to address potential concerns I have heard.
First, the issue about the current fund that is allocated for Next Generation
911. As I have said, this government will follow the CRTC guidelines related to
Next Generation 911, which is not anticipated until at least 2025.
We have,
as a government, committed on numerous occasions to proceeding with Next
Generation 911 when the country, as a whole, is prepared to move forward with
it. Whether this commitment is made from the current board or from the
government, the commitment is there and nothing changes.
I want
to refer to the new legislation. It specifically says in section 7 that the
minister shall be responsible and responsive to changing technologies. So there
is a statutory obligation to proceed with new technologies, which will include
Next Generation 911.
In fact,
the current fund is not specifically mandated for Next Generation 911, and the
old legislation only speaks to improving the service. Whereas the new
legislation mandates government to keep up with new technology and, therefore,
the new legislation does speak directly to Next Generation 911.
The new
legislation also broadens the scope. Currently, under the old act, funds are
collected for an emergency 911 telephone service. However, now, funds will be
collected for an emergency 911 service. It is not a fund just for telephones. In
fact, the new definition specifically includes reference to the province-wide
radio system. This is not something that could happen under the old legislation.
Second,
the issue of consultation has been raised and specific reference has been made
to local knowledge. This is important and it is why the new legislation mandates
the minister, in section 5, to work with municipalities and emergency service
providers. Furthermore, in section 6, the municipalities are required to
participate. There is a legal obligation to consult.
Third,
the question has been asked essentially saying, why bother, and that the current
operations at 911 is sufficient. The new legislation is not just about 911; it
is part of a broader public safety initiative. The legislation refers to the
RNC, the RCMP, fire services, all within the Department of Justice and Public
Safety already. The new legislation refers to the province-wide radio system
currently within the Emergency Services Division of the department. These
entities will work together to ensure an overall streamline and efficient public
safety service.
Finally,
this is part of the overall streamlining of government. We anticipate savings.
The board is a tier-one board that is remunerated. Third party contracts the
corporation has can potentially be offered from within the department. Financial
and human resource issues such as payroll can be done by JPS officials.
And,
most importantly, infrastructure for 911 radios and other broadband initiatives
can be integrated to 911.This means taxpayer dollars and service-fee dollars do
not have to be spent on multiple infrastructure pieces when there is a way to do
it collectively and effectively. Mr. Speaker, 911 will not and should not be in
a silo.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I just
want to touch on this act. Of course, as the minister mentioned, it's updating
and revising a new act. It talked about streamlining the delivery of
departments. It talked about emergency services.
Interestingly, yesterday the minister mentioned, when speaking to this bill and
speaking to 911, spoke about it not being about efficiencies but being about
safety. Not once in the preamble did we hear safety – not once. The word wasn't
used. It talked fully about efficiencies.
This 911
is clearly about safety. It is clearly about individuals who need emergency
services and they pick up the phone and they make that call and they hope there
is somebody on the other end of the line that is going to have an ambulance or a
paramedic to their door, or firemen reporting to a fire. It is clearly about
safety.
You want
to have efficiencies around safety. Yeah, you can find efficiencies but at the
end of the day, it is all safety. Make no bones about it, it is all about
safety. Then it was mentioned about 911, a communication tool. It is a very,
very important communication tool.
The
minister said it makes sense. It is not prudent to have it where it is. Not
prudent to have entities outside of government; it is better to have it in
there. Every second matters, and every second does matter. But when you bring it
all into government, we know that the service or the program is not as nimble as
another entity outside who can look for better prices on things, get contracts
on things, and get a better service on things. When it comes within government,
you're talking about red tape and bureaucracy. There is no way around it. That's
what you see when you bring it in.
So I
have seen and heard nothing in the way of why this only makes sense. There has
to be data out there. There has to be issues that tell us why it makes sense.
When you talk to a current 911 board, for one thing, that is who I would go to
right away. If I'm talking about making changes to legislation and creating a
new act, talk about 911 service and bringing it into government because it is
prudent to do so, well, it's prudent to have a discussion with the board of
directors for 911.
And they
brought concerns to me. They brought concerns: No consultation – no
consultation. No response to the concerns from the board. No details provided on
the efficiencies planned, and I haven't seen them here today. No plan provided
for protecting the funding for the 911 service enhancements. And here we are,
now, the bill is here in the House and no promises for engagement to
stakeholders. This is all from the current board.
We talk
about the Next Generation 911. So NL911 have a fund reserve and it has been
created to cover the cost of enhancements and its future operation without
having to increase the telephone fee for service. I have heard nothing to speak
to how that will be addressed down the road. Will we see increased fees?
If 911
is folded into a government department, the reserve fund will no longer exist
and government may have to increase that fee, especially if they are
implementing a New Generation 911. The board goes on and tells me that no
increase in the service fee will be required if NL911 remains as an independent
agency, as the reserve fund will be adequate to cover the cost. The reserve fund
they have will be adequate. And the minister mentioned the CRTC. The CRTC has
mandated the communication subscribers to provide a Next Generation 911 enhanced
service for 911.
And
those enhanced services would include automatic location information, automatic
number information, text and video message ability and sharing data with the
Next Generation dispatching agencies. So all agencies would be involved. You
don't need them all in the one group. Our technology today – it doesn't matter
who you are dealing with or what entity – should be able to develop that
service.
NL911
already have planned to move into a Next Generation 911 system, and the
development of it is well under way with the reserve fund they have to cover the
cost. This board have made great progress in ensuring the safety of our
residents when someone calls 911.
When you
push that within government, the Newfoundland and Labrador 911 service fund
becomes general revenue and it's no longer dedicated to the 911 service. It's
general revenue. Then your NL911 process, every budget, you have to compete then
for funding with all the other departments when you have a group there that are
doing the work and have money in the bank, so to speak. If not seen as a
priority over other government needs, the NL911 may not be funded adequately to
continue to develop the Next Generation system.
Again,
you talk about putting it into the bureaucracy, you put it in there and it gets
mixed in with everything else, so there's an issue then with if it gets the
right priority that it should be getting. And again, this is so much a safety
issue.
The
NL911 service fund is currently not considered public money applied under the
Financial Administration Act. So NL911
may use the fund for the following purposes under the
Emergency 911 Act: It can be used for developing, establishing,
operating and improving the emergency 911 telephone service. It can be used for
the operations of the corporation and it could be used for paying the costs that
are associated with administering the fund.
The
minister thanked the board of directors. It's s a great board; they've done
great work. But I think they would love to be at least consulted with ahead of
this and some of their questions responded to. They haven't gotten that, and
these are dedicated people. When you look at this board, this board's comprised
of diverse backgrounds of stakeholders in emergency service. You have
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, the City of St. John's and Corner
Brook and regional representation from Labrador.
I don't
have to mention anything about Labrador; we know the different issues Labrador
are dealing with when it comes to health and safety and it comes to 911. When it
comes to getting individuals flown out of there for health services and
emergencies, we know that.
When it
gets folded into the government department, this wealth of experience from this
board of directors is lost. The mandate of this group was to establish,
implement and operate a province-wide emergency 911 service.
Because
there are so many questions on this, because there's been nothing concrete that
tells us why this needs to be done other than telling us it will create
efficiencies and so on and so on – safety hasn't been mentioned which is a key
piece here we need to talk about. The POMAX report that was done a little while
back was commissioned by government and recommended a separate agency – a
separate agency – as the most effective and efficient way to develop and
maintain 911 services in this province. The minister has spoken about all the
efficiencies and the effectiveness that this is going to create, but we haven't
seen it.
What I
would like to know is: What has been said, or what has happened to reverse this
recommendation? Again, I look at the bill, I look at the issues around it and
what's been presented and I think the key to this is safety. It's great to put
all your beans in the efficiency bucket, but it's still a safety issue. The
group that should know, or be the most informed on this, the board of directors
for NL911, should be the ones speaking to this; should be the ones consulted;
should be the ones who had answers to their questions. What I'm hearing is that
none of that has taken place.
So I
cannot and we cannot support a bill that is not supported by proper
documentation to show us that this is the right way to move.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is
indeed a privilege to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today and,
as always, to speak in the House of Assembly on behalf of the residents of St.
Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows. Today, I'd like to take a minute to just talk about
NL911 and the critical service that it provides to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, ensuring their safety and their well-being.
This
bill, in an attempt to repeal and replace the current
Emergency 911 Act, will dissolve the NL 911 Bureau as an independent
corporation and integrate all of its functions into the Department of Justice
and Public Safety. And this transition of staff into a core department will
allow us to retain the knowledge and the experience that has been achieved and
acquired over their number of years of service.
It
certainly is not intended to compromise those processes and how those things
work but certainly to add an efficiency to the department. When you look at a
service that is being provided across such a broad spectrum, if you can bring
that additional expertise into the department, then that is going to be
beneficial to everybody on both sides of the equation.
We're
streamlining the lines of business associated with corporate services like HR,
payroll and finance. I think we could all attest to even some redundancies that
we find in our own management. So if we can do those types of things, then we're
being more prudent in the service that we're providing.
As we
move forward with initiatives and upgrades, as have been discussed, like the
province-wide public safety radio system, that will be an enhancement for
volunteer organizations and public entities all across the province. As we've
talked about today, Next Generation 911 is still very much a work-in-progress,
but this will ensure that we're part of that conversation and we move forward
with the rest of the country as the CRTC arrangements permit. So bringing the
province in line with other jurisdictions is a valuable piece of this equation.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill will not change the current model for a 911 service. As the
minister outlined, somebody dials 911, there will be a response from the PSAP
based on their location and then the call-takers will determine the most
appropriate responders and then dispatch accordingly. So that process will not
change. The fees will not change. Those will remain the same. We will still
continue to provide the supports that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have come
to expect and to deserve from the service of 911.
The
value of the service provided by these front-line emergency responders is truly
immeasurable, and many of these are volunteers. We are very appreciative of the
role that they play, particularly in our communities. The legislation references
the legal obligation to consult as well as the municipalities' co-operation, and
I don't think that's going to be a problem. Municipalities are notoriously
involved in fire and emergency services and providing these services in their
communities.
The role
of emergency responders is first and foremost on conversations around council
tables and the municipalities find these services to be a cornerstone of their
community. They work very closely with the Department of Justice and Public
Safety to ensure that these critical services are maintained and supported all
across the province.
Fire
trucks, fire departments, ambulances and ambulance bays, all of these things
have become critical structures or the heart and souls of our communities all
across the province. For sleepovers and potlucks or town meetings, these
buildings house these events and volunteers are usually supporting that effort.
That is in addition to the emergency roles that they play.
Speaker,
I have had the opportunity to be on the other end of that line. I have been the
appropriate responder that has been dispatched. When an ambulance is required,
it's certainly something that everybody wants to be efficient and effective.
As I
read through this bill, one of the things that jumped out to me was civic
addressing. If you will afford me a moment of reflection, I'd like to remember a
few calls that I have gotten from rural communities over the course of my time
in health care where the caller described their location.
On one
occasion, the lady said: Well, Maid, I don't know how to tell you how to get to
where I'm to. I'm out in the cabin lot; I'm in the red cabin with the triangle
windows. Another caller referenced: Can you please send an ambulance over to
Uncle Lonz's over in the bight. Or, Maid, I'm in the third house on the left
past the convenience store. It's a yellow house. There's a red Dodge Ram in the
parking lot and I'll flick the lights over the door as soon as I see them coming
around the cove.
Speaker,
these are challenges that can be addressed through civic addressing. Our
department is working on an approach for regional government that will oversee
the development and implementation of civic addressing. I am sure that we could
all agree on the benefits that would be associated with having a map or some
type of allocation to determine where you're actually requiring these services.
Numbers on a house, numbers on a box, numbers on a pole so that an ambulance
operator or a fire truck would have an accurate description of the location that
they are attempting to service.
These
implementations certainly wouldn't be intended to overwhelm citizens. It's not a
major undertaking to simply put a number on the side of your house or a piece of
property in your yard. So these are considerations that would be implemented as
part of a plan where we would see a regional model for governance.
The
benefits of this would certainly be realized as we talk about NL911 and
integrating those services into core government would allow us the correlation
between departments to have these conversations, to make sure that these things
make sense for our constituents, for our residents all across the province and
that we have something effective and efficient to move forward with.
That's
been one of the keystones and cornerstones of our conversations as we talk about
a lot of these rural areas that find these challenges to be front in their minds
and as part of their committees and their communities.
So it
certainly speaks to the work that is being done on behalf of NL911 and the
important role that they play all across our province. That's why I'm pleased to
support this bill.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to speak briefly on the new
Emergency 911 Act. When I attended the technical briefing, it was the usual
language: repeal, replace, dissolve and integrate. One of the most important
things that came up was the changes wouldn't affect the quality of service.
That's really important to me.
Before I
became MHA, I was an advanced medical responder. A lot of this service for 911
is about life-saving services so it's very important that this be done properly.
Just
looking at the language, 911 Bureau, the corporation, will be replaced with the
minister; all powers of the bureau will be transferred to the Crown. So I was
going along and I was thinking this is a straightforward transition, basically,
bringing it into government. But there are some concerns and I think they need
to be addressed.
When we
look at the new Emergency 911 Act, it
effectively dissolves NL911 and incorporates it into the Department of Justice
and Public Safety. So on the surface that's not concerning and it's not going to
impact the quality of the service, as the minister said. So, with me, I always
look at why, why are we doing this? More importantly, what are the benefits and
what are the drawbacks, i.e., the concerns?
The
stated goal for this change by government, the government said, is to find
efficiencies in the administration of the service: efficiencies in the service.
Streamline the integration of 911 services into search and rescue, that's all
good. That's really, really important.
But just
listening to what the Member across was talking about earlier about rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, in my district, if we have an emergency outside of
our communities, no one would think of calling 911. Because you'll get somebody
who doesn't understand anything about your environment or the resources there
available to help. We would actually call the local ground search and rescue. If
we had a medical emergency in our communities, we would actually call the
clinic. The number to the clinic. We wouldn't call 911. If we had an emergency
where it had something to do with the law, or violence, or anything to do with
that, we would call the RCMP. So I do understand what the Member across was
talking about.
What I'm
hoping to see in the future is that 911 actually grows into a service that the
whole province can avail of, whether you're out in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador or downtown St. John's, you would think to call 911. That's very, very
important.
So what
are some of the concerns that we heard? The concerns that I heard is basically
about this fund that was built up by actually collecting funds from the public
who use the service – this huge fund. The concerns are that has been built up
for the day-to-day operations of the service, but also for improvement of the
service that's going to come up, this new service that we're going to be looking
at.
What was
really concerning to me was these issues were being brought forward by the NL911
board. I've got to say, I try not to laugh, but, I mean, really, honestly. When
you enter government and you think government operates on a certain level and
then you start reading these things and you sort of wonder, well, it's not
really transparent here, right?
So the
revenue that's causing some of these concerns comes from the public. Residents
are currently charged 75 cents a month through the telecom provider for the
provision of this 911 service. The provider takes a – I'm just going to say how
much it takes – point zero seven?
P. LANE:
Seven cents.
L. EVANS:
Seven cents for
administrative costs. So this was all put into this fund that was actually for
day-to-day operations and also for planning and contingency.
But, you
know, I'm a pretty straight talker. Like, I'm not going to use eloquent, flowery
words or grandiose sayings or whatever to make this look overly important or
make me look overly dedicated to people who do have concerns. At the end of the
day, we need to talk about what's wrong with this picture?
Thirty
million dollars, is it?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Twenty.
L. EVANS:
Twenty million dollars.
AN. HON. MEMBER:
What's $10 million?
L. EVANS:
What's $10 million?
What's
going to happen to that money? It's going go into the general revenue. Then when
we're looking to expand the service and improve the service, we're going to have
to go back to the regular coffers. We're going to have to compete with everybody
else who's looking for money. But right now, that money has been put aside,
ready to be used, ready to develop and implement a service that we need. That's
actually been mandated by CRTC.
For me,
on the surface, I just had to say that at the very beginning if was going to
then start delving down into the eloquent, flowery words that actually take up a
lot of time. But, for me, what's important is the impact to the service. The new
act calls for all responsibilities, property, assets, agreements be transferred
from NL 911 Bureau to the Department of Justice, as my fellow MHA talked about
quite eloquently, I must say.
There is
supposed to be no immediate change in service – status quo, actually. When we
were on the technical briefing, they were saying the status quo will be
maintained. That's reassuring for somebody like me that don't deal with the
day-to-day operations or don't have insight into all these other issues.
I agree
that we need to find efficiencies. The province, we're not doing the best
financially. Also, we don't want to be burdening our users of the 911 service
with additional costs. So efficiency always sounds good on the surface, but one
of the pitfalls of this, if we're not really careful, is that if we go along
with this, there's the potential for, in actual fact, the 911 user to have to
pay increasing costs just to be able to access monies to do these upgrades that
are coming down the pipe, once they're approved.
We've
already paid the money. We've already contributed to the fund by the users;
that's public money. I have to say – I'm just having a little bit of fun now.
It's funny and not funny, as my niece always says. I don't know if I'm wrong,
but I'm sort of looking back when I was younger and one of the concerns was the
teachers' union. They had built up a lot of money. Remember the teachers'
pension.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. EVANS:
Sorry, we didn't talk about
this, so I might be poking somebody that I shouldn't be poking.
Back in
the day, the provincial government took the money invested by teachers for their
old age security and spent it on roads. Remember that crisis? Remember that?
That's true, isn't it? I didn't dream that. I was quite young at the time, but I
think that actually happened.
If we're
not careful, the money that the public contributed to upgrades for this new
service – the monies that we put away, paid by the public – could dissolve and
could be gone. Then, really, who ever is in government could turn around and say
no, the end-user has got to pay the cost for these upgrades. We already paid for
it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) taxes.
L. EVANS:
Exactly.
So
that's one of the biggest problems. Finding efficiencies is important. But we
can't be downloading again the cost to the users for something that is a
life-saving service.
Just
looking at this now – anyway, it's not funny. What concerns me is when the NL911
board is almost, I guess, for lack of a better word, forced to actually go
public with their concerns. As my fellow MHA talked about, they did meet with
government. They did have concerns, they had questions on the operations and
they basically wanted to actually find out what the plan was – twice. And they
never received a response from government. So that is very, very concerning.
I've got
to say the biggest concern for me is what are we going to do with that fund? Is
there anything else we can do with it than basically put it into general
revenue, and end up having the public have to pay for it twice? Because it is
very concerning.
For me
being a novice – I haven't been an MHA for not even three years yet. But for me,
in all honesty, when this is actually being done, where you're bringing
something in to government and you've had a long-serving board of this service,
and they're forced to go public to raise these concerns and identify things that
could actually create problems for the general public, for them to be taxed
again by having to actually pay for this – to me, that's actually quite
disrespectful to the board and also to the public.
If we're
going to be a society where we can avail of a 911 service, where we can actually
just call those three numbers and have responders come out to us and help us, a
life-saving service, at the end of the day, we should be respectful of this
board that actually managed the service. We should be respectful of their
concerns about what's going to happen to this fund. Back in the day when we took
money from teachers' pensions to build roads and put their pensions in jeopardy,
didn't we learn anything from that?
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to continue to talk, but like I said that's a huge
concern and I will have some questions at the end.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is
certainly my pleasure to participate in the debate here on Bill 41. This bill,
when passed, will allow the Department of Justice and Public Safety to
incorporate NL911 service fully into its operations, along with other
emergency-related services such as Fire and Emergency Services, which it has
responsibility for.
But,
fundamentally, the change proposed by the minister is part of government's
overall transformation agenda. In last year's Budget Speech, the Minister of
Finance stated: “We can and must take those steps toward a sustainable fiscal
future. Change can be challenging but it gives us the opportunity to discover
new ways of delivering services, become more efficient and be the best version
of ourselves.”
The plan
proposed by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety is to change the
management of our 911 services so that it fits more within the Minister of
Finance's aspirational goal for transforming government's operations.
Now,
Members here may recall that the transformation agenda includes such things as a
reorganization of Nalcor to bring it into the existing NL Hydro, which is
fundamentally completed. It also includes changing the corporate structure of
the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information and bringing it
closer to the Department of Health and Community Services and the regional
health authorities – currently under way.
It
includes integrating the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District into
the Department of Education – actively under way, under the direction of the
Minister of Education, with enabling legislation already passed by this House.
There
are several other services under review to determine how best to structure them
to achieve the best service delivery at the best value to the taxpayer. Examples
include our ferry services and our health administrative services.
The
Premier alluded to the Health Accord NL in Question Period. In its report, it is
suggesting ways we can improve service delivery and health outcomes in tandem
with those changes. So we see that challenging the status quo can and will
achieve improvements in our public services.
Now, let
me speak to the specifics of the bill. Primarily, if passed, the bill would
facilitate the dissolution of the NL 911 Bureau as an independent,
not-for-profit corporation and integrate it and the functions of it in the
organization of the Department of Justice and Public Safety. The bill will
support the continuous delivery of the province-wide 911 service for the
reporting of emergencies, as already alluded to.
I
congratulate the Minister of Justice and Public Safety in tackling this
significant change in our emergency response system early in his mandate. It
demonstrates to me, and I think to those of us on this side of the House, the
critical importance he and his department attach to emergency services and
seeking out ways to improve their efficiency and their cost.
In this
case, with Bill 41, efficiencies will be achieved by combining administrative
functions: financial management, human resources and payroll are some examples,
as well as allowing the sharing of expertise in emergency planning and
operations across several functions under one department umbrella. I would
certainly want to emphasize and bring attention to that. The synergies that can
be achieved by having the experts under one departmental umbrella will greatly
exceed any downside where it stands alone.
This
approach that the minister is proposing in the bill is similar to eight other
jurisdictions across the country and, certainly, on the surface it makes
practical sense to do that. Despite the change, or in light of the change
contemplated by Bill 41, government remains committed to implementing next stage
upgrades to the 911 service when the time is ready. We are not ready yet.
Now, as
a former deputy minister of Municipal Affairs, I had responsibility for
emergency services and planning for a province-wide 911 service. We have come a
long ways since then. We have evolved and the minister's plan is to build on
this evolution. Weather and natural disasters over the past year alone speak to
the progress we have made in emergency management in this province with the 911
service, really, as a backbone to it.
So any
suggestion the government is trying to water down the 911 service through Bill
41 would be unfounded, for what government would seriously consider that:
downgrading an essential public service? Not this government for sure.
So under
Bill 41 what remains the same? Well, the bill does not change the current model
for 911 service. The fee for emergency 911 service remains unchanged and that
will be referenced in the regulations. Any and all prohibitions, offences and
penalties that are currently in the legislation remain the same and the
minister's regulatory making powers also remain the same.
However,
under the bill, there are substantive changes being proposed. First and
foremost, the minister now replaces any reference to the current NL 911 Bureau
board or corporation. So he will stand in its stead or their stead. The
definition of emergency 911 service in section 2(b) is broadened to include
reference to the province-wide radio communication network. The minister
referred to that in his opening comments on the debate.
Reference to the NL911 service fund is removed, as the fund will now be
consolidated into the government's consolidated revenue fund.
I think
something that is very important is the emergency response zones will now be
defined. That will help those in all parts of the province to know what their
zone is and how that is to be serviced for emergency response.
An
emergency service provider or municipality now has to give advance notice to the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety if making changes to their emergency
response zones or their operational procedures that may impact the operation of
the 911 service, as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs referenced.
It now makes sure that the municipalities are fully recognized but also held
accountable for their participation in emergency management going forward when
it comes to 911 service.
Finally,
there is a provision for municipalities to provide civic addresses and for the
Cabinet, through regulation, to require and prescribe civic numbers on
properties to assist in emergency response to houses and properties throughout
the province. As we know, this will be a significant undertaking, but something
that needs to happen. As the government, we'll work with the municipalities to
make sure that is put in place over the foreseeable future.
I'm
supportive of the bill and the changes inherent in the provision of 911
emergency services across the province. I compliment the minister and his
officials for taking on this significant transformation project on behalf of
government and the people of this province.
There's
no doubt that through any change like this there are going to be different views
as to how this can and should be undertaken. I know the minister has met with
the members of the board and the board have communicated their concerns to him,
and he's responded in kind. I think those concerns have been adequately
addressed in the bill and it will be incumbent upon the minister and his
department to ensure that those concerns are fully addressed going forward, but
certainly don't act as any impediment on the changes being proposed.
But if
you look at it in a broader context, as the Minister of Finance started in the
budget speech last year, which I assume will carry into her next speech and
subsequent speeches, one of the things that government needs to do and is
embarking on, is to transform how we deliver services. It is incumbent upon all
departments and agencies to look at how we deliver services, where we can
achieve efficiencies, improve costs and certainly improve value. I think this is
an example where it meets the test.
Why do
we need a standalone bureau? We don't. It was put in place at another time, in
another place. We've evolved into understanding the 911 service much more
effectively, but, more importantly, I think, is the need to integrate that
service with other emergency response services under the jurisdiction of the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety. I think we'll see significant benefit of
that integration, literally, immediately, once that takes place.
Some of
the Members opposite raised concerns about the use of the current fund and when
it gets rolled into the consolidated revenue fund. There is no doubt that the
Minister of Justice – those funds will be obviously tabulated and understood
what their use is for and that will be addressed on the annual budget process.
We have other examples of that in government where there are specific funds that
have been earmarked for particular programs and services and they are protected
during the budget process. Certainly I sure that the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety, the current and any future one, will want to see that, in fact,
happens and that there won't be any double taxation as some have suggested.
The
reality is that when we look across the country, this is not new. There are
eight other jurisdictions, as I mentioned, that currently provide the 911
service within a government department. So obviously, we can learn from them and
how that works, and that is something we will be looking at for sure.
I
encourage Members on the opposite side of the House here to broaden your minds,
broaden your perspective on what the minister is trying to achieve here with
Bill 41 and to give it further consideration. We will be looking at other
operations like this and how we should be and could incorporate them within
government operations. I think we owe it to the taxpayer to make sure we can
achieve the maximum efficiencies, the maximum value at the least cost, and that
is an underlying principle here, without compromising the nature of the service
being delivered.
Mr.
Speaker, I support the bill and commend it to all Members of the House.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Thank you, Minister.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
very pleased to be able to speak about Bill 41, which is An Act Respecting a
Province-Wide 911 Service for the Reporting of Emergencies. Speaker, I will be
clear right from the start; I cannot in good conscience support this
legislation. The people of the province should be concerned about this
legislation as well.
The
current existing board of 911 are unanimously opposed to this legislation,
Speaker. It is believed that this is not – I repeat “not” – in the best
interests of the operations of the 911 service in the province. And not only is
it not in the best interests of the 911 services, but also about the further
enhancements that are anticipated to occur to this system. I know I heard the
minister speak in his opening remarks that this makes sense. Well, I would beg
to differ. This does not make sense. Not only does it not make sense, I've not
heard any valid reason why the existing system should be changed. I've heard
claims that they want to find efficiencies; I've heard claims that there's a
risk to public safety.
Well,
let's look at the first point: finding efficiency. I need to remind government
that this current system that was put in place was as a result of a
government-funded consultant who recommended – this group recommended to
government that an independent, stand-alone, not-for-profit corporation was the
most effective and efficient method to implement and operate the 911 service in
Newfoundland and Labrador. So this was stated; it was recommended. This was
government's own entity, their own consultant, that recommended this was the
best way to go was to have that existing system that's in place.
Yet now,
what is government doing? They're drawing it back into core government. I don't
understand why they are now not listening to the advice that was given to them
by their own government-funded organization. But, at any rate, they claim that
they will find efficiencies. Well, I've heard no details about the exact
efficiencies that are going to be had. I believe back in June when I raised this
question in the House of the minister, the minister said, well, we'll find
efficiencies in things like payroll and finance. We need you to elaborate; we
need to see the evidence of this. There has been nothing forthcoming and that
has been the concern of the current existing board, Speaker, is that there are
no details about how they're finding these efficiencies.
Now,
that was the original justification for dissolving the current 911 Bureau and
repealing it and replacing it with the existing emergencies act, which they're
going to bring into government. That was the original justification. In the
House of Assembly yesterday, the minister, when I asked him in Question Period,
said that public safety is fulsome as it can be by coming through the
department. We need to address the public safety issue. So this could be a risk
to public safety. Well, I asked the minister: What is your evidence that there
is any risk to public safety from the current existing system that's in place?
They
have operated, from my understanding, within all the national guidelines. In
terms of safe response times, there has not been any issue to our knowledge. So,
please, we need to know if there is an issue of public safety, show us where it
is. By bringing 911 into government, how are you going to be able to improve
those so-called claimed issue of public safety?
So I
don't see any evidence. But again, I look forward to hearing from the minister.
Perhaps in Committee you can provide some examples of this issue of public
safety to us so that we understand. Also, another point that was made yesterday
and I have to ask about this. The minister said that there are eight other
jurisdictions in the country that are doing the same thing and why should we be
different.
Well, I
looked into this a little bit. Now, they are not actually doing it the same way,
what you're suggesting. For example, Nova Scotia has, actually, a separate
agency or entity set up to manage the reserve fund. So there are many
differences. You cannot just make a sweeping statement like that and say, well,
eight other jurisdictions in the country are doing this, without explaining to
us exactly how that is the case. Again, that's something else we need to
understand.
As well,
the minister, yesterday, stated it's going to be three years before the CRTC
will make the Next Generation 911 happen. But we can't wait for those three
years. I mean the current existing board are already working on this right now.
It is their view that you need to do the lead work. You can't wait for three
years and then try to, hopefully, have everything up in place when it comes to
these enhancements. So again, I've got concerns about that point that was raised
as well.
Speaker,
these are some of the concerns. The other final point was about the dedicated
funding solely for 911. Well, once this moves into government services, that $20
million – about $20 million – will become part of the general government
revenue. We all know what that means. That means it's going to be in competition
then in the budget. It's not necessarily going to be protected or a priority
like it is right now. It's a dedicated service fund. It is protected. It is
designated for further enhancements that will take place with respect to Next
Generation 911.
This is
of concern, I think, to not only myself as critic for Justice and Public Safety,
but to all Members of our caucus. We believe that this is something that when we
hear from the current board that they are unanimously opposed to it – these are
the people that have such expertise. They believe as well that there's
importance of independent oversight of NL911.
I've
heard from the minister in his remarks that we're streamlining, and I've heard
references to transforming and synergies and all of this, but this has been
working. It's not about being broad-minded. It's about when you have something
that works; it's effective and efficient, what really is the motive of bringing
it into government? I mean we know that government, in terms of being nibble and
having that ability in terms of decision-making, government is often perceived
as a slower decision-maker. Whereas when you have an independent agency like
this, they're not bogged down with the bureaucracy or the red tape that we often
see when entities become subsumed into government departments.
Again,
we have some serious reservations about this. I cannot support this legislation.
I think it's a mistake. I think it's ill advised and I don't think that the best
interests of the people of this province will be served if this legislation is
passed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
great to have an opportunity to speak to this bill, Bill 41. The official title
on it is An Act Respecting a Province-Wide 911 Service for the Reporting of
Emergencies. I'm going to refer to it as the 911 tax.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to say, first of all, I'm one of the few Members in this
House of Assembly – I think the Member for Bell Island would have been there,
and certainly the Minister of Education and Member for Bay of Islands, but
beyond that, I think we were the only Members that were there at the time when
the original 911 bill was brought in, in 2015.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
It was 2015 according to my
research. It was brought in at the time by Minister Dan Crummell; he was the
minister of Municipal Affairs and Fire and Emergency Services according to what
I looked up, and memory. And I think the work had been kind of done previous to
that under Kevin O'Brien; he was the minister of Municipal Affairs, and then Dan
moved in after the fact.
At the
time, I recall the debate in the House and so on because I know that I had some
concerns from people on this end of the province, if you will, who were raising
the concern over the fact that we already have 911, which was true. Because 911
was and still is being operated by the St. John's Regional Fire Department. They
always did 911 and the RNC did it in Corner Brook. But they did it for this
area. So if you were here in the St. John's metro area and so on, your municipal
taxes is what was paying for St. John's Regional Fire Department and, hence, 911
and so on, in terms of that service.
Now,
they might have been getting some money from the province for the Department of
Health as related to the ambulance services and so on, but it was primarily
funded that way. So I can remember at the time, a bit of the debate at the time
was, why should we be paying on our phone bill? I get it now by paying my
municipal taxes, I've got 911 and now I'm going to pay 75 cents so that somebody
over in Central Newfoundland can have 911.
That was
some of the debate that you had; I just remember that. We all agreed; it was
voted for unanimously I think. The counter to that was, well, you might have a
summer cottage, or you might be driving out the Trans-Canada Highway and so on,
and if you need 911, so you are benefiting from it as well as everybody else.
So, at
the end of the day, it was approved. I think everyone in the House kind of
looking at the broader picture, we're here, as I said yesterday, to try to
support each other and lift each other up in one province, and we did support
it. And I remember the 75 cents, and that was a bit controversial again at the
time. Because it's not just 75 cents per household, it's 75 cents per phone
line. There are a lot of people who are not paying 75 cents a month. If you've
got in a lot of families, we'll just say the husband, the wife and the two
teenage kids, that's four cellphones, so that's not 75 cents a month; that's $3
a month. Plus if you have a landline, you're paying again. Businesses who have
multiple lines, they're paying 75 cents per line in that business for this. But
that's kind of how it evolved.
But at
the time the big selling feature – and I can remember doing the briefing at the
time on it and it was all about the reason for this was the Enhanced 911.
Provincial 911 originally, and then the goal being the Enhanced 911. And that
was kind of the big selling feature. This is where we start and then we'll get
into an enhanced system for the whole province and that's why you're paying you
75 cents and so on. I think everybody supported that and I think everyone still
supports that concept – I would say everybody does. Of course, part of that was
the setting up of the 911 Bureau, if you will, reporting to an independent board
of directors is who the bureau reported to and we have the provincial system.
Which is basically the same call centres, just doing it for the whole province.
Now
what's being proposed, of course, as we've heard, is we want to take that and
fold it into government. Originally, when I heard that and even right up until
about an hour ago, I was thinking that kind of makes sense, because it falls in
line with what we were doing with the school board and the medical records and
so on. We can find some efficiencies and so on; perhaps save a few bucks.
Although I'll say in the briefing that I attended virtually yesterday, they
said, well, there probably won't be any savings this year; maybe within the next
year or two hopefully there will be some savings. Because by the time we do the
merger and work out all the bugs, hopefully we can find some savings. So there
were no concrete numbers or anything saying we're going to save this amount of
money.
As I
think about it further, which sort of I had this epiphany, if you will,
currently the 911 system and the bureau is being funded by that 75 cents. I
don't think the government are – the minister was saying –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Not a cent.
P. LANE:
Not a cent from the
government, no – not a cent from the government. So what efficiencies are we
finding? If we had one entity of government being paid for by the government and
you merged that entity in to another entity of government, paid for by the
government, you find some efficiencies and say, okay, government found savings.
But
there is no savings because this is not being paid for by the government. This
is not costing the government a cent. So all government is doing is getting
their hands on the money and that's the issue. Government is getting their hands
on the money. It is not saving the 911 system one dime. Not a dime. As a matter
of fact, core government is now going to take on the payroll, the IT and all
that kind of stuff.
So
they're not finding efficiencies; they're actually taking on more work. That
really doesn't compute. It makes no sense. But where it works for government is
that they take on that little bit of extra work, but then they also take the 68
cents. I say 68 cents because 75 cents charged to every phone, minus the seven
cents that we pay the phone provider for administering the fee. So it is
actually 68 cents used to go to the bureau, now that 68 cents per phone is going
to the government.
We have
$20 million in this fund and government now wants to get their hands – as one
person said in an email, he wasn't very nice, he said their grubby paws was his
terminology.
P. FORSEY:
You said that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. LANE:
The Member for Exploits said
I said that. He said it, too.
Anyway,
talking about they want to get their grubby paws on that $20 million, not only
is it the $20 million, but I guess in perpetuity, they're going to get their
hands on that 68 cents. Now, no doubt a portion of that 68 cents is going to
maintain the status quo in terms of the operations of the system. But if you
just do the basic math – I asked for the number yesterday but they didn't have
it to give me. If we've managed to put $20 million in the bank since 2015, which
is seven years, quick math tells you – assuming it is all averaged out – that
has grown by a little bit north of $2.8 million a year, if you do the math on
it.
In
theory, next year there'd be, round it up, $23 million, $26 million and $29
million and on and on we go. So that $20 million is going in to general
revenues; $3 million a year on top of that, every year, is going in to that.
That is assuming it doesn't increase, because I'm not sure under the current
legislation and set-up if that 75 cents is cast in stone or not. I don't know. I
don't know if the 911 Bureau had the ability to up that amount or if it is just
a simple 75 cents, end of story. I don't know. But one thing I do know, is once
it goes to government, they'll have the ability to change that 75 cents.
Speaker,
it's interesting because – I just want to quickly reference this. I'll just
reference a story here on CBC, a recent one. I did an interview with the CBC
about it this morning and, obviously, they contacted the minister as well, and
towards the end of the article, it says: Possible fee increase.
“Lane is
also concerned that the 75-cent fee will increase, even though NL911 has said
it's enough so far to maintain the current basic 911 service while building the
reserve to pay for future enhanced services.
“Hogan
told reporters the fee will be reviewed.”
The
minister said it will be reviewed. He's quoted here: “We're not sure exactly how
much the next generation 911 program will cost, so when the money does come in
we'll evaluate it, we'll work with CRTC to see what the cost will be.
“If the
fee is too much we'll take a look at it.”
Now, I
have a feeling that it's not going to be that the fee is too much. But here is
the other piece, though: “If it's not enough we'll look at it.”
So that
is opening the door, as far as I'm concerned, that the new 911 tax, Speaker,
currently sits at 75 cents per phone line of everybody who has a phone in this
province, business or person, but who's to say next year that 75 cent isn't $1
or $1.50 or $1.75 or $2.
Now, I
don't know what it's going to be, but it could be because the minister himself
said they're going to review it. So the other main point here is that this money
was dedicated funds. When people signed up for this – they never really have
choice, but the impetus for doing this and when people signed up was you pay the
75 cents, the money goes to maintain the new provincial 911 and then the
additional money – because I can remember when this was debated in the House we
said 75 cents, we did the math. We said there's going to be an awful lot of
extra money here. They said oh, yeah, but that's going in our reserve fund for
Enhanced 911.
We have
$20 million in there now that's going to grow, possibly, by $3 million a year to
pay for the Enhanced 911. But guess what's going to happen? That $20 million and
the $3 million a year after that is all going into general revenues, they can
spend it on whatever they like: more couches for the Colonial Building, who
knows. Open up a few more offices in some more Opposition districts, who knows.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. LANE:
But the bottom line is that
money can now be spent on all those other things and when the time comes along,
Speaker, that we are finally ready and getting ready to move on with Enhanced
911 and the bill comes in, all of sudden, what's going to happen? Oh my God, we
have to pay for this somehow; we have no money.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Just like the oil bill.
P. LANE:
Just like the oil bill, yeah.
We got no money. So what's going to happen? Up go the fees to justify paying for
it.
I'm not
saying the minister is not committed. The minister is saying that he is
committed to Enhanced 911. I take him on his word for it, because despite the
fact that we have our back and forth on a few issues, the election, different
things like that, I still have respect for the minister. He's a smart guy. Good
on him, no issue.
But when
we talk about this stuff here, I don't have faith, not in the minister per se,
but I don't have faith in the system, because I've been around here long enough
to see commitments broken, whether they be in a red book, a Blue Book, whether
it be on the floor of the House of Assembly, in the media, whatever.
We saw
it here yesterday – I think it was yesterday – we were talking about the ATV
helmets and clearly, everyone on this side of the House, for enclosed ATVs, we
thought we had the commitment. We thought we did, but no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
P. LANE:
Technically, I never said –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Stay
relevant to the bill, please.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
point I'm talking about here is there's a commitment to Enhanced 911 and I'm
just giving an example of where commitments have been made, or at least
perceived, in the House of Assembly, and then the total opposite happens. That's
the point I'm making.
This
whole idea of trust me, doesn't work. We've been burnt too often. As I said in
the House yesterday, I trusted the $6-million man and look where that got us.
Even if
we took them on their word, and, again, I'm not questioning the minister's word,
I'm really not. Who's to say he's going to be the minister – we're saying 2025 –
in 2025. Who's to say they're going to be the government in 2025. We don't know.
I have no idea who the government is going to be, who the minister is going to
be. So you're making –
B. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
The Member for CBS says I got
a good idea who the government is going to be.
But the
point is, Speaker, that you're making a commitment for something that's going to
be at least three or four years out. We're going to take the money, spend it now
but when the time comes, we'll find the money and we're committed to doing
what's right. But you're making a commitment for some future time when you may
not even be around here to keep that commitment.
And the
only guarantee, if you will – I suppose nothing in life is guaranteed only death
and taxes but, beyond that, the only guarantee we can have that this money is
going to be used in the way that it was intended to be used is if we maintain
the fund.
Now, I
have a little bit of concern even beyond the fund. I have a little bit of
concern about – and it has been raised already – the focus, because 911 is very
important. It is about safety and I do worry a little bit about folding this
into Justice. Will this actually be a priority? Right now, you have a dedicated
board. They are all about 911. They're experts in it. They're all about 911.
So when
it goes in as just a division of Justice, will that have the same priority? That
is a concern. It is a concern. But I could still live with it – I could still
live with it. But what I can't live with and I won't support – and it doesn't
really matter because as Tom Marshall so eloquently put it in this House of
Assembly one time: Oppositions have their say; government gets its way.
Everybody knows that's the way it's going to happen here. You got the majority.
So it's going to go through anyway. We know that. Assuming everyone is here to
vote, it's going to go through. I've got a feeling you're going to need your
majority on this one. I am just saying; just got a feeling.
But, at
the end of the day, personally, I cannot support raiding that fund. It's like
taking the cookies from the cookie jar; couldn't resist. The money is there and
somehow we have to get at it. It was never put there for that. It was put there
for a sole, specific purpose in good faith by the people who are paying that on
their phone bill.
No
different – and my colleague here from Torngat raised a good analogy. The
pension fund – same idea. The pension fund was much larger, of course, but the
same idea. People put money into their pensions and government had access to
that money and they spent it on roads and schools and everything else and then,
all of a sudden, we have no money. You got an unfunded liability. In order to
fix it, public servants, people who had worked their whole life, ended up having
to take cuts to their pension, work additional years added on to their years of
service and everything else to fix what was done by governments of all stripes
over the years – well, not all stripes, two stripes I guess – raiding the
pension fund. Because it was there to raid.
Now we
have the 911 fund and government sees that $20 million and they can't wait to
get their hands on it. And they can't wait to get their hands on an additional
$3 million a year that's going to come in – another source of revenue. So in
that sense, if it's not directly going into 911 and guaranteed to be going into
911 and the fund is not maintained, then really all this is, is a tax. It is
like the sugar tax. It is like the gas tax. It is like the carbon tax. Same
thing; it's another tax. This is the 911 tax. That's what it is, once you change
it.
So I'll
implore the government – I'll say to the minister again. I did talk to the
minister sort of to the side and he said that he was told they can't maintain
this separate fund. That's what he was told. I would say to the minister go back
again, talk to the Minister of Finance. Surely God, you're the government; you
cannot tell me that there's no way you can protect that fund. I just cannot
believe you cannot protect that fund.
If you
need to put something in the legislation, put it there. If they're doing it in
Nova Scotia to protect the fund, why can't we protect the fund in Newfoundland
and Labrador? Why can't we?
So I say
to the minister, if you could do that, I could support it. But without doing
that –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Member's time is expired.
P. LANE:
– I will not support it. I'm
not voting for this bill.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
this probably comes down to a question of confidence and trust. Having been in
the field 30 years or so, 35 years as a teacher, whenever I hear government talk
about a sustainable fiscal future, about finding synergies, about integration,
incorporation and using words of eliminating redundancies, of a transformation
agenda, of streamlining services and finding savings, and how we need to broaden
our minds and broaden our perspective, you know that at some point that services
are going to be cut, resources are going to fly out the door, hold on to your
wallets and hold on to your resources.
I've yet
to be part of any plan where that actually improved, and this is what it comes
down to. Because let's face it, this is not being taken over or integrated to
improve the model; it's basically status quo. That's what I'm hearing. That's
the reason for it, to maintain it the way it is. It's not to improve. It's not
that the independent NL911 is doing anything incorrect or mismanagement; they're
doing a good job.
Secondly, I've heard the rationale that basically this, by bringing it into
government, it will get us ready for their Next Generation 911 in 2025. And, if
I heard it correctly, that the current board's mandate doesn't allow for that;
it's simply to improve 911. I would argue that Next Generation 911 would be an
improvement and would fit well within its mandate. A broad mandate gives it that
broad ability to react and to be flexible.
It's
also a not-for-profit. Now, one of the things I've argued here in that when it
comes to some of the services that government provides, it probably should be
put into the hands of not-for-profit organizations, because their main focus is
on providing the service, not on making the profit. It's doing well. It's also
about having a dedicated staff and dedicated resources, knowing where the
resources come from and where the resources are going.
This
brings me to one of my key concerns here. Since I've been an MHA and sat in on
Estimates meetings, I've heard the terms of zero-based budgeting and finding
efficiencies in every Estimates meeting and trying to figure out which employees
or which public servants or which people are dedicated to doing what and where
is the revenue going. My fear is, and the fear of an awful lot of people, that
by bringing it in with other people you're now going to increase the workload.
We
already know that government is already struggling to find people to fill
positions. At some point, services are going to suffer. I've listened to the
petitions on this side of the House; we've heard the concerns around services.
If it's not broke, then don't fix it.
T. WAKEHAM:
Hear, hear!
J. DINN:
I have to agree with the
Member for Stephenville, there's no two ways about it. If this board were
mismanaging, I would agree, but they are not. They are doing their duties.
I'm not
confident in bringing a service in when the mandate here is about finding
efficiencies. Efficiencies, how? Usually it translates to – from my world –
finding ways of cutting human resources and finding ways for people to do more
work, and not do it well because they're overloaded. That's what it comes to
mean with me.
If you
need to, increase the mandate at NL911 and increase the resources to them, if
that's what you're concerned about. But we've seen far too many examples here of
– this is the key source of my mistrust here. My colleague from Torngat
Mountains actually brought up the Teachers' Pension Plan or the Public Service
Pension Plan, as a fine example, Speaker, because it goes to the heart of it.
The fact
is, up until about 2015, 2016, 2017, both plans, Mr. Speaker, were administered
by the provincial government. I don't care what political stripe, but they were
administered. Both plans were in a mess.
Atlantic
Accord money was put into the Teachers' Pension Plan in 2006. In 2008, that
money was wiped out just about. The plan hadn't been de-risked. I can tell you
when I was president, that's what we undertook.
Now, in
seven years since these plans have been taken, joint management, they are now
overfunded, Mr. Speaker. That is the value of having a dedicated group, an
organization looking at it and managing it.
My
concern is that we'll see a repeat; that we won't be able to track where the
money is going; that we won't be able to figure out if there are dedicated
personnel to 911 or will they be split up or will we get any better service as a
result.
We saw
the integration of the four school districts, Speaker, in 2013, that was
supposed to provide efficiencies, savings and put more resources back in the
classroom. I would argue that was not the case. So the point it comes down to is
it's about having that plan and having that rationale. There are far too many
examples in history here, Speaker, that I would have confidence.
What I
do believe is that as administrations change, as ministers change, that
somewhere along the line the main motivation, the reason, the dedication, the
motivation behind this, the rationale is going to be forgotten.
For that
reason, I will not be supporting this. If I thought that the current board was
inefficient, was mismanaging the funds and was not doing its job: yes. But I see
no reason to support basically, what comes down to a $20 million cash grab, for
what?
With
that, Speaker, I'll finish, and I'll leave it there.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker, for the
opportunity to speak on this.
I'm
going to be speaking in a different capacity, in a few roles, and I'm going to
upset one side and I'm going to upset both sides for what I'm going to have to
say.
The
first thing is when this was set-up with the minister at the time, Kevin
O'Brien, I was there, we sat down'; we went through it. The cost is correct. The
commitment then was that if there's going to be a surplus, and we don't know how
much it's going to cost for the Next Generation, if there was surplus it would
decrease the amount they'd be charging all the phone lines across the province.
That was the commitment at the time by the minister. That's in the public
domain. That's in Hansard here in the
House of Assembly, also. That was the intent.
Before I
get started, I just want to thank all the first responders across the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. JOYCE:
There's no dispute about
that. A lot of them are – the first responders are the firefighters, Duane
Antle, the president of the firefighters association and all the firefighters
across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all the paramedics, all the
first responders. I just want to thank them all because when we are here
debating this bill, they are on the other end actually delivering the services
to the people that are in need. So we have to recognize that the first
responders are really the front-line people for all of this.
Back in
my former day when I was the minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, we
were going to bring 911 into the department, I have to say, that was the plan
that was set out; it never developed, but it was the plan. But there was only
one condition that we had, the funds that we got from the phone lines, the
surplus, be put into a fund not to be touched, only for 911. That was the
commitment.
Now,
there are other reasons people can say that they're going to not agree:
efficiencies. I, personally, think it's better if it's under the department so
when you have Fire and Emergency Services over here and you have everything
under one so you could have everybody accountable and you can improve the
efficiencies.
My
problem with this here is that there will not be the money available for the
Next Generation. That is my problem; that is actually my problem. If the money
was committed in a line item, I could vote for this, I can actually vote for it.
But it's not, so it would be difficult. I don't think I can.
I'll
just give you some examples of why, Mr. Speaker. Last year, when we had the
sugar tax, I went out there with the Government House Leader, the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board agreed to end debate on the sugar tax.
Do you know why? There was an agreement by the President of Treasury Board, the
Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, the Third Party and myself
and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, that the $3 million would be put
into a line item. Every year it's going to be $3 million and it's going to show
where the money was spent.
I say to
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, if we can do it for the sugar tax,
why can't we do it for this? Because there was a commitment made, and
Hansard will reflect and will show
that the commitment was made last year to do that. So if anybody wants they can
go back and check Hansard on it, they
can actually go back and the commitment was made to do that. So now, they can
say, well, we can't do it, it's got to go to general revenue or something along
those lines, that's fine. That is absolutely fine, whatever.
I'll
just give you some examples, Mr. Speaker, of why I have the concern about the
fund. Carbon tax: we're collecting, what, $80 million, $85 million or $90
million a year carbon tax that's supposed to offset and do some projects in the
province to decrease emissions. Do you know how much money is spent on that a
year? It's $25 million or $30 million, the rest – everything goes into general
revenue. All that carbon tax fund goes into general revenue.
If the
Minister of Environment needs any funds for a project, he has to go to Treasury
Board and get the funds. The funds are not there for the carbon tax like it was
set out to do. It's just not there. So when you stand up and say, well, it's
going to be there. Well, the carbon tax is not there.
I'll
give you another one: Vale. Back in 2015, when Vale gave $30 million to the
province for the four projects, when that money came in, it went into general
revenue. To get money for the pool in Placentia, it had to go to Treasury Board
to get approved from Treasury Board. Although Vale said here's $30 million, when
the money came in, it went to Treasury Board. It went into general revenue. And
when it went into general revenue, for projects that had to be done, the
minister at the time had me – I am just speaking on behalf of the fitness centre
down in Placentia. We had to go to Treasury Board to get it approved because the
funds weren't there because they were put in general revenue. I've been there
with it.
So these
are some of the concerns that I have with it. And I heard one of the Members
speaking over there about creating efficiencies. We should have created
efficiencies in the delivery of service and not the funds. Because the funds are
coming from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through their tax on their
phone lines. So when you talk about efficiencies in government usually you say,
okay, we can save some money. We can save money in a better way.
If we're
going to do efficiencies in the 911 service through the Department of Justice
and Public Safety, that means the funds that you're going to be using will go in
general revenue and will not be used for the purpose. This is not in general
funds for government. This was set up in 2013 I think it was.
P. LANE:
'15
E. JOYCE:
Set up in 2015 with the idea
of having the taxpayers pay through their cellphones. So this is not the taxes
you pay on gas. This is not corporate tax. This is not income tax. This is what
was done, at the time, to give the service and people bought into it. There was
a lot of confusion and there was a lot of debate. I know because I was a part of
it at the time. I was in the Opposition at the time. How it was going to be set
up – the board. I was actually in on a lot of those debates.
So this
is my concern and why I can't vote for it is because I know once it goes into
general revenue – there's no knock on the minister. This is no knock. This is
how the government works itself. This is actually how the government works.
I've
been there, seen it, part of it and fought for money that was supposed to be
through the Vale, through the carbon tax. I've been there for all of that. The
problem with the excess money that's going to be coming in for the next three,
four or five years before we get the Next Generation, there going to another $8
million to $10 million.
So if
the Next Generation and what it costs – if we have a surplus now, we're paying
100 per cent all the wages. We're paying 100 per cent all the rent that's needed
across the province. For example, 911 is out in the City of Corner Brook, down
in the basement, paying rent to the City of Corner Brook. That's all covered.
There's still a $20-million surplus; all covered.
So the
question is: If we're going to go another three or four years and we're going to
have a larger surplus –
P. LANE:
It's $30 million then.
E. JOYCE:
We're going to have $30
million, why can't we, as committed by the minister at the time, which we agreed
to if there's a surplus, why don't we, instead of 75 cents, bring it down to 65
cents, 60 cents, to pay – the idea of the fund that was set up – and there's a
reflection in Hansard – was to cover
the cost, not the surplus. I don't know how much the Next Generation will cost.
I say to the minister, I'm not sure how much it will cost, but the intent that
it would cover the cost.
If we're
covering the cost now, and there's a $20-million surplus, I don't think Next
Generation is going to be $30 million. I don't think it is. So if you're going
to live up to the commitment that was made, when all the people in the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador committed to buy in to 911, I think the government
should stand by that commitment, when people agreed, and Kevin O'Brien, the
Hansard in here, and the public domain
will verify that if there's any surplus, that there would be a decrease.
Mr.
Speaker, that is my concern with the process. Going into the department, I can
understand it. I agree with it, going into the department. I have no problem
with that whatsoever. Because when you've got the full system of public safety
in a department and you've got 911, it would make someone at least accountable,
and you can see how you could improve the system within the department. I can
see that.
I'll
just thank the board members and all the staff who are manning the 911 phones
and things like that in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They're after
doing a great job with it, and the board itself over the years has done a great
job with it. I can see the concerns of the board, and sometimes you can
understand their concerns, but you can see how it could help out.
But for
not designating the funds that were committed to 911, and we don't know when the
Next Generation is going to come, and this fund is going to build and build and
build and go in general revenue, and when it's time to come up with the 911 Next
Generation and you've got to fight for it, what if you don't get it – what if
you don't get it?
The
people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be out of the system. We've seen not
just this government, not just the previous government – I'm going back so many
years – how many times did the commitment made by many governments, I'm going
back to '89 when I first got elected – how many commitments were made and then
all of a sudden, well, we can't afford it now. How many times did we hear that?
Can't put the money into it.
So I
implore the minister, find some way that you can make a line item that every
year you can say here's – and just to give you an example. I'll say to the
minister, in your own department, you look at fire trucks every year, $1.8
million. Every year, that's guaranteed. But if you put a line item for 911 for
$20 million, next year it will come in $23 million, and say every year that it's
a line item, that that's the amount that's in that fund, I can support it. But
if there's no line item in that there to make sure, I can't support it because I
have this concern that it won't be done.
That's
my few words on that, Mr. Speaker. I hope I gave enough of rationale of why
because I seen it: Sugar tax, we could do it. The carbon tax is in the general
revenue, not put through the $100-million projects that they were supposed to
put through. I heard earlier today the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port
say we can help out. We can decrease the income tax enough for the carbon tax –
offset the increase in some carbon tax. It could be done; other provinces did
it.
You're
not decreasing the gas amount, but you can decrease your income tax rate that
the province can charge. Yet, we're not doing that because the carbon tax is
good for the bottom line: for the Treasury Board. That's why it's not being
done. That's why the $100 million is not being used for the projects. That's why
we're not getting a decrease in the provincial income tax because it would
decrease the bottom line. Although the money for carbon tax is supposed to used
for projects across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
challenge the Minister of Environment to show me where there's $100 million
worth of projects spent last year. He can't do it; it's not done. So that's my
concern. That's my arguments and I hope the Members opposite understand that,
because I've been through it with three or four different projects. We had a
commitment last year about the line items.
Efficiencies: I can see in the department where you have it all in the one. I
can see that. I know a lot of Members here disagree with me on that, but I can
see that. But we have to guarantee that when the Next Generation comes so we
don't leave the people, the 911 people who are on the other end and all the
first responders, that we don't give them the best available tools that we can
get in Canada – right now, the best available tools in Canada so that we can
make sure that the job is done properly and that they will end up saving lives.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm not
sure where I'm going to start, but maybe I'll start with some thank yous first
of all to – maybe I'm going to start with another point. You know, it's
interesting sitting as an independent. I don't have nice key messages and sort
of little bill files of nice little background notes prepared by researchers,
and here's the points we want to put forward. Here are the points we want to
counter and be ready for. It's just me, and my little team Anna Hutchings and
Bonnie Learning and I thank them very much.
But it
is interesting how people reach out to you. I hear, not just from my own
constituency, but also from across the province with their concerns. I would
like to thank those that have done that. I would like to thank members of
current board of NL 911 Bureau. My own colleagues from search and rescue, I
spent a good decade with some of my good friends, participating as a member of
that volunteer team in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and, as I said, many others.
What is
interesting is how consistent so much of the concern that I have heard on this
side. Even when I sat in my seat here today and I heard the Deputy Government
House Leader say Bill 41 is on the Table. I was thinking, okay, is it just going
to be yours truly or are there other concerns here. It is always interesting to
watch and see how things develop and, sure enough, there is a lot of concern,
not just here on the floor but across the province.
I'm just
going to make a little light point, as my colleague did from Torngat Mountains.
I'm going to start with a little Jeopardy!
scenario. I'm going to start with the answer. So for $20 million, here is the
answer: A compulsory contribution to state revenue levied by the government on
workers income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services
and transactions. What is the question? What is a tax?
Frankly,
folks, that is what I feel is now going to be happening. We have a fee we have
been collecting for a very designated purpose. As the previous speakers here
have indicated today, there was a clear intent. There wasn't just an assurance;
there was actually a fund where the money has been growing.
I am
well aware and have been a part of watching people be appointed to the NL 911
Bureau. They have been good people. They have been well selected and they have
done a good job and there hasn't been an issue. They have now built up a great
fund. We are now in an extremely good place for a province. Let's face it; we
are the most indebted province in the whole federation of Canada. So to know
that we have a very large, substantial fund, which is going to more than help
and provide and ensure we have the latest approach, the best approach to
responding to search and rescue, to responding to 911 in this province, that
gives this guy, with a fair bit of experience in search and rescue, a lot of
comfort.
It was
just a little while ago, I think just a couple weeks ago, I actually presented a
petition to the Minister of Justice and Public Safety around search and rescue.
I will
go on to my next point which is I heard this afternoon from the minister and I
heard from the staff – and I thank the staff for the briefing yesterday – a
reference to the need to do this as a result of the search and rescue inquiry
that was released in December of last year.
This all
goes back to a very tragic incident that has been spoken about by a lot of
Members on this floor and a lot of people across this province, and that is what
happened back in January 2012 with Burton Winters. I know I was sitting in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, some of my colleagues actually responded to that horrible
several days were it was just amazing frustration and some of the confusion
around it.
So out
of that came the inquiry. The inquiry was completed by another guy who's a
friend of mine, Jim Igloliorte, and in his series of recommendations, he put
forward a couple that I tabled as a petition. And just to remind the minister,
because Budget Day is coming up this week, one was on providing operational
support for our volunteers, the 75 teams across the province, as well as
providing counselling for some of the trauma that so many of them have faced
over the years, not just in search and rescue but in, as my colleague said, all
first responders in our province.
But to
have reference to the search and rescue inquiry as to the rationale for Bill 41,
I found myself, I said, wow, where is this coming from? So I had to do some
digging. As most of my colleagues know, we haven't had a lot of time to prepare,
frankly, it's been in the matter of hours, not days or weeks or months, as
government has that advantage to set the policy – rightly so. However, I have
learned that the reference to this inquiry recommendations stems from a
reference from the Bay of Islands search and rescue team who made a submission
during the inquiry about the concern around what are called Public Safety
Answering Points, PSAPs, and it was referenced earlier by the minister.
Living
in Labrador, I can tell you I was very close to what the connotation was at the
time around Burton Winters. I'm not sure exactly what Bay of Islands was
referring to, but I can tell you it refers to when a call comes in and there's a
missing person, who do you refer it to? Well, there's a protocol written and it
basically says the matter should be referred to the police department of
jurisdiction. So whether that be the RNC, the RCMP – where I sit in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay – the military, or other, that's essentially what's there now.
I can tell with my experience with search and rescue, that's all understood very
clearly.
I don't
get how that situation relates to this situation of dissolving a board that's
been performing very well, built up a fund, as I said, it's not just there for a
rainy day, it's preparing this province for the next generation of how we're
going to respond to what is probably, let's face it, the most critical emergency
component of our society, that ability to respond fast and respond effectively.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of chatter is getting a little loud.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I also
was provided – and I thank the board for doing that – a copy of a letter that
was sent to the minister, an email on the 14th of December, expressing concern
when they saw that recommendation and how their suggestion was that there was
contextual issues here that, how it appeared in the recommendations for the
inquiry and perhaps the rationale for why it was presented in the first place,
really don't align. I didn't hear any alignment yesterday and I haven't heard
any alignment here today.
It
really is a matter of following a protocol and making sure that whoever is
answering that call when it comes in, that they refer it to the authority of
responsibility, again, RNC, RCMP and so on. I don't see the need necessarily to
collapse this.
That
said, and what I wanted to put here on the floor is, I've learned as a scientist
myself, as a consultant, worked in a variety of fields, I tend to pay a lot of
attention to people who've got the expertise. I really want to hear from them.
If I got a concern about something, I'm going to ask a question. That's why I
took the initiative to start reaching out to the 911 folks and other folks who
are in the field. I have yet – in my last 48 hours – to find anyone who has any
concern as to why this needs to be done. I've had nothing but suspicion, and
that's why I start with my initial point around this wonderful fund that's
sitting there, and I understand the fiscal crisis – the crise fiscale, as they
say in French – that we are facing.
Folks,
if that's what we're trying to do here, to get access to some cash, let's talk
about it; let's put it on the floor. But I also like the suggestion – and I'm
going to leave everyone with a couple of thoughts here. First of all, we have to
make sure that our search and rescue, that our emergency response is not only
maintained, not at that quality, it has to be enhanced. If bringing it into the
department will do that, fine, I will wait and see how that would go. But I
might put a suggestion on the floor to the minister, as has been done, and I
look to the colleague for Environment and Climate Change, with the Wilderness
and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council.
This is
a group, an independent, third party group that provides advice to a government
department, and I just wondered if it might be something that the minister might
entertain was to also retain the services, at least for a period of time, so
that the expertise sitting on this board – that have been working very well and
very successfully – may continue to be availed of. Perhaps we do this
permanently; I'm not sure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
focused, I'm going, but for the purpose of
Hansard, it's good to have it clear.
So I'll
put that on the floor for the minister's consideration and the department's
consideration to continue with some semblance of ensuring that the expertise
that we've accumulated is not cast off. I think that is extremely important.
I think
a second point that I heard here, that is extremely important, is the
identification. As we tell people going forward – say this bill passes, say we
now have, as I said with my definition, created the first tax, new tax of 2022,
but that money is actually earmarked for something. There is not just a promise
or an assurance, despite the goodwill and intentions of not just this minister
but everybody else who would be in government right now.
Who
knows what's going to happen and who knows what crisis is going to face us in
the future, but I know this guy, and every other MHA on this floor, is going to
be competing for that money in general revenues. We're all making our cases.
We're all making our stands and to pit potholes against our ability for society
to respond.
Maybe
when the CRTC comes along and says, okay, we're ready, you can now proceed.
Well, maybe the price of oil is down big time that year; maybe something else is
upon us; maybe we just can't come up with the resources. So what do we do? We
kick it out. We kick the can down the road a little bit.
I don't
think so. And, I think, in fairness to every single person who has had a
cellphone, a cellphone bill in this province since this has been enacted and has
paid into a fund knowing that's what that money was going to, as my colleague
for Mount Pearl - Southlands spoke about, that was the intent of the debate all
those years ago. It's good to have that corporate memory to remind us all what
this was all about and its intention. Assurances aren't going to quite cut it,
but I can tell you, you can reach a lot of co-operation if we could get some of
these things in place.
So I am
just going to say one more time: Can we figure out some way to retain the
services of the board and can we identify, earmark the intended fund that's
sitting there to ensure it's not just a promise but it's actually written and
kept in there?
Finally,
I just want to say thank you very much, Speaker. Let's make sure that how we
respond as a society to emergencies in this province is highly enhanced.
Stay
safe everyone.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
I see no other speakers, so
if the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Thanks
to everyone for their comments and questions. I certainly listened to all of the
questions and I hope that everybody, actually, in the beginning of my
introductory remarks – I did provide some answers. So I think the answers should
be listened to as well.
I think
the most important thing is we have committed to doing Next Generation 911. In
fact, the legislation mandates that the government continue to develop, operate
and maintain the emergency 911 service in this province and that it will be
flexible and responsive to changing technologies, which will, obviously, include
Next Generation 911.
I want
to thank all the speakers: the Member for Topsail - Paradise; the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the Member for Torngat Mountains; the Minister
of Children, Seniors and Social Development; the Member from Harbour Main; the
Member from Mount Pearl - Southlands; the Leader of the Third Party; the Member
from Humber - Bay of Islands; and the Member from Lake Melville. I look forward
to questions in Committee.
I will
note that I heard a couple of times that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. But I
would say that if it can be improved, then let's do that.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 41 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting A
Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies. (Bill 41)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting A Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting
Of Emergencies,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 41)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister for Justice and Public Safety, that the house now
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 41, An Act
Respecting A Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies.
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 this 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 41, An Act Respecting A Province-Wide 911 Service For The
Reporting Of Emergencies.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting A Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies”
(Bill 41)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
The
minister may have gone down through this, but can he describe exactly why this
move is being made? What the benefits of it are, please?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Yes, I did go through this.
Thanks for the question.
There
are several reasons and most important is the safety of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. I believe, and the department believes, officials in the
department believe, that bringing in a facet of public safety in this province
into the department to work with other entities that already exist in the
department will mean that everyone is safer and this emergency 911 service will
work more effectively and provide more safety for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
We don't
want NL911 being in the silo, where it operates independently and doesn't have
the ability to communicate and talk with and build on the technology that exists
within the department. Certainly, I've mentioned the province-wide radio system.
There's been some mention about the funds being used for Next Generation 911.
We'd have to – I have to see what the words were – beg or ask for that money in
the future, but the alternative, of course, is to leave the money in 911 right
now, let them do Next Generation 911, spend the fees on that that are being
collected through people's phone bills and tax people in the province to build
infrastructure related to radios. We would be duplicating spending on that.
I'm not
sure why it would be good idea to leave 911 in a silo, when we can efficiently
spend money and work together and jointly on those efforts to make sure that
they work and save taxpayers and ratepayers in this province money.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Chair.
Why is
the minister proceeding with this legislation despite unanimous opposition from
the current NL911 board?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you.
So we
made a decision as a government that this was the most effective way and most
efficient way and safest way for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to deal with
the 911 system. That's why we're doing it.
I've met
with the board on a couple of occasions and they've been in constant contact
with officials in the Department of Justice and Public Safety to discuss the
transition into government from a separate entity.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Has the department
completed an analysis of savings, the exact savings that are anticipated? If so,
can you provide this to the House? I'm looking at an analysis breakdown of the
savings.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
We don't have an exact
breakdown, but there will be obvious savings when this entity is rolled into the
Department of Justice and Public Safety. I reviewed in my opening comments this
afternoon, some of those savings that will exist.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
In the briefing,
officials noted that the current staff of NL911 will move into the department
and they suggested that the staff could help with other areas of emergency
service delivery. Will the job descriptions of the current staff change?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
We anticipate a smooth
transition and we'll work with the staff as they come into the Department of
Justice and Public Safety. Certainly, we'll need individuals to enhance, improve
and maintain the 911 system, but there are other options and other opportunities
for these individuals to work within the Department of Justice, broaden their
career and grow into public safety facets in the department that exist beyond
911.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
With respect to whether
there'll be job losses, have you had any analysis completed with respect to
potential job losses?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
We don't anticipate any
immediate job losses. The individuals at NL911 will come into the Department of
Justice and Public Safety.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
I'd like
a clear explanation as to why the assets of $20 million of the board are being
brought in to general revenue instead of putting them aside in a dedicated
(inaudible)?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So putting them aside, it
certainly was discussed and we've heard questions about it, but putting them
aside, it's just not how government works. We don't put money aside in the
budget process. If we did that, we'd have money put aside for every department,
we'd have bank accounts for every single department and then we'd have accounts
within every department for every single thing that we do.
So we'd
have money for the RNC staff, we'd have money for RNC cars, we'd have money for
RCMP staff, we'd have money for RCMP operations, we'd have money for fire trucks
and we'd have money for fire equipment. I shouldn't say money; we'd have bank
accounts for all these things. We'd have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
different accounts that are going to be allocated for budget purposes. We have a
budget and the money comes out of general revenue and it goes to those things
that we do in the budget, which you'll see on Thursday.
Another
thing is that, as I've said, Next Generation 911 will not be available until
2025. So we would have to carry a liability of that expenditure for the next
three years, and it's not an up-front cost of $20 million. If it's even going to
be that, we don't know what the cost is going to be. So we can't allocate a
specific amount of money for a project that we have no idea what it's going to
cost.
So there
are all kinds of reasons we are not going to put that money aside into a special
pot.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So you referenced that
there are eight other jurisdictions doing the same thing in essence, but Nova
Scotia, for example, has a separate agency set up to manage the reserve fund. So
why didn't you consider that route to go here?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
It's a separate agency in
Nova Scotia, as the Member said. We've decided not to have a separate agency.
We're bringing it within the department, and the reasons I explained throughout
this afternoon is that we want this entity, this facet of public safety to work
with other aspects of the Department of Justice and Public Safety, specifically
with regard to the province-wide radio system, which is why it's spelled out in
the new legislation and it's not there in the old legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Does the minister have an
estimation as to what Next Generation 911 will cost to implement?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
No, I don't have an estimate
on that number.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So the minister
referenced the CRTC and that it has mandated a telecommunication company across
Canada to update their networks to allow for Next Generation 911 service and
that is expected to be within three years.
Can you
please provide details of what your plan is to prepare Newfoundland and Labrador
for this significant and important upgrade to its emergency services?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So there's a working
committee at CRTC that we will participate in with regard to the Next Generation
911 plan. The individuals that come in to the Department of Justice and Public
Safety who have already been working on Next Generation 911 will continue to
work on it, and we'll do everything and anything we can to make sure that we
follow the legislation, that we will follow the law of the land to develop,
operate and maintain the emergency 911 service in this province.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
When we look at specific clauses, like 7(d) says that the minister shall ensure
that the emergency 911 service is efficient and cost effective.
Can you
please explain whether this clause, that emergency 911 service, must be cost
effective? Would that give a future minister a reason not to implement Next
Generation 911 and use the revenue for other purposes? Is that any concern for
you at all?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I don't have concern. As I've said, I've committed and this government is
committed to doing Next Generation 911. I've also looked at section 7(e) and
I've said it a few times in the House that the minister is mandated to be
flexible and responsive to changing technologies, which I would argue includes
Next Generation 911.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
With respect to the advanced notice of changes in clause 12, the previous
legislation noted that the emergency service provider must provide notice after
a change, but this legislation says that advance notice to the minister shall be
provided when changes related to the emergency response zones or operational
procedures of the emergency service provider.
So I
just want clarification: Can you explain why the advance notice of a change in
the emergency zone or operational procedure must be given to the minister or
department?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I think it's a question why they have to give the advance notice of a change. If
you continue on reading section 12, it's advance notice of a change to emergency
response zones and the operational procedures of the emergency service provider.
So the purpose of that is that the minister does want to know and the minister
should know, when he or she is operating and in charge of 911, where the
emergency response zones are so it's known who has to go to those response
zones, and to know what the operational procedures are of the various emergency
service providers throughout the province.
I would
argue not knowing those things is a detriment to public safety. So knowing those
things is enhancing and improving public safety in the province.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So what happens if an emergency service provider, for example, a volunteer fire
department, is not able to give advance notice because of their ability to
provide service changes unexpectedly, which, of course, can happen in volunteer
departments?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Sorry, I just ask the Member
to repeat the question, if she doesn't mind.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
The example I'm using is
what happens if you have an emergency service provider like a volunteer fire
department and they're not able to give advance notice, because their ability to
provide service changes unexpectedly, as sometimes happens in volunteer
departments – so what happens if they're not able to give advance notice
(inaudible)?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So the legislation mandates
that that entity does have to give advance notice. I'm not sure why they
wouldn't be able to give advance notice if their operational procedures have
changed. It's not something that happens instantaneously. But this is another
reason why we want to bring this entity within government. The Minister of
Municipal Affairs spoke to this and regionalization and how her department can
work with entities throughout the province in the municipalities to deal with
these certain issues.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So how much advance
notice must be given?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
It says shall provide advance
notice. It doesn't set out a specific timeline.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So with respect to the
civic addresses, the text is, in essence, or essentially the same as the current
legislation. But there are many municipalities in the province who have the same
street names, like, for example, Main Street.
Will the
minister or the department be asking municipalities to change their street names
to avoid confusion for 911 operators?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
No, and this is a problem
throughout the country. It's either 50 per cent in Newfoundland, I believe,
don't have civic addresses and it is a problem throughout the country, which the
CRTC working group I spoke of are
trying to address this problem, which is one of the reasons this Next Generation
911 can't happen next year. It needs to take time to figure out the civic
address problem.
But to
the get to the question – I don't anticipate anyone telling anyone what to call
streets in various communities throughout the province. But whoever the minister
of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is, it is something that they can work with
these groups to make sure that the civic address issue is dealt with to ensure
that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are as safe as possible.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
My final question is with
respect to the commencement of the legislation. So it's going to come into
effect when it's proclaimed by Cabinet. What is the timeline for implementation
of the legislation and the timeline to bring NL911 into the department?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I don't have a specific
timeline for that right now. I wouldn't call this the first step; this is maybe
the middle step. We'll get the legislation done and approved here in the House
of Assembly – hopefully it passes – then we'll continue to work with the
individuals at NL911 right now to transition into government.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I just
have two questions coming out of debate. It was mentioned many times that
currently the service is not funded by government, NL911. So when you say
savings are being incurred, how are they being incurred?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
The question is the 68 cents that is being collected right now by the board,
that will now be collected by government. But certain things that the board are
doing, our government will be able to do so the efforts aren't duplicated. You
don't have to pay for things twice: that's how you save money.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you.
I don't
understand where paying twice comes from. We are currently paying into that
system right now and you're saying there is going to be savings. So where are
the savings?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I don't understand how
someone doesn't understand how not paying for things twice is not saving. It is.
I only bought my house once, I didn't buy it twice; I only bought my car once, I
didn't buy it twice. So when individuals come into the department they can use
things that are already here within the department, they don't have to have
third party contracts to do that. They can avail of services that already exist
within the Department of Justice and Public Safety.
More
importantly, which I spoke about earlier, is the infrastructure. I don't think
that taxpayers and ratepayers in this province paying the rate of 75 cents
should have to pay for infrastructure twice. So, again, why would we pay for
something twice when we can pay for it once and use two services on the same
infrastructure system.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you.
With the
NL911 right now, currently, who's paying for the infrastructure?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
The operation of the NL911,
right now, is coming from the 75 cents.
P. DINN:
(Inaudible.)
J. HOGAN:
I'll try it again.
This is
not just about 911, Chair. This is about a broader public safety initiative. One
of the public safety initiatives that this government plans to do is the
implementation of a province-wide radio system. That will require
infrastructure. We have to pay for that infrastructure. Taxpayers will pay for
that infrastructure. Part of that infrastructure can be used for NL911.
If NL911
does it on its own, in a silo, the 75 cents collected will be used to pay for
that. Taxpayers' money will be used for the radios. If we bring them together,
we can piggyback on the infrastructure; we don't have to do it twice.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
I'm not sure if he's getting
the question here, because you have an agency that is operating now, an entity
that's operating and doing quite a good job at it and dragging them into a
department, and they're saying it's tax savings.
I don't
see it. I don't understand how you can take an entity – I don't pay for my
mortgage twice. I understand that. I'm not paying for my house twice. But if
someone's driving a car over there – someone not connected to me, not connected
– I pay nothing on that car, yet I want to use that car. How is it dragging that
car into my household going to save me money? I don't understand that.
Anyway,
what happens to the publicly funded NL911 fund once it's placed in general
revenue?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Sorry, I didn't hear the
question, unfortunately, Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
This is a pretty important
piece of legislation and having the Member over there making amusing comments is
unwarranted.
So I'll
be quite clear and I'll ask the question in the Queen's language: What happens
to the publicly funded NL911 fund once placed in general revenue?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Once placed in general
revenue, it is in general revenue.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
So what
he's telling us is that the $20 million –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I can't
hear the Member speak.
Thank
you.
P. DINN:
What he's telling us is the
$20 million that is currently held by the NL911 drops into general revenue and
that's it. We don't know if it's going to be used for the purpose it was
collected or not.
Now, if
I'm bringing forth a bill on this and there's an amount, whether it's $1 or $20
million of the public funds that was collected for this, I would know exactly
where it's going, other than it's going in general revenue.
So what
will the money be used for? Will it be used for enhancements down the road?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Yes, the money will be used
for enhancements down the road. In fact, it will be used for developing,
operating and maintaining the emergency 911 service as mandated in the new
legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just for
clarification, the $20 million will be solely used to establish the Next
Generation 911?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I don't know how much the
Next Generation 911 project is going to cost. Nobody knows how much it's going
to cost. If it's more than $20 million or less than $20 million, I can't commit
to that $20 million being used exactly for that.
Again,
the definition has been broadened. The fee collected does not speak to just 911
telephone services. So the fee will be collected and will be used to ensure that
this legislation is followed.
I've
committed and this government has publicly committed to doing Next Generation
911. I can't pay of it – the Minister of Finance can't allocate that money on
Thursday in the budget because the project is not ready yet.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of
the questions I have regarding this transfer really is about the acquired
knowledge; 911 is a very important service and very skilled, knowledgeable
employees are working there currently. When we look at the knowledge transfer of
these three technical staff that will go into the department, does government
intend to add additional responsibilities to these employees that could distract
away from their primary function? Also very important is will these employees be
able to stay within the department, or will their knowledge be transferred to
other employees and then eventually they will be laid off or lose their jobs?
That is something that would be of concern when you're transferring into a new
department.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
The employees will be asked
to come into the Department of Justice and Public Safety. We will use their
knowledge and expertise to continue with the operation of the 911 service.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Okay, so what we're saying is
that their primary responsibility will continue on with the job that they're
having right now. So they won't be burdened with additional responsibilities
that would dilute their ability to do their job. Also, they'll have job security
where that knowledge that they have will be valuable in terms of job security.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
They will be brought in. We
want their expertise. We want their knowledge. That's what they're being brought
in for. That's what they're going to be asked to do. Someone needs to operate
and maintain and improve this service over time. I would prefer to have
individuals that know how to do that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
So will
there be layoffs?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
The individuals are being
brought into the Department of Justice and Public Safety; they're not being laid
off.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
The department stated they
want to integrate 911 services with search and rescue services, as well as the
forthcoming province-wide radio project. So will responsibilities of these
systems be placed upon the current PSAP offices?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
The PSAP offices are
separately contracted entities with 911 right now, and then when the new
legislation comes into force they'll be contracted through the Department of
Justice rather than (inaudible).
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
What
plans, if any, does the government have to – sorry, I already had that question
answered.
Are the
mobile crisis response teams included under the umbrella for the emergency
service providers that can be engaged by the 911 operators?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So I'll have to get the
answer to that question for you. I'm not sure exactly if they're included in the
emergency response providers or not.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
(Inaudible) call 911 and
require a mobile crisis response team, that is covered at the moment. There's no
intention from our point of view to change that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
No further questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
I'm just going to have a few
small questions. I tell you, Minister, a concern that was brought up when it was
reviewed before, I'm just going to bring this to your attention, is that when
the 911 services go into the Department of Justice and Public Safety and they
become public sector employees, the issue you're going to have – and I'll just
bring it to your attention now – is that once they become that position, other
people can bump into that position, seniority, and you have to be careful of
seniority and the expertise in that department.
That's
just something I'll bring to your attention. Because once they're into
government if someone has five years more experience and a job comes up, they
can apply for the job and do they get automatically bumped if there's a layoff
because they're lowest on the scale. You have to be careful of that because that
was one of the concerns before. So I'll just bring that to your attention on
that.
The
second thing is – and again, this is my biggest fear – the funds every year now
if it goes on for the next five years or three years, five years or six years,
and it's going to increase, there has to be a way – and I'll give you an example
again. In one of the departments, there's approval every year to give grants to
a certain number of volunteer organizations. It's approved. So every year, a
line item is the money for the grants for a lot of volunteer groups in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So there
is a way to do it; I'm just asking government to find a way. I'm not sure if
it's under Seniors and Social Development, where there are grants – every year
there's a certain amount of money. It's a line item, and every year they know
what they're getting. It's a five- or six-year, seven- or eight-year program
where it has to be changed.
But
there is a way to do it, to put it in a line item. Government has done it
before. They are doing it now with those volunteer programs – which I think is
great to do, so that they know they've got stability in the funding. So there is
a way to do it.
So I'm
just asking the minister to bring that back to Cabinet.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
There will be, if there's not
right now, a line item in the budget of the Department of Justice and Public
Safety for 911. It's just that the budget line won't have the full amount of $20
million, I guess, in there for next year. Because the $20 million is not going
to be spent next year. So whatever is going to be spent as we move forward
towards Next Generation 911 will be a line item in future budgets.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Chair.
A few
questions; I want to first of all go back to the aspect of consultation, because
I have heard two versions of when consultations occurred.
I would
ask the minister, when did he and/or his staff actually sit down and meet with
the bureau?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you.
I don't
have the exact dates in front of me; I can get them for the Member. I certainly
had two Zoom meetings with the board, that I can recall, and as I said, there
have been ongoing discussions between the department and the board.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
I think that the key point
I'm trying to make, and I should have perhaps made it in my question, Chair, is
that according to what I'm hearing from the board, is that they were informed –
consulted – only after the department had made the decision. They didn't know
this was coming.
To talk
about transparency and working together and so on, I just find myself – there
seemed to have been an agenda in place well in advance of those running what
was, I think we can all agree, an extremely successful, well-run, very
professionally represented entity of how society responds to emergency calls in
this province.
They are
unanimously, not just a few of them – every single member of the board is
opposed to the move that we're discussing here on the floor today. So I put it
to the minister – and I asked the same question of staff; they did not have a
good answer. Certainly one that didn't jive with what I've been told. I wasn't
there, but I can tell you if the board was here right now, they would inform you
that they were not consulted or informed until after the decision had been made,
after the gig was up.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Chair.
So,
again, I don't have the dates in front of me. I don't know if there was a
follow-up question there or just a comment that you weren't sure about the
timing of it. I don't have the dates in front of me when I met with the board on
those couple of occasions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Chair, just a couple of quick
questions. The 75 cents that's currently being collected now, where will that go
once this change happens?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
That money will go into
general revenue.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
When the money goes into
general revenue, will we see a budgeted item for that revenue?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I'm not the Minister of
Finance. I'm not sure of that. But I'm sure that if questions are asked about
how funds come into government, including taxes, et cetera, et cetera, we can
allocate for how we got that money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
When the75 cents is collected
and goes into general revenue, I'm asking if there's going to be a budget item
in the revenue section of budget for this particular fee that's being collected.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
I'll
check to see if there will be a separate line item. My understanding is there
would be because it is a receipt to government, but I will check that.
There is
new activity added to JPS Estimates for NL911. I would assume there will be an
Estimates line as well for the revenue, but I'm checking on it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
In the
same light, can you give us some idea of what you plan on spending the 75 cents
on? It's going to be collected as revenue; is there a planned expenditure for
that revenue, for the 75 cents?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Certainly, one of the largest
things that we will be spending the money on, largest thing, is what the money
has been saved for and what we've committed to, which is Next Generation 911.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Just one more follow-up.
The
money that has been collected that we have talked about already is something
around the $20-million mark. In addition to that, though, we're now going to be
getting anywhere from – I have heard numbers from $2 million to $3 million,
annually, collected through this 75 cents. So I am asking specifically what will
happen to those particular funds that come in and how much money is actually
going to be allocated out to the 911 system?
It will
be interesting to see exactly what this is. Is it a tax or is it simply
transfers from one service to the other and the money is used specifically for
911? Or is it in actual fact going to be considered, what my colleagues have
said here, a tax?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
The money will be spent on
operating emergency 911 as we continue to go forward. Of course, money will be
spent on 911 as it upgrades and does the large upgrade in the next several years
in the future.
In the
legislation, of course, as it exists now, and as it will exist if this passes,
the fee can always be revisited and re-examined. So if more money is coming in
then needs to be for service, we can look at that. If not enough money is coming
in for the service that needs to be provided, we can look at that as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Chair.
I would
like to pursue this idea of efficiency as the rationale for why we are doing
this. So I had a question of the staff the other day, Minister. I wondered if
somebody has provided an update, but I was curious as to what is the cost of the
specific board, not the paid salaried members but those who volunteered as chair
and the board members representing various parts of this province. Did you
manage to find that answer?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
If you are speaking to the
board that is appointed under the Independent Appointments Commission, they're a
tier one board and how much they are paid per meeting throughout the year is
publicly available information that I don't have in front of me.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Chair.
Does the
current legislation that sits with the board, right now, guard against this fund
being used for anything else besides 911?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
The legislation as it exists
right now, says: “The corporation may use the funds for the following purposes:
(a) developing, establishing, operating and improving the emergency 911
telephone service; (b) the operations of the corporation; and” – which won't
exist anymore, so we don't need to spend money on the corporation that doesn't
exist – “paying for costs associated with administering the fund.” Which I would
argue we don't need to pay for that cost anymore because it will go into
Department of Finance which already has the ability to administer funds.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Minister.
Just for
clarification, does the new legislation guard against this fund being used for
anything else than its intended purpose?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I'm trying to find the
funding section.
It might
not be in the same language, but, again, I will refer to the fact that the
minister can collect the funds and the 75 cents can obviously go up and down
through the regulations. It will be used to, as outlined in section 5, develop,
operate and maintain the emergency 911 service.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Minister.
This is
Next Generation, the current board were poised to have Newfoundland and Labrador
the first province to enter Next Generation 911, which is quite an
accomplishment and their hard work shouldn't go unnoticed.
So my
question is: Will Next Generation 911 service be implemented immediately when
it's available, like the board had originally poised to do?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So the plan is to implement
it and work with CRTC and work with other provinces to proceed with Next
Generation 911 when it's ready.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I hate to keep harping on the money, I know that's what we're all
harping on here, but it is an important point.
You say,
Minister, that you're changing the nature of what the money can be spent on.
That's what I'm understanding; I'm just looking for some confirmation. Because,
right now, it's for the 911 telephone system, but I think you said now it's the
911 system, minus the word telephone or something to that effect.
Could
you confirm if that's what's happening?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Yes, I can confirm that. The
new definition is emergency 911 service, as opposed to emergency 911 telephone
service, which was in the old legislation.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, on an earlier question.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Chair.
This is
to the Member opposite who asked about where the revenue line item will be.
Revenue will come into the current account in the fines and fees, similar to the
Motor Registration, for example, so it will be under fines and fees. It won't be
under a separate line item as such.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
So, Minister, with that new,
broader definition that exists, does that mean – I'm just curious because if
we're talking 911 service and it's not the telephone system, so ambulance is 911
service, fire department is 911 service, police are 911 service; so for
argument's sake, could the government say, okay, well, these volunteer fire
departments over here, they want some new bunker clothes, someone wants a new
fire truck, potentially around – I'm not going to say election time, but anyway,
skeptical minds might say – so we have some extra money now, we can dole out a
few extra fire trucks, equipment and so on, out of the 911 fund because that is
emergency services, it's not telephone system.
So what
I'm trying to understand is the broadness that you are describing, that's pretty
broad, 911 service, that includes all the fire departments, the ambulance
departments, police departments, all the equipment they have and everything
else. So, theoretically, you could say let's start buying bunker clothes for all
the volunteer fire – not that that's a bad thing or they don't need them, I'm
just trying to understand, could that money be then used for those types of
things?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you.
No, it
doesn't include all that. The definition is there in the new legislation of what
emergency 911 service is. It means the province-wide emergency service
established under the former act that connects a person to emergency service
providers through a Public Safety Answering Point. The new broader part of this
definition is this: and includes the province-wide radio communications network
to be used by emergency service providers. It doesn't talk about what the Member
was asking about.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Fair enough. No, I just
wanted to get clarification on that.
So,
Minister, if it's really for the communication system, the Enhanced 911 and so
on, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think when you started
the debate a few hours ago, I thought I heard you say – it was difficult to hear
– the estimated cost was $7 million for the Enhanced 911. Again, I'm not putting
words in your mouth.
Can you
clarify on exactly what you said in your notes you were reading there at the
very beginning as to what the estimated cost of the enhanced system is, or at
least what it is right now, or your understanding of what it's going to be?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Yeah, thank you. So I'll read
out the notes that I had. I said the cost for implementation of the Next
Generation 911 system is unknown at this time. We are estimating it to be in the
range of several million dollars.
P. LANE:
Seven million?
J. HOGAN:
Several.
P. LANE:
Several, oh, okay. Okay,
thank you, I thought he said seven. Several, okay.
So I
guess my point is, I suppose, $20 million is several million dollars and that's
going up by about $3 million a year. I know my colleague from Stephenville -
Port au Port was asking about this. The $3 million that we're talking about here
right now, that $3 million is over and above paying for the existing cost.
So that
75 cents – or I should say 68 cents because seven cents is going to the phone
provider. So that 68 cents, after that is collected, currently, and those bills
are paid to pay for the provincial 911, all the staff, everything else that's
there, over and above that, there's about $3 million a year left over. That's
what's been building this pot up to $20 million.
So
really, we're talking about the $20 million going into the general revenues and
then every year, thereafter, is another $3 million. So if, for argument sake,
you get the Enhanced 911 and maybe it's $15 million – I don't know what it is.
But whatever it is and now there's been enough money collected to pay for all
that, then are we going to stop charging people on their cellphones or are we
going to reduce the amount so that it is just covering the cost of running the
system and that we're not going to keep getting an additional $3 million year
over year over year for an enhanced system that we already now have, if you know
what I'm saying.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So that regulation can be
changed, the amount that's collected. I would suggest that we can always
continue to look at how much money is needed for the emergency 911 service
that's set out in the definition there. If more money is needed, the regulation
can be changed to increase the fee. If fewer dollars are needed, the regulations
can be changed to reduce the fee.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Just a
couple of follow-up questions. The transfer of the $20 million, this change will
happen in the 2022-23 fiscal year?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I will proceed with the transition as soon as we are ready to do it. I don't
know if I can commit to 2022-23, but when we get this legislation passed then
we'll certainly take the next steps to move towards the transition.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
So the follow-up question becomes: The $20 million will come in and where will
that be identified – we've talked about the $3 million going into fines and
fees. When the $20 million is transferred, where will that show up to in the
budget?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I'll have to check with the people in the Department of Finance to get that
answer for you.
I can
tell you one thing: It doesn't come into the Department of Justice and Public
Safety, though.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
No, I don't imagine, but I
would ask this question, though: Given the fact that you will not spend – and
you've identified this – $20 million in the given year that it does come into
government – because this will be one-time funding coming into government – what
do you plan on spending the remaining portion of that money on? If you're not
spending it on 911 because you don't need to spend it, you're bringing it into
revenue in one year, what do you plan on spending the rest of that money on? If
it's 2022-23, what would you spend it on? That's what I want to know.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I will
say that the minister has answered, I think, that it may or may not come in the
'22-'23 year but there will be a new activity added to the JPS Estimates to make
sure that we have that line item there. As the minister indicated, that doesn't
necessarily mean it's coming in in '22-'23. It's just that we're preparing for
that. We're still debating legislation. It will be the following year that it
would show up in the Estimates book.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
So if I'm understanding
correctly from the minister, the budget will not contain a line item in '22-'23
for the $20 million coming into government?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I will confirm that, but as
the minister just indicated, we haven't actioned this as yet. We're still
debating it in the House of Assembly. I'll talk to my officials and make sure
that it's not there, but I do know that we have an activity for JPS for 911.
Whether or not that $20 million is embedded, I'm not quite sure at this point,
but I will find out.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
My last point then: I'm sure
we'll be glad to ask those questions in Estimates to find out exactly where the
$20 million is and what the plan is to spend it.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Question
for, I guess, the Minister of Finance. I am just wondering why is it that we
can't – I asked the Minister of Justice and Public Safety and he said we
couldn't, or he was told we couldn't. Is there a possible way, if the will was
there, that you could take that $20 million and put it in a protected fund and
the additional money, the excess funds that are coming in from that phone fee,
that that can go into a fund so that it's there – the answer of we can't do it,
I just find it difficult to believe that we have a government and a huge
bureaucracy and everything else and it's not possible for us to have a separate
fund to protect that money.
Just
because we don't generally do it, or we've never done it or whatever, doesn't
mean we can't do it. I'm just trying to understand is it that you're saying it
can't be done, or government has just decided it's not going to be done?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
In the
first instance, if we set it up that way, in the next three years, of course, we
would have to have a liability set up as well, just because of the way when the
money is going to be used and utilized for the service. So I have been speaking
with my officials and that is what I understand. We would have to set up a
separate liability and that would mean a liability on the books of government,
which skews it a little bit.
Whether
or not in future – I mean, you can appreciate the amount of pots of funds that
there already is throughout government and setting up a special purpose fund for
that amount of money is problematic. That is not to say that into the future we
may be able to do it or not, but I would be concerned about taking it for the
next three years because it would show as a liability on the books of
government. And that is not what any of us would want to have because it is not
really a liability at this point.
You can
easily, I think, in Estimates, find out where the money is and how much is being
spent on the service of 911. That should be clear in Estimates and I am sure, as
the Member a few moments ago said, you'll be looking for it in Estimates.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
I thank the minister, but I
guess the problem that I've got is it is fine to say that we can see where it
went in and where it is spent, but my contention is that it shouldn't be spent.
That is the issue. It is not where it was spent and how it was spent; it
shouldn't be spent.
When we
get an Enhanced 911 system, then we take the money out that we have been – for
layman's terms, we have been saving our money. We set up a bank account to save
up for 911 and that money has grown year over year. When the time comes that
we're going to purchase that Enhanced 911 system, we take the money out of the
bank. To say that we're going to put it in and then you'll see where we spent
it. Well, the argument is that you shouldn't be spending it.
So the
whole purpose behind what I am trying to say here is: Why can't we just leave
that as is? Why can't we just leave that fund that currently exists and leave it
alone? Have the bureau report to the Department of Justice and Public Safety and
everything else, make them Justice employees and whatever you're doing, but
leave the bank account alone. Set up under the existing structure, call it
something else and just leave the bank account alone.
Surely,
God, there must be somebody with financial knowledge that has the ability to
figure that out. That is the part that I just can't seem to get my head around,
why we can't do that. If we're not going to do it, then naturally, on this side
of the House for sure, that is why we're being skeptical about it. Because $20
million is there and it is going to be taken, and it is going to go into general
revenue and it is going to be spent. It is not necessarily going to be spent on
what it was intended to be spent on. Then next year the budget comes, or the
year after, and there is no $20 million. It's gone. It disappeared. That was a
one-time thing.
Every
year, after we pay our expenses for 911, staff and the centre that we already
have here, based on past performance, there's going to be an additional $3
million, roughly, left over, year over year over year, and that additional $3
million is going to keep on going into the general revenues. You can say what
you want: it's a tax.
There's
no other way to put it. Call it a tax, call it a fee, it's certainly not a 911
fund. That's the problem, Mr. Chair, that I have with it. I know other Members
have that same concern.
I'll
leave it there. I really have no other questions because I'm pretty sure how
this is going to go in any case.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just
going to have a few words, no questions. I'll just go back with the history of
the 911. When the 911 was set up it was an arbitrary number that you were going
to put on the phone bill. It ended up being 75 cents for the phone bill, for all
phones, cellphones across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
intent then from the minister at the time, Kevin O'Brien, was that they weren't
sure how much it would cost to have a 911 system, pay the employees, rent and
other things across the province. The intent was, at the time, to evaluate it
after three or four years to see if you could decrease the fee on the phones.
That was the intent.
So if we
just go right now with the funds that you've got, the $20 million fund that you
have now, which is more than enough for the next three years, the Next
Generation was only, I think, $2.7 million or $2.8 million, that was the
estimate – I don't know what it is now – but that was the estimate, it wasn't up
to $20 million, it was several, $2 million or $3 million dollars.
The
intent was – and this is something for the government to look at – if you take
that $20 million, which is a surplus – of the 75 cents of all the other it pays
for the, for example, all the wages, benefits, it pays for rent and other
things. So the intent wasn't just take the money now, put it in general revenue,
and say okay let's keep collecting the money.
So I ask
the minister if he would go back and look when it was originally set up, it was
set up at this fee, but if we didn't need that amount, they would lower the fees
on the phones. That was the intent. That's why we've got such a surplus. Now, we
don't need that surplus now, over and above all the wages and all the equipment
and all the staffing, there's a $3 million to $4 million surplus per year, which
would pay for the Next Generation, just one year would pay for that, and then
for the next two or three years, if you need a little bit of cushion in the
department, that's fine.
My
suggestion to the department is to go back and look at the original mandate. The
original mandate was to supply the services with this fee, but if this fee was
too much, you would decrease it; if you needed more, you would increase it. But
the arbitrary number set up at the time by Kevin O'Brien was to say it's no good
for us to say if you only need 10 cents on each phone, well we might have to
come back the next month and say, no, we need 30 cents per phone or 40 cents. So
they put that high number in to ensure that they had enough. But if it's too
much they would decrease it.
I ask
the minister to go back and review the initial legislation that was done,
because I sat in this House and that was the commitment that was made and that
was the idea behind it. So I'm not debating the $20 million surplus, I'm just
saying the intent was to decrease the amount on the phones per month to
individuals across the province.
The
second thing I bring up – people talk about efficiencies. I don't think
efficiencies will be in government because it's not going to cost the government
any money. But where there will be efficiencies, and I'll just give you –
P. LANE:
Cost them money.
E. JOYCE:
What?
P. LANE:
It's going to cost them
money.
E. JOYCE:
Well, the 911 will pay for
it. But here's a suggestion that was put in and I was pushing for it for a
while, I'll just give you one example of how you could save funds from the 911
system and give it back by a decrease in the phone bill, not to put it in
general revenues, in the phone bill.
You take
the City of Corner Brook, there's rent from the 911 now being paid for the City
of Corner Brook. They're also paying them a fee to oversee the 911. The
suggestion at the time, and we were trying to get it pushed through, was put the
911 where it should be, in the RNC building in Corner Brook. No rent, have the
RNC be the overseers of 911. If you do that you would save a lot of funds and be
able to decrease the amount on the cellphones that you're charging each
individual in this province.
So there
are ways for efficiencies, but the money shouldn't be taken in and still keep
the fee high so that the money is going to come in and go into general revenue.
Because every year now, after this $20 million for the next budget, every year
there's going to be $3 million put into general revenue year over year over year
from the cellphones.
I ask
the minister – and I know I'm repeating myself and it is 5:30 – go back and look
at the original mandate. The mandate was if there's a surplus, decrease the
amount you charge on the cellphone service.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
I'm recognizing the hon.
Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
If I
can, Chair, with regard to the forthcoming province-wide radio project, do we
have the staffing in place, or an estimate of staffing, or the resources we'll
need to have that in place?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
No, I don't have that
information right now. That's something that we're working towards and something
that we can provide at a later date, when the contract is ready to go, when we
take the next step towards the province-wide radio system.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
With regard to search and
rescue services, are we looking to hire staff on, I guess, or to enhance the
services? Is there a shortage or vacant positions?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Sorry, is the question is
there vacant positions within the Department of Justice and Public Safety for
search and rescue?
J. DINN:
Yes.
J. HOGAN:
So it's not my understanding
there is. The search and rescue is mostly performed by groups throughout the
province. NLSARA is the sort of global entity that we deal with regard to search
and rescue.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
So here's my concern: there
are going to be no layoffs. Now, the question that my colleague from Torngat
asked, will any of these people be laid off? They're going to be brought into
the department; they're not going to be laid off. I guess it comes down to
future attrition. I mean, attrition is the word, but here's my concern. Right
now, we've got seven dedicated people to 911. We don't have, yet, the number of
people lined up for the province-wide radio project or how many human resources
we're going to need or otherwise.
My fear
is that we've got our five ready-made people there who deal with 911 will now
have – we won't have to hire as many for the province-wide radio project to make
it effective because we'll have these people and we can more or less increase
their responsibility. I'm assuming that if we had maintained two separate
entities, or 911 as a separate entity, these five people would be dedicated to
911 and we'd still have to hire, I guess, we'd still have to be looking at
putting the human resources into making the province-wide radio project.
That's
the issue, the concern as to how the creative human resourcing of this is going
to unfold. Because I'm assuming, then, that if we bring in the province-wide
radio project, we're going to actually see a significant increase in staff.
There's no guarantee here.
So maybe
there won't be layoffs, but basically, it's a creative a way that we won't have
to hire as many people to do the job to begin with and we're still coming back
to the existing people who will have the extra resources.
Guys,
it's no different than bringing in full-day kindergarten. Great initiative, but
you took the resources out of the rest of the system to make it work. You took
140 teachers out of the system. Hey, we brought in full-day kindergarten but you
stripped the resources. That is the MO of the government on this side.
So my
concern is that we make sure that if you're going to bring it in, you're not
trying to do it on the cheap and say it comes down to a savings. I've been down
that road before.
The
other concern I guess is – and I don't know if I heard this or not; I want to
make sure – will there be a dedicated line-item budget that shows money in from
the 911 fee and money out? Or is it, as I think I heard it said, going to be
part of fees and fines? So we won't be able to tell, really, what's coming in
and where it's going.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of the Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I've
said previously, it will go into fees and fines. The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port also asked if it would be reflected in this year's budget Estimates
and the answer is yes. We do have a line item there for that. But I want to
remind everyone in this House that it was already consolidated in our books
anyway because it is an entity of government. I know that you're thinking about
it as a separate, but it was certainly always embedded in the financials of the
provincial government because it is an entity of the provincial government.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
I'm not going to ask a
question on this, but I am going to make a comment with regard to paying for
things twice. There is no paying for anything twice here because if that's what
it's about, there would be a full rebate, I guess, of the 75 cents to everyone
if we're trying to find efficiencies. The fact is the NL911 is paying for
itself. If it's being rolled into – as I heard the minister talk about, well, we
won't have to pay for the administration or the operations of the board. Well,
the government is not paying for that to begin with. So there's no paying for it
twice.
I'm
trying to figure out who is paying for it twice. The only people I can think who
are paying for it twice that we're worried about then is about the consumers:
you and me. So in that case then if that's the main reason and it's being rolled
into it, we're still paying the 75 cents on the fee and we're still paying for
the other – we're still paying twice.
So where
is the savings to the consumer? To me, I think it should automatically be, tell
you what, guys, you're getting back 50 cents on that so you don't have to pay.
We'll just pay for what we need, but that's not the case. The fact is paying two
separate entities or roll the entity into the department; we're still paying the
same 75 cents. There's no savings; we're still paying for it twice.
I don't
follow the rationale there. What it comes down to is that the only people who
are going to (inaudible) there are no savings to us, but it's going to be
tremendous savings to government.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you.
When it
said that government is not paying for it – the people in this province are
paying taxes to the government to pay for services that they need. It's the same
people who are paying the 75 cents on their phone bill. So to say government is
not paying for it is true, but someone is paying for it, and those people care
that they're paying for it. It's only 75 cents a month on their phone bill, but
it does add up. People have more than one phone. They have cellphones in their
houses, throughout their houses. They might even have one or two landlines in
their houses. So it could be $3, $4 or $5 a month for each household. When we
say we'll save people from paying for it twice, it's the fact that the people
paying those rates on their phone bills won't have to pay for the same
infrastructure that taxpayers are paying with regard to the radio project that's
coming into JPS right now.
If we
can combine those, we can use the tax money for something else, like schools,
like education, which I think is important to the Member who just spoke, or we
can reduce the fee that's being charged, the 75 cents, so there can be savings
to people who pay and people who care about having to pay things that aren't
necessary.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
It
sounds like the real plan here is to get access at the 75 cents so you can use
it for other projects, not just 911. I understand that.
The next
question I have is you talk about the $20 million coming in and putting into
general revenue. I have a copy of the consolidated revenue fund in front of me –
and it might be a question for the Minister of Finance – in the statement of
financial position, under the liability section, there is a significant deferred
revenue.
I would
ask the question: Is there any reason why the $20 million couldn't be brought in
and put in under deferred revenue until such time as you are ready and more
ready to talk about implementation of where you go with Next Generation? I don't
know if that's possible. I just ask the Minister of Finance that question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
I'll
have my officials check into that, but I will say, as the budget is only within
36 hours I don't know if they can make any changes to that. It would have been
part of the consolidated revenue in any event. As an entity of government, it
would have been part of our consolidated revenues in any event.
But I
understand your point you're trying to make is could we put it into a separate
deferred revenue to be reflected in a different way in the future, and that's
what I'll ask officials if that's possible at this point.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
That's exactly what I'm
asking, Minister, is that this revenue can be protected. It can be protected by
putting it in a deferred revenue account until such time as the government is
ready to actually use it towards Next Generation. And so hopefully that can be
done.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Chair.
I want
to go back to what I was speaking about earlier. I'm trying to also identify the
efficiency. When I look at the difference between what we have now and where we
are looking at going, it essentially comes down to, as the minister said, the
board. We have tier-one appointments, so we have allocated remuneration set up
for each of those members to attend a board meeting. It's a nominal amount of
money; I think it's in the vicinity of $100 per member and $140 for the chair.
It's something in that realm.
And
given over the last two years their travel expenses to actually meet have been
by Zoom, with the exception of, by the way, their first meeting with the
minister when they found out that this was happening, was, I'm told, on the 27th
of February by Zoom. That's how they learned that they were going to be
dismissed. We haven't even had to incur travel costs for this board.
So the
great financial advantage here or efficiency seems to be the loss of having
experienced, professional members of this province represent us on this board
that have been carefully selected through the Independent Appointments
Commission. That seems to be what we're saving a lot of money on.
I guess
to sum it up – and yes, it's sarcastic, but it's a little bit how I feel – the
result of Bill 41, we're getting rid of an extremely well-performing
professional board. We are growing core government. We are taking a fund that's
been set aside for a very important future response for how society can respond
to emergency calls in this province. We have jeopardized our relationship in a
business transaction with every single cellphone user in this province. They
paid a fee; we told them it was going to be used for this. Well, guess what?
It's disappearing. And we've now created a fee or, as I said, a tax for a
service.
So I
think that's what we're doing here. So that's great.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Public Safety, that's
actually what I want to talk about, Public Safety. I've answered a lot of
questions about the money. Where's the money going? What are you spending the
money on? Why are you trying to save money? How much money are you going to
save?
Those
are all important questions, and the part about the money is not why we're doing
this. The reason we're doing this is to bring 911 into JPS, where we have an
Emergency Services branch. Bringing it in will ensure that people in this
province are safer when it's operating together with other parts of the Public
Safety.
Are you
going to save money? I'm going to answer the questions. Are we going to save
millions of dollars? Probably not. But we're going to save some money. How?
Well, we're not going to pay for rent. We're going to have efficiencies within
the department for payroll and things like that. We're not going to spend extra
money on infrastructure when we don't need to.
That's
great, that's a bonus. Big picture: people are going to be safer. That's what
we're doing.
If I
really wanted to save money, I'd say we're not doing 911; we're not doing radio;
we're getting rid of the cops; good luck everybody.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Safety, as always, has to be
the number one priority. Absolutely, every time, and as the Member for Torngat
Mountains said in her opening remarks, that's what she commented on, was it
being a priority, but, frankly, it's been missing from the rationale as to why
we're doing this.
I wanted
to say, again, with my own knowledge of search and rescue, with the feedback
that I've had over the last 48 hours, of other people who have been contacting
me in the last three or four hours while we've been sitting here debating it,
these are all experts who are dealing with this system now.
I go
back to the inquiry that was referenced in the briefing that we had from the
department, where they indicated that one of the key rationales was one of the
outcomes of the search and rescue inquiry that was issued in December. The fact
of the matter is that is really confusing the experts in the industry right now
because they're saying that bears no resemblance at all as to what's going on
here with Bill 41.
So I
hear safety, I see safety; I don't see it necessarily being what's asked for
here. As someone said a few minutes ago: If it isn't broke, at least in this
aspect, why are we trying to fix this?
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
So let's ask about safety
because I haven't heard it from the government side as to the main rationale. Is
there something in how the NL911 board is operating, in how they're carrying out
business that is jeopardizing the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
Because that would make sense.
So
that's the question that it comes down to; if it's about safety and we're
throwing that out there – and to me, Chair, if it came down that in some way
this board was negligent or was not doing the job – it's a professional board,
they've done their job well – I need to know, if there are concerns here that
are motivating this, then outline the safety concerns that maybe we should all
be worried about. But if that's the rationale, then that should have been front
and centre.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I mean the rationale – the
bill speaks to safety. The bill speaks to what the purpose of emergency 911
service will be going forward. I spoke to it this afternoon and I said that I
didn't want NL911 to exist in a silo as opposed to working with other facets of
Public Safety. Obviously, anything we're talking about, working together I think
for the greater good is always better than everyone working independently. This
is what this accomplishes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Mr. Chair, I wasn't going to
speak anymore to this, but, b'y, I got to tell you, this got me kind of a little
bit riled, too, now.
Again, I
got to understand the safety piece, that wasn't something that I gleaned from
any of this. Am I to understand, based on the commentary from the minister,
currently, we have a 911 Bureau, from all accounts they are all professional
people and they're doing a professional job. They have professional people on
the board of directors that is running it, that is managing it. There are no
concerns about it, but somehow we're going to make the system safer because now,
by bringing it under, people can talk to each other.
So am I
to understand that someone from Justice or the police or whether it's the
ambulance service or the fire department, they're not able to sit down and have
a conversation with somebody at the 911 Bureau? The only way that we're going to
have communication and people are going to have collegiality and work together
is if they all fall under the Department of Justice and Public Safety.
We're
going to wave a magical wand: yesterday, you didn't get along, but today you're
in the Department of Justice and Public Safety and it is all
kumbaya and we're
safe, but before that, we weren't safe. I just don't understand it, Mr. Chair.
To my
mind, it's all about a new revenue stream. I cannot emphasize that enough. It's
about a new revenue stream. It's about $20 million, one-time cash, and $3
million a year in general revenues. I know we're desperate for money, I know
we're desperate for money. But let's call it what it is. Let's just be honest
about what we're doing and why we're doing it.
We're in
the hole, we need money; we need as much revenue as we can find and, as far as
I'm concerned, that's what it's all about, but let's call a spade a spade. I
mean, that's what we're doing. To suggest that this is about safety.
As my
colleague from St. John's Centre said, tell us right now what is happening with
the 911 system that we have, provincial 911 system that is not safe, that's
putting people at risk. Tell me how, all of a sudden, just because these same
people – we're not talking new people, we said the same people. We're going to
take these people who are working in Corner Brook tonight, down in city hall
tonight, and they're working down at – I think they're at Central Fire Station
still, for 911 here in this area, and once we make the change, they're still
going to be working, same people, doing the exact same job, only difference is
now instead of reporting to the board, they're reporting to the Department of
Justice. All of a sudden, by that one stroke of the pen, everything is going to
be perfect, we're all going to be safe. We're all going to work together and
everything is hunky dory.
I'm not
trying to beat up on you, Minister, I'm really not and I know you're doing what
you have to do there, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. It defies logic
to my mind. Maybe it's just me, I don't think it's just me, but I feel like it's
just not a logical argument.
Unless
you can say to us that there's something we don't know about, that the current
system of 911 is failing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the board
are all incompetent. They don't know what they're doing. There are people dying
because of all kinds of shag ups on the 911 lines or whatever, if that's what's
happening, we need to know. But that's not what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is
everything is going great.
All
professional people, doing good work and everything is running fine; everything
is within their budget. They have a surplus of $3 million a year; everything is
working as it should. Now we're going to change all that. Now we're going to,
suddenly, because we can't justify the money argument, now we're going to lean
on safety. It's going to make us all safe somehow, as if we're not safe right
now.
There's
something, Mr. Chair, not adding up. It's really not adding up. I'm left with no
other conclusion than to go back to the money. They say follow the money; go
back to the money. This is all about getting our hands on $20 million and $3
million every year after in a new revenue stream.
We talk
about efficiencies. This is not creating an efficiency for government because,
if anything, you're taking on more work. Right now, they're not part of the
department. Right now, the people in HR and IT and everything else in the
government now don't have nothing to do with these people at 911. You're
actually increasing the workload. You're giving them more work. It's getting
bigger not smaller, so there's no efficiency there.
It's not
as if the government was funding the 911centre and then they were also funding
the Department of Justice and so on, like with the school boards. The government
is funding the schools and the school board and they're also funding the
Department of Education. You bring them together and you create efficiencies,
because government was paying on both ends.
But
government is not paying a cent for this. So you're taking on additional
expenses. You're not saving anything. There's no efficiency but what you are
doing – and let's call a spade a spade – is you are creating a new stream of
revenue of around $3 million a year, after you get the big windfall of $20
million. That's what's happening.
All
we've been asking for is, let's protect that $20 million. Let's make sure it's
spent on what it was intended to be spent on. If the money that's being
collected off people for the purposes of 911, if we have excess funds, there's a
surplus, then let's adjust the bills accordingly for the people who are paying
for it, which, according to my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands, that was
the intent from the beginning.
I don't
know why we wouldn't do that. Well, I do know why we would do it because, again,
it comes down to you're seeing another revenue stream, and I get it – I get it.
Like I said, I understand where we are financially. But be honest about it and
say that's why we're doing it. Say that's what it's all about. But trying to
defend it, it's like you're defending the indefensible as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway,
I said it was my last time I was going to speak the last time. This really is my
last time, but I had to get it off my chest.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division has been called.
I summon
in all the Members.
Division
CHAIR:
Order, please!
All
those in favour, please stand.
CLERK (Hawley George):
Lisa Dempster, John
Haggie, Gerry Byrne, Tom Osborne, Siobhan Coady, Pam Parsons, Sarah Stoodley,
Andrew Parsons, John Hogan, Bernard Davis, Derrick Bragg, John Abbott, Elvis
Loveless, Krista Lynn Howell, Paul Pike, Scott Reid, Sherry Gambin-Walsh, Lucy
Stoyles.
CHAIR:
All those against, please
stand.
CLERK:
Barry Petten, Paul Dinn, Tony
Wakeham, Chris Tibbs, Loyola O'Driscoll, Helen Conway Ottenheimer, Joedy Wall,
Pleaman Forsey, Jeff Dwyer, James Dinn, Jordan Brown, Lela Evans, Eddie Joyce,
Paul Lane, Perry Trimper.
CLERK (Barnes):
The ayes: 18; the nays: 15.
CHAIR:
The motion has passed.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 28 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 28
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 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.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting A
Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
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.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 41.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report the bill.
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 41 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole has reported that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 41 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 on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon Deputy Government
House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills, that this House do
now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
The motion is that this House
do stand adjourned.
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.'
Motion
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.