November 22, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 46
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order please!
Admit strangers.
I would like to welcome to the people's House today
several special guests. First of all in the Speaker's gallery, I would like to
welcome Lester Green, Elaine Spurrell and Wanda Garrett from the Southwest Arm
Historical Society who will be recognized in a Member's statement this afternoon
for a very special award they have received. Joining them are also Helen Green
and John Spurrell.
A great welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
must also say I enjoyed a great discussion this morning with the Deputy Mayor of
the City of Mount Pearl, Mr. Jim Locke, who's here with his Mount Pearl Senior
High School consumer studies class joining us in the public gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
With that, I will recognize the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development.
MR.
HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today on a point of personal privilege. Mr.
Speaker, I know that from time to time in debate in the House, particularly the
Opposition, there's information sometimes that's put forward that's totally
incorrect, and many times we just sit back and take it.
I just want to take exception to the Member for Cape
St. Francis yesterday who made a statement and he quoted as saying it's fact.
The statement that he made was in reference to the number of businesses in
Newfoundland and Labrador that have gone bankrupt and he made his statement as a
fact that there are more bankruptcies in this province under our administration
than ever before in the history of this province.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, if it's
permissible, that in 2017 – I went back to 2000 – there were 23 businesses
bankrupt in this province. In 2007, there were 52. Also, consumer bankruptcies
2017: 1,367; in 2009: 2,542. That is correct information. So I take exception to
that and I would, if it's permissible, like to table this so that the hon.
Members opposite can really take a look at the facts and not just make
statements.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
thank the hon. minister.
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Today we will hear Members' statements from the hon.
Members for the Districts of Exploits, Torngat Mountains, Stephenville - Port au
Port, Ferryland and Terra Nova.
The hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Mr.
Speaker, if I could.
(Inaudible) did he have a point of order or a point of
privilege?
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
was a point of privilege, a point of personal privilege, so it's just a
clarification read into the record.
The hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR.
DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate the
Jubilee Pentecostal Temple on their November 16 through to 18 celebration of 90
years of bringing the gospel to the people of Botwood and neighbouring
communities.
I had the pleasure of joining with the congregation and
area residents on the marking of this memorable milestone, and the privilege of
bringing greetings at their celebration concert on November 16, while sharing in
fellowship and worship.
The Jubilee Pentecostal Temple and their teachings has
long been a pillar of community support throughout our province. They have been
exemplary in providing earthly and spiritual comfort to the communities that
they serve.
Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, Jubilee Pentecostal
Temple has been host to the hearing by me of many memorable sermons, and is the
church where Beverley and I were married.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in
wishing for Jubilee Pentecostal Temple congratulations on their 90th anniversary
and Godspeed on your continued march to a centenarian celebration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR.
EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to congratulate the girls'
volleyball team from Natuashish. This past weekend, I had the pleasure of
attending the regional volleyball tournament in the 1A and 2A divisions in
Northwest River.
Mr. Speaker, the Northern Labrador sports meets started
in 1978 and, this year, the girls from Natuashish made history as they captured
the gold in the fall sports meet, and again this past weekend as they also
captured the regional championship, defeating teams from Northwest River and
Churchill Falls. With the wins, they earned the right to represent Labrador in
the provincial 2A championships.
It didn't come easy, Mr. Speaker. One of our Natuashish
Shaman players, a strong competitor, Hopie Piwas, suffered a serious ankle
injury and had to leave the competition. Even with this disadvantage, the rest
of the team dominated the tournament.
Mr. Speaker, the measure of a community is by the fire
in their young athletes, and Natuashish, as well as the rest of the province,
have every right to be proud of the team's accomplishments.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the
team for its efforts, and making history in their community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an
incredible group of businesswomen from the Port au Port Peninsula. In 2012, the
Lourdes Co-op Society was at risk of being shut down after being in business for
over 70 years. Six years later, the business has turned completely around, so
much so that last month the business received the 2018 Long Range CBDC Business
Award of Distinction.
The award was accepted by manager Sharleen Hinks and
two members of the business's board of directors, Bertha Hynes and Eileen
Gastia, at the awards gala last month.
What started out as a business suited to meet the needs
of local fishermen has expanded to meet the needs of the entire community. The
great success of the business can be attributed to the all-women team that
currently operate the business. They've seen tremendous growth. Their hard work
and dedication to the company has seen an average of 15 to 20 new members every
month, with a rise in their membership from 464 in 2014 to 706 members, an
increase of over 50 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in
congratulating these women on their award and wish them all the best as they
continue to grow the business in the future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize St. Kevin's High
School graduating class of 2018. On Wednesday, November 7, I was honoured to
participate in the cap and gown and awards ceremony for 74 students at St.
Kevin's.
St. Kevin's High School has always achieved at a high
level in academics, athletics and the arts. This class of 2018 is certainly no
different. The commitment from the school administration has ensured students
are ready to take on any challenge as they move forward on a new path.
St. Kevin's valedictorian was Mr. Luke Porter who
addressed the gathering and spoke of the impact St. Kevin's has had on class
development and the memories and friendships that has been developed during
their time in their school years. These relationships will serve them well in
their future endeavours.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all my colleagues of this
House to join me in congratulating the graduating class of 2018 of St. Kevin's
High School and wish them every success in their future endeavours.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
MR.
HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to celebrate the efforts of the Southwest
Arm Historical Society. Established in 2013, the Historical Society has focused
its work on researching, preserving and promoting the history of the 24
communities, both current and resettled, in the greater Southwest Arm area.
The society's website, launched in December 2014, has
1,425 pages with more than 5,000 images depicting the history of these
communities and its people.
In 2016, Where Once They Served project honoured the 26
men who served in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment during World War I. In 2017,
these commemorative banners were on exhibition at The Rooms.
Part two, Where Once They Sailed, was completed earlier
this month with the Society honouring the 87 men who sailed in the Royal Naval
Reserve; 12 made the supreme sacrifice.
In January, members of the Historical Society will be
recognized in Ottawa during the Governor General's History Awards of Excellence
in Community Programming ceremony.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in applauding the
efforts of the Southwest Arm Historical Society. Thank you Lester Green, Elaine
Spurrell and Wanda Garrett for your dedication to the families of the men who
served king and country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to provide this hon. House with an update
on the ongoing review of our province's municipal legislation.
I'm pleased to say that we have concluded the second
phase of consultations to modernize the
Municipalities Act, 1999, the City of
St. John's Act, the City of Mount
Pearl Act and the City of Corner Brook
Act.
The feedback received during the extensive
consultations process has been compiled and can be found online at EngageNL.ca.
Through public engagement efforts, well over 2,000 suggestions for improvements
have been captured.
At the Premier's Forum on Local Government in October,
the Premier was joined by delegates representing municipalities across the
province, as well as a number of Members from this hon. House to discuss
municipal legislation and contribute to the review.
Mr. Speaker, to date we have heard requests for: code
of conduct legislation for elected officials and staff; improved conflict of
interest provisions; training for officials and administrators; as well as more
clarity on the role of local governments.
The department is currently analyzing the feedback from
the review and developing recommendations for modernization of the legislation.
I would like to thank every resident, municipal leader
and administrator, stakeholder organization and community representative who
took the time to participate in this important consultation process. In
particular, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and the Professional
Municipal Administrators have put significant efforts into working with the
department on the review.
Mr. Speaker, the review of municipal legislation will
result in a stronger, more flexible legislative framework that will meet the
needs of today's cities and local governments and positively impact the daily
lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. Mr. Speaker, municipal legislation review was announced some time
ago, and I'm pleased to receive this update.
As a former mayor, I'm very familiar with issues
concerning local governance and I certainly recognize the importance of this
review. I look forward to seeing the recommendations put forward following the
consolation process and I also look forward to debating them here in the House –
the new legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity
to thank mayors, councillors and staff across this province. The work they do is
very valuable and I know they're looking forward to this new, modernized
legislation.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy. I'm
glad to hear of the work being done to modernize the
Municipalities Act and various cities acts, it's long overdue; also
good to hear government is listening to all parties, especially the
municipalities themselves, as they did when we were all in Gander with the
municipalities.
The minister may be new to his portfolio but he is not
new to municipal politics, and has been involved in municipal politics long
enough to know none of the new changes will work unless municipalities are given
the proper resources, financial and otherwise, to implement them. So I encourage
the minister along that road.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to
recognize National Housing Day. Across the country each year, November 22 is
devoted to raising awareness about housing and homelessness and finding
solutions to address Canada's housing needs.
The National Housing Strategy, announced on this day,
one year ago, in 2017, is a 10-year, $40 billion plan that includes $20.5
billion in federal funds to be allocated to provinces and territories to help
reduce homelessness and to improve the availability and quality of housing for
Canadians in need.
Mr. Speaker, in April 2018, Newfoundland and Labrador
also endorsed a multi-lateral Housing Partnership Framework with the federal
government. This partnership addresses the housing needs of Canadians,
particularly those of vulnerable populations.
Through this federal, provincial, territorial
partnership we can achieve better housing outcomes by sharing data and
information that will make program development and delivery more effective. By
collaborating with diverse stakeholders we can create effective housing
solutions.
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to achieving
the best outcomes for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and in keeping with that
commitment, we will continue working with the federal government to negotiate
and finalize a bilateral agreement, which I am confident will represent an
historic level of housing investment in our province.
Mr. Speaker, the details of this agreement are key to
the development of the Provincial Housing and Homelessness Plan, which we will
release in 2019.
Our focus is to reach an agreement with the federal
government that addresses Newfoundland and Labrador's specific housing needs and
defines how the National Housing Strategy and our Provincial Housing and
Homelessness Plan support and align provincial priorities with shared national
housing outcomes.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. We too want to recognize National Housing Day across the country and
note the awareness that is required about housing and homelessness and finding
solutions across Canada, as well as here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I applaud the National Housing Strategy that was
initiated in 2017, a 10-year program to look at the improvement and the
availability of quality housing for Canadians, and certainly Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. I look forward to hearing more details in regard to the bilateral
agreement that the minister is working on with the federal government. As we
know in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are many needs to be met.
I also know that we need to look broadly at the needs
of those most vulnerable in regard to homelessness and the other services and
programs that are available to them so we can work collectively to improve the
lives of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy. It's
good that NLHC has expanded its social mandate and is playing a key role in
addressing homelessness. It's important that we all recognize that housing is an
important social determinant of health. Our provincial housing action plan has
been delayed for two years now and the bilateral housing agreement seems to be
taking a long time to finalize with much of the federal money a long way into
the future.
I say to the minister, people need better housing now
and I hope that what comes forth from her in 2019 is a plan that has both action
and money attached to it so housing can be dealt with.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, BeeHigh Vital Elements Inc. is the first and only Health Canada
licenced producer of cannabis in the province. This company acquired their
licence before Canopy Growth or Biome Grow.
So I ask the minister: Will BeeHigh Vital Elements also
be receiving a multi-million dollar taxpayer subsidy?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're quite proud to see that BeeHigh Vital Elements
has received a production licence from Health Canada, the first in the province,
and they'll be operating out of Corner Brook. They will be a much smaller scale
operation focused on craft in particular, but they also have to acquire a sales
licence. Once they achieve a sales licence, then they will be able to do sales
within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So they would have to have
dialogue then with the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.
We are certainly open for business. We are engaged, and
we have been in discussion with BeeHigh Vital Elements as we welcome the same
conversations with any other producer of cannabis in the country that has a
licence.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister routinely argues that government needed to give out
multi-million dollar taxpayer subsidies in order to create a cannabis industry
in this province; yet, BeeHigh received their Health Canada licence without any
government handout.
So I ask the minister: Why have you chosen to shovel
money into Canopy Growth and the secret shareholder company while BeeHigh can
succeed on its own?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
So,
Mr. Speaker, if we take the approach of the Leader of the Official Opposition,
given the fact that cannabis became legal in October, if we had not entered into
a supply agreement we would not have the 23 retailers that are selling, and have
sold, millions of dollars of cannabis here in this province.
We have entered into an arrangement to secure supply.
BeeHigh Vital Elements do not have a sales licence. They have a production
licence right now but they do not have the ability to do sales. When it comes to
Canopy or Biome, they both have production and sales licences that allow them to
ship product and sell into our province so that we can grow an industry here,
and that's exactly what we're doing, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
The
minister said on Monday that he received a request from Canopy Growth in writing
in May for the schedule to be adjusted.
Can the minister please advise what specific changes
have been made to the agreement?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said in the House of Assembly, based on the delay
in a start for cannabis happening in July – it was originally scheduled, it
didn't happen until October – that created some delays. When Canopy was looking
at this they were also looking at retrofitting buildings within the city. They
decided on a new build as their option to be able to move forward based on the
availability of properties.
With the City of St. John's, as well, they require
permitting; things took a little longer. There was a fair bit of granite that
was actually available for doing the landscaping and to be able to do the
development. So we have an ability now where we've looked at the timelines and
what has been requested, and Canopy will be in production by October of 2019.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, Schedule A of the agreement with Canopy says that the production
facility will be 50 per cent completed by October 1 of this year.
Did they reach this milestone? And, if not, what is the
percentage of completion?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're working very closely with Canopy Growth, as we
are working with Biome and as we will work with any of the other cannabis
production producers that we enter into an agreement with for supply and
distribution that will also be doing production here that will be creating jobs
in our economy and adding value. What we have the ability to do is that, one, we
enter into a contract. If there are obstacles that have been faced, we have the
ability to look at making an amendment to the contract as long as it is
agreeable to the provincial government.
So based on what I outlined earlier in the
conversation, we are in agreement that Canopy would have a production facility
up and running by October of 2019.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, as often happens, I didn't hear an answer to the specific question of
50 per cent completion.
On the subject of amending the agreement: Was the
original agreement amended, and will the minister table the amended agreement?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our particular contract of supply, Canopy
has agreed to supply us with 8,000 kilograms on an annual basis. In return,
we've entered into a 20-year agreement with them so that they would build a
production facility here creating 145 jobs and that it would all be on a
performance-based measure so that they would take all the risk and put all the
capital upfront in producing their facility.
In return, what would happen, in order for them to
recoup some of their cost – not all of it, only eligible expenses – they would
get reduced remittances. But for every dollar that will be provided to Canopy
through their sales, the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation would get
at least $2, and most cases more. So this is a good deal for the people of this
province, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
They seem like complicated propositions, Mr. Speaker.
So, again, I'd ask the minister if he would table the
amended agreement so we can have a look at it for ourselves.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We had a great opportunity, I did yesterday in debate
as well, and so did my parliamentary secretary, to clear up the record, time and
time again, that's been put forward by the Member of the Opposition and the
Leader of the Third Party, because government is not putting any upfront money
into this. There are no taxpayer dollars.
We hear them talk often about $40 million or $95
million. There is no budgetary line in any of our budgets that we're providing
any type of grant; whereas it hasn't always been the case for some of the deals
that have been done on the other side. There's been significant risk of taxpayer
money put forward into making a deal.
What we've done is, when we enter into agreements, and
we've done so in due diligence with our staff that are doing those, and anything
that we can make available we have certainly done so.
We're not hiding anything, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as a no, he will not provide or table the amended
agreement.
On Monday, the minister said we have an audit process
put in place and we have adequate protections to ensure that all steps are being
followed.
Who specifically will audit compliance with this
agreement, Department of Finance or outside auditors?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have a clear process put in place for audits. Audits
will be put forward on a monthly basis. They would be reconciled with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation and then they would be verified
based on what is an eligible expense.
If there are more remittances that have been paid out
or not remitted to the liquor corporation, given that there would be an
overpayment, then we would be able to recoup that amount if there is not enough
eligible expenses that would be coming forward on a month by month basis. So we
do have that ability to reconcile.
And I did state, adequately, that we do have
protections put in place. There are mechanisms in the contract from a remittance
point of view, but also if there is non-compliance, we have the ability to pull
retail licences and other mechanisms at our disposal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, all of that is impressive but I didn't hear an answer to the
specific question of audit and whether it's being done in-house or by
consultants.
Would the minister be able to answer that?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Newfoundland Liquor Corporation has been tasked
with being the distributor for supply in Newfoundland and Labrador. They created
Cannabis NL and they are the overseer as the regulator. What they are doing is
they would be shipping out product – through that whole process, they would be
doing the accounting process to determine how much cannabis sales is happening
in our province, how much would be happening from online, how much would be
happening from Canopy stores to the retail stores, and determining what is the
reduced remittances. Then doing an audit based on eligible expenses that are
coming forward, and we'd be able to do that through the NLC and through the
Department of TCII.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, have many questions. How will they ever know if the $40
million in lost tax subsidies was the best deal for the province, especially
when we don't know the identities of the owners of the companies that are
benefiting from the subsidies?
I ask the minister, or the Premier, whoever wishes to
answer: Will he call in the Auditor General to investigate the Canopy Growth
deal and give the taxpayers the answers they deserve?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, we have done a performance-based deal when it comes to attracting a
cannabis producer here in this province. We've done it not only once, because
they're only interested in the Canopy deal, but we've also done it with Biome.
And we will look to do deals, performance-based deals with other cannabis
producers because they are creating jobs and they are returning dollars to our
Treasury.
The option that the Member opposite is talking about is
importation and having jobs elsewhere. That is not what we want here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We are encouraging business investment and business
attraction. That is what we are doing.
The legislation, when it comes to Canopy, that's who we
have the contract with. They have shareholders, they are publicly traded. I
don't know what the Member opposite continues to be talking about, a numbered
company that has no relationship with government.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're hearing horror stories related to the pharmacy
technician registration program.
Will the minister admit that the pharmacy technician
registration process has become a mess for those who are trying to avail of it?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.
Pharmacy is a regulated profession under the
Pharmacy Act, and the authority for
that rests with the pharmacy board. Seven or so years ago they changed the
educational requirements for pharmacy techs. When that happened the Department
of Health, under the previous administration and this one, worked very hard to
support those individuals who wanted to, to maintain the qualifications and
become eligible for registration.
We have continued that process, Mr. Speaker, and, as of
this year, have provided an extra $60,000 in grants or subsidies to individuals
who wish to upgrade their qualifications.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And that's not exactly our understanding.
Can the minister explain why currently employed
pharmacy assistants who were promised full financial employment supports to
complete a two-year online pharmacy technician support program have been
abandoned?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I think some of the rather emotional terminology in
there belies some of the facts. No one has been abandoned. There have been
concerted efforts by the regional health authorities and the Department of
Health to ensure that anybody who wished to upgrade their qualifications, that a
pharmacy tech was able to do so.
There was a deadline and a bridging program. Of that,
there were 33 individuals who were unsuccessful in bridging. Of those, 13 are
being catered for in the province and 10 are being provided with money to enable
them to take outside qualifications to enable them to bridge.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Why has the minister not discussed the ability to have
both pharmacy assistants and pharmacy technicians work in the pharmacy field, as
a number of other jurisdictions allow, so that no present employees are
displaced or be forced to face financial or mental hardship?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
That's exactly what we are doing. Pharmacy assistants
have lesser qualifications and requirements than pharmacy techs. There is room
for both in the system currently. Anybody who was an assistant under the old
scheme and wanted to upgrade was accommodated. We've spent significant time and
effort, as did the previous government, to be fair in bridging them. And, as I
say, lately $60,000 has been provided to these individuals who wish to continue
to upgrade.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're hearing that a number of pharmacy technician
applicants from Newfoundland and Labrador are having to travel to other
provinces to do exams and register as pharmacy technicians in that province and
then apply for certification in this province to practice.
Does the minister think this is the best way to support
those who are committed to apply their skills within our province's health care
system?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Mr.
Speaker, thank you very much.
As I said, this is an issue brought up by the pharmacy
board itself. They are, under the Pharmacy
Act, responsible for quality and qualifications of people in the profession
of pharmacy whether they be assistants, techs or pharmacists themselves.
There are a group of people who were unsuccessful in
bridging and they have chosen the option to go out of the province, and we are
supporting them financially to do that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I need to clarify to the minister, there is no option.
The only option is they must travel out of the province at their own expense.
The pharmacy board has denied requests for more than 60
per cent of the current pharmacy technician applicants who applied for an
extension to get their certification due to heath issues, family issues, work
issues and other challenges.
Does the minister think this is an appropriate action
when we are trying to recruit for this profession?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Mr.
Speaker, again, I think it's a little unfortunate some of the language the
Member opposite is using. No one has been abandoned. There has been some
challenges with the pharmacy board. They are adamant about the standards they
require for upgrading and they are well within their jurisdiction to do that.
It is not the role of government to regulate a
self-regulating profession, unless what I'm hearing from the Member opposite is
they feel that this government should take a direct hand in the licensing of
self-regulating professions.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
But it is the responsibly of government to ensure the best health care possible,
and ensuring that we have the best trained people, who are Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, who have been trained here, get to stay here and provide that
health care for the people of this province.
These technicians were led to believe that once they
completed an additional two years of education, along with the previous pharmacy
technician course that had been completed, while spending their own money and
using their leave time, that they would be compensated financially through
reclassification.
What we have learned is they will receive just over a
dollar an hour increase, while now having to pay the pharmacy board nearly $800
a year in licensing fee. This nets a loss for most in the program.
Does the minister see this as fair?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
I can't comment on collective bargaining issues around
negotiations for pay scales. I am aware that the pharmacy board have changed, or
proposing to change, their registration fees for this coming year. We have met
with the Pharmacy Association of Newfoundland and Labrador on this subject, and,
indeed, my officials are engaging with the registrar currently.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
That's good, because it leads right into my next question.
Will the minister commit to conveying a meeting with
the health authorities, unions and stakeholders to ensure that the right thing
is done to support these health care professionals and prove health care
delivery?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.
The department has met regularly with the health
authorities on this issue as it is of concern to them. The maintenance of
hospital pharmaceutical service is paramount. We have also met with PANL to
discuss this issue. And, as I say, we are currently engaged with the pharmacy
board.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, under the
Pharmacy Act that was last revised by
the Members opposite when they were in office, they are a self-regulating
profession. They are responsible to their own counsel and their own board.
Government has never interfered in the regulation of self-regulating
professions; that is their responsibility to manage. We are engaged with them,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want the minister to acknowledge the fact that
we're at a point now where this may become a crisis, and that's why the
government are offering $10,000 bursaries to attract people into the field. So
we need to address this immediately.
Can the minister provide the number of individuals that
are currently waiting for a long-term care bed in the St. John's area?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to just comment that the fact that the Member
alluded to bursaries in his previous preamble confirms what I have been saying
since this series of questions started, which is government is committed to
support these individuals in their educational endeavours. It is a challenge
exam.
Those people who want and feel the need to have further
education can access funds to do so and we will continue to support them in
their endeavours, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I go to my next question, I need to clarify
again for the minister. He's actually supporting what I've said here in the
sense that the acknowledgement that there is a crisis in this particular field.
The extra $10,000 is to compensate for those that they're forcing out of the
field who, in some cases, for decades have been providing that service within
our pharmacies and within our health care regions, Mr. Speaker. That doesn't
compensate for the fact that people are being displaced who have a skill set
here, and very little support is being done for those who wanted to move to the
next level and get their certification.
I recall there were 28 new beds opened recently in
Carbonear.
Minister, is there a wait-list for long-term beds in
Carbonear? If so, how many individuals are on that list?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Those are very operational details. I don't have access
to those figures at my fingertips. I will undertake to provide them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
We're getting a number of calls from concerned families about loved ones waiting
for long-term beds in St. John's.
How long will these families have to wait for
appropriate beds?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I don't have wait-list data at my fingertips. I can
provide that. The last time I looked, which was earlier this spring, the
wait-list for long-term care beds averaged between two and three months.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
That's, again, not what we're hearing from families and we know that from health
professionals who are telling us the same thing.
When your government was elected in 2015, you cancelled
an RFP for 360 long-term care beds which included 120 for each location: St.
John's, Corner Brook and the Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor area.
We know the work is progressing for the new beds in
Corner Brook and Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, but does the minister have a plan
to address the shortage of long-term care beds in St. John's?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm happy today to speak about the 2015 commitment that we had made to
long-term care in our province.
I will say that Members opposite weren't too concerned
because they spent over 10 years in this very Chamber here ignoring the
long-term care situation in our province. They did a great job on the facility
in St. John's, and we recognize that, but what they didn't do was do a good job
anywhere else in this province, Mr. Speaker. That is why this government stepped
up and put in place a new procurement model that they ignored. We were doing it
using public sector workers which they completely ignored and did not want to be
providing those services in those facilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I need to refresh the mind of the Premier that we
invested – the previous administration – in long-term care beds all through the
province, and including Labrador also, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
Are
there any plans for beds to accommodate individuals with mild or moderate
dementia in the Northeast Avalon? We are also hearing this is an unaddressed
need.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
One of our undertakings in my mandate letter was to
bring forth a plan for dementia care. That is ongoing. It is part of our home
support and personal care home review. Dementia care, as a specific area, has
been identified. We are currently in discussions with both home support agencies
and personal care homes as part of our review to ensure people with mild to
moderate dementia are adequately cared for, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nearly a month ago, the minister stated that nothing
had changed in how government support seniors and their families in accessing
personal care homes or remaining in their homes. We are being told something
totally different.
Does the minister still stand by that statement?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm delighted to stand to clear up some confusion here.
The Member opposite is not speaking to the bulk of
personal care home operators. The bulk of them, all but five essentially, all
but five, are quite comfortable with the process we have. They're engaged in the
process and they accept that we've sent out a discussion document. Five of them,
including a former Minister of Health from that side of the House, have
subverted the process for their own ends.
The gentleman opposite is not listening to the bulk of
people. The last time they tinkered with personal care home allowances, 15 per
cent of small homes in this province closed as a direct result of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell
Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister table the wait-list for long-term
care beds for all regions across the province on a facility basis, including a
breakdown of a number of waiting in acute beds and those that are waiting in the
community?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Mr.
Speaker, some day in the very near future that data will be accessible through
the public websites of the regional health authorities. We have nothing to hide
with this. We're actually working and meeting tonight with Canada Health Infoway
to set up that kind of portal for this province, Mr. Speaker.
There is nothing to hide with this data. The data is
available. If the Member wants it, I'd be happy to provide it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island for a quick question,
please.
MR.
BRAZIL:
It's been a year since the West Coast MHAs lobbied to have Dr. Justin French
address unacceptable wait times for cataract surgery.
Can the minister update us on whether any progress is
made in addressing this very important issue?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier for a quick response.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, indeed, I'd be pleased to say that I met with Dr.
Justin French this week and I provided an update to the Minister of Health and
Community Services, Mr. Speaker.
Our big focus, Mr. Speaker, and listening to the Member
opposite talk about long-term care, he talks about wait-lists in long-term care.
If they had done such a good job, as he suggests there is, why weren't those
long-term wait-lists being taken care of?
Mr. Speaker, we have made significant investments. One
of the proudest achievements of this government is finally moving to a
replacement of the Waterford Hospital; something when this province had more
money than it ever did in its history, you completely ignored.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier: Before Husky Energy attempted to
resume operations after the forced shutdown last week, did they conduct a
thorough equipment or systems check to ensure that no components were damaged by
the storm? And, if so, is he satisfied with the scale and scope of the check?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member opposite is fully aware, they do have a
safety and environmental protection plan that they must enact and they must
follow.
There is an investigation underway to determine if they
did follow all the protocols required; and, further, Mr. Speaker, to assess
whether or not more protocols are required. The chief safety officer and the
chief conservation officer have been in daily contact with all operators in our
offshore.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, that a picture recently released
by Husky Energy clearly shows a chain lying across the broken flow line and
connector that Husky has identified as the source of the oil spill – and I don't
mean a necklace, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: If she has had conversations with
the C-NLOPB or Husky Energy about this chain, where it came from and its role in
Friday's spill?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As was indicated over the last couple of days, the
remote-operated vehicle did analyze the flow line and it did see that one of the
– what's called a weak link, Mr. Speaker, actually was damaged. We don't know
the source of that damage. C-NLOPB is investigating, and we'll understand more
as time progresses as to what occurred to have that damage occur or why that
weak link separated.
So, Mr. Speaker, as time progresses we will understand
through the investigation and whatever is required to be done to ensure safety
and environmental protection in this province will be done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we learn daily of more storm-related
incidents offshore; damage to lifeboats on Hibernia; a fire caused by
over-stress of thrusters on the Henry Goodrich drilling rig; and now questions
about this chain across the SeaRose flow line.
I ask the Premier: Is he confident the C-NLOPB has the
resources needed to conduct multiple safety investigations on a timely basis
when these incidents occur?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To answer directly the question, whatever resources the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board require, they will
certainly have.
This is a very important issue, obviously, for all of
us in this province. We have a chief safety officer and a chief conservation
officer who are reviewing all of the occurrences of the last week. I can say
that C-NLOPB has put a notice on their website as to what damage they are aware
of, and they are considering all of the things that did occur in the last week.
I can also say, though, that the installations are
designed for a harsh environment, and whatever we need to do to ensure safety
and environmental protection will be done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Norway's independent safety authority says a strong
supervisory authority is a cornerstone of the Norwegian model. In Norway, they
are not afraid to do this, and they know the importance of a safe industry.
I ask the Premier: Will he commit he is going to open
up dialogue with the federal government to create an independent offshore safety
and environmental authority, separate from the C-NLOPB, as in global leaders in
Norway, Australia and even the US?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr.
Speaker, what we commit is working with the federal government on all issues
that impact Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we have demonstrated that in
the past.
What happened last Friday, that is a serious incident,
and we're going to let the investigation unfold, as I said so many times. But I
think it's fair to remind the Member opposite, as she keeps raising this issue
and we appreciate that, there is an investigation that's ongoing. The chief
safety officer that currently exists right now is part of 29(b), which came from
Justice Wells's inquiry, and he had said that he felt that this 29(b)
recommendation could satisfy the concerns that he had based on the offshore in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I say to the Member opposite: Let's let the
investigation report, let's see where the recommendations go, and see if we can
make and strengthen the activity that happens offshore. We are committed to do
that, with all stakeholders.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The time for Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
In accordance with section 19(5)(a) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act I hereby table the minutes of the House of
Assembly Management Commission meetings held on September 27, 2018. Pursuant to
section 35 of the House of Assembly Act,
I hereby table the 2017 annual report of the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers, Bill 45.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that this House
shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 3.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to put on the record, the Leader of the
Official Opposition asked for the time when 50 per cent completion would be on
the Canopy production facility. That is March 1, 2019.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Further answers to questions for which notice has been
given?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS students within our province depend on school
busing for transportation to and from school each day; and
WHEREAS there are many parents of school-aged children
throughout the province who live within the 1.6 zone, therefore do not qualify
for this busing; and
WHEREAS policy cannot override safety of our children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to eliminate the 1.6 policy for
elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where
safety is a primary concern.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Now, I know the minister got up the other day –
Minister, I know you were saying about the courtesy busing and the extra
courtesy stop that's available but, in most cases, the buses are full, so this
is no good for anything. Now, it's a good start and it is only a little start
for the courtesy seating to have another stop so people can avail of it. Also,
the other day when you got up – our caucus are willing to work with the
department and willing to work with the minister. Perhaps we can start off with
just elementary children. It's not the point of providing it for everyone. We
know there's a cost available to that, but all this is about is safety.
I've given you lots of instances in my district where
it's unsafe, where there are 17,000 cars a day traveling along a road where
there are no sidewalks and people cannot walk. The north side hill in Torbay,
every time there's a rainfall, where there are no sidewalks, it washes out and
little children have to walk up that and go to school. It's unsafe.
I'm not asking you to change the policy completely.
That person – like you said the other day – 50 feet away from the school, if
it's safe for them to walk to school, then let them walk to school. But where
it's not safe, that's all we're asking for, and that's what the parents are
asking for.
There are areas in this province where it is safe to
walk to school. Maybe the school is off the main drag and it's off on a shoulder
road, and there are lots of room to walk down there and it's safe for the
children. This is not about eliminating the 1.6. We understand that. We do
understand that, but all I'm asking for today is the safety of the children.
In cases where it's unsafe to walk along the shoulder
of that road, and parents and individuals feel that it's not safe for those
children to be walking there, then address it.
We're not asking to eliminate it altogether. Perhaps we
can work together and start with our elementary children first. Senior high,
maybe it's option that we can keep the 1.6, but just look at it as a safety
issue for children that are in line of being injured.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development for a response please.
MR.
HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to thank the hon. Member opposite because I
think we're getting somewhere with this because, obviously, my big concern, and
the concern for a lot of us – because originally we talked about the motion they
made was to eliminate 1.6 kilometres, which would have meant for us, as a
province, significant changes in our bus routes. We have 1,100 bus routes in the
province.
What we're doing now, Mr. Speaker, we have implemented
a new policy with regard to a courtesy stop. We are seriously looking at these
courtesy stops and continuing to review them. We continue to review policy.
I just want to, again, add to all the people that are
listening, and the people in the province, safety is number one for all of us.
Right now, the existing policy very clearly states that if you're within the 1.6
kilometre, the safety of the children is the responsibility of the family.
While I say that, I am fully aware that there are
different circumstances that families have. Some families do not have the
transportation means to get the children to school. But right now, the policy is
within the 1.6, the safety of the children is the responsibility of the family.
So, Mr. Speaker, understanding that and working with
all of that, it is certainly something that I'm working with and I made mention
before that we will continue, we're looking at and reviewing the courtesy stop
and seeing how effective it is. If, in fact, it is meeting what is required,
then that's fine; if not, we will continue to look at it because safety is
always number one for us.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell
Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These are the reasons for this petition: The Bell
Island ferry service provides a vital transportation link and is only eight
minutes from port at any given time. Transport Canada regulations do not require
individuals to exit their vehicles during the commute, and the provincial
government's current policy related to mandatory exiting of vehicles put people
at a higher risk of injury than the possibility of having to evacuate the
vehicle due to an emergency.
In May 2018, a risk assessment recommended that the
Department of Transportation and Works continue to require passengers to vacate
their vehicle while travelling on the Bell Island ferry.
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to hold public consultations to discuss the
findings of the May 2018 risk assessment for the Bell Island ferry service.
Mr.
Speaker, there's nobody in this House of Assembly who would not argue, and no
person who travels on any ferries in Newfoundland and Labrador would disagree
with improving safety and guaranteeing safety as the primary objective when you
look at how you provide a service in this province, but in this case we've
talked about it, we've looked at it. We've had health professionals assess the
situation, and it's been determined there is a higher risk, when you take into
account at any given time these vessels are less than eight minutes from a port.
The
evacuation time at minimum, on the most modern of the vessels here, is 23½
minutes. The time to be able to get a handful – and
that's what we're talking, in some cases none – of those who have either medical
issues or mobility issues out of their vehicles – which they're all going to
have an attendant with, because that's the nature of the ailment they may have –
to get to the muster station, would be less than three to five minutes. But the
risk they face by having to get out of their vehicle, walk across, in some cases
200 feet of decking in winter conditions, get in an elevator to get to a lounge
that is still a full level away from a muster station, which includes not being
able to get out through – there are no ramps, as part of this, if you're in a
wheelchair.
So the
issue here is at the end of the day we've already known, in a short period of
time since this has been instituted, there has already been three injuries to
individuals, people who have mobility issues and those who are coming back from
medical treatments as part of it.
We also
know at the end of the day that we've had an independent assessor who said
there's much more of a risk from a liability point of view. The unions have
said, you know what, we're going to have to instruct our members they can't be
engaged in helping somebody get from their vehicle to the elevator, then up to
the lounge, and then if necessary – which has never happened in over 1.3 million
trips we've had – to evacuate the ferry, to indeed do that at that point.
So at this point we're talking about, there's a higher
risk for those. We're talking a small percentage. The travelling public who have
the ability, that it doesn't interfere and doesn't put them at risk of being
able to get upstairs, should still be able to do it.
So, Mr. Speaker, we'll get to this again in the near
future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development for a response please.
MR.
HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to respond to
that because, obviously, safety is very important on any of our transportation
modes that we have. I know this has been a discussion and a debate we've had for
quite some time.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member made mention of the
fact of trying to get people up, that's why we have the modern technology on our
vessels to ensure that people with mobility issues are accommodated.
Mr. Speaker, there are also challenges. He mentioned
the fact about the union has a concern about taking people out of their cars and
getting them to a muster station. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's also a hazard in
that they would have to record the number of people who are in the cars, how
many are in the cars, who's in the car, who's not in the car. So on the surface,
a lot of times when we want to talk about that it seems very simple, but it's
not.
Again, one of the easiest ways which is follow the
rules that are there, and all of our ferry systems throughout the province are
following the same rules, Mr. Speaker. And that is we want to ensure that if
there's an incident, we know and have the protocol that's in place to enable
these people to safely get off the vessels. That's a very important part for us.
I'm sure these discussions and consultations will be
ongoing, but right now, Mr. Speaker, we do have measures in place to protect the
travelling public that are on these vessels.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At a time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
are dealing with high levels of taxation, increased unemployment rates,
increased food back usage, increased bankruptcies and many are being forced to
choose between food, heat and medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro are continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through
the Public Utilities Board.
Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these
rates are predicted to further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for
the average citizen of our province. While government has indicated they are
working with Nalcor to mitigate rates, they have provided no detailed plan as to
how they intend to do so.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as
follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide
all the potential options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive
detailed plan to deal with current and impending power rate increases. This plan
is to be provided to the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny,
feedback and potential suggestions for improvement.
Mr. Speaker, I present this petition again today. I
have about 150 names here primarily from the Southern Shore, communities along
the Southern Shore. This is a theme across our entire province, including
Labrador. I've heard from many, many people who are concerned about what the
power rates are going to look like down the road. We know we've had rate
applications from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They took them back,
thankfully. I believe it was all due to public pressure that that happened.
We had a rate application from Newfoundland Power. They
took that back; again, I believe as a result of public pressure. But, at the end
of the day, we all recognize in this House that there is going to be – we're
looking down the barrel of a gun. That's the reality.
When it comes to our potential power rates, we can all
talk about blame. That's why we have the Muskrat Falls inquiry. Very disturbing
information coming out of there indeed. But, at the end of the day, regardless
of what comes out in the inquiry, we have an issue.
Government has indicated they are going to mitigate
rates. Again, as I've said many times, I wish them well in that. I certainly
hope they will, but simply saying trust us, we're going to look after it, is not
necessarily going to put people's minds at ease, Mr. Speaker. What the people
are asking here is for a plan. Let the people know, what is your plan? If you're
working on stuff, what is it exactly you are working on? Give people some sort
of confidence that you are indeed working on something to mitigate electricity
rates.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents humbly sheweth;
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest
minimum wages in Canada, and minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and
WHEREAS proposals to index the minimum wage to
inflation will not address poverty if the wage is too low to start with; and
WHEREAS women and youth, and service sector employees
are particularly hurt by the low minimum wage; and
WHEREAS minimum wage only rose 5 per cent between 2010
and 2016, while many food items rose more than 20 per cent; and
WHEREAS other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing
or considering a $15 minimum wage as a step towards a living wage;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to legislate a
gradual increase in the minimum wage to $15 by 2021 with an annual adjustment
thereafter to reflect provincial inflation.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition and the plan that it asks
government to consider is really quite modest; $15 an hour minimum wage seems
like a huge jump, but it's over a long period of time. This petition, I believe,
folks started it in 2017. So that's four years, and we're now at about $11.15 or
a little bit more than $11 right now is our minimum wage.
There was a recent poll done by MQO Research in
Newfoundland and Labrador. This is really interesting, Mr. Speaker. It shows
that 87 per cent of the public support government raising minimum wage to $15 –
87 per cent. That's a really high number. All the research has shown that it's
good for the economy.
Also, the only plan that government has right now, and
they keep talking about it, they're saying we're doing something; we're going to
index our minimum wage. But because we have among the lowest minimum wage in
Canada, they're going to be indexing the lowest minimum wage, which will still
keep us as the lowest minimum wage. There's no way we're going to catch up with
other provinces.
I don't believe anybody in this House believes that
people in Newfoundland and Labrador, primarily young people and women, and
disadvantaged groups, are the ones who are working minimum wage jobs. I don't
believe that anybody here in Newfoundland and Labrador believes that these are
the folks who should be paid the lowest in Canada.
I don't believe that they believe that. So why don't
they do something? Mr. Speaker, why don't they do the right thing? It's
happening all over Canada. It's happening all over North America. It's happening
at leaps and bounds in some states in the US. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope
government will do that.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I call Orders of the Day.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill
39.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Bonavista, that Bill 39, An Act To
Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, be now read a third time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
The motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 39)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill is now 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 Highway Traffic
Act No. 2,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 39)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Member for Bonavista, for leave
to introduce a bill entitled An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And
Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 41,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And
Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 41,
and that 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.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to
introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic
Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act,” carried. (Bill 41)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord
Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 41)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 41 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Emergency Health
And Paramedicine Services, Bill 43, and I further move that the said bill be now
read a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave
to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Emergency
Health and Paramedicine Services, Bill 43, and that 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.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting The Provision Of Emergency
Health And Paramedicine Services,” carried. (Bill 43)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Emergency Health And Paramedicine
Services. (Bill 43)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
Tomorrow?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 43 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources for
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse
Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 44, and I further move that the
said bill be now read a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave
to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas
Act And The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 44, and that 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.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Management Of
Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act,” carried. (Bill 44)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue
Administration Act. (Bill 44)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 44 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call Order 6, second reading of Bill 40.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm happy to stand here today and speak to Bill 40, An
Act to Amend –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Mr.
Speaker, I am moving Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act,
seconded by my parliamentary secretary. Can we do that?
In the department, he's done a lot of work on that the
Housing bill as well, Lewisporte-Twillingate.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Why not?
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act.” (Bill
40)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Off
to a great start. It's been a busy day, Mr. Speaker.
But anyway, it's lovely to be standing here speaking to
Bill 40, on what is National Housing Day. When we started working on the
amendments that were required for this bill, we didn't realize that it would be
brought into the House on National Housing Day.
So I was very pleased this morning to go down to city
hall and to participate and celebrate with the City of St. John's on the launch,
today, of their 10-year National Housing Strategy. There were lots of
conversation there around how long it took them to get to where they are today,
and they're quite pleased to be launching that 10-year plan.
The Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, in
response to my Ministerial Statement today, spoke about our plan, our provincial
housing plan now being delayed two years. I don't know anything about our
housing plan being delayed two years. What I can tell you is we have folks that
have been working extremely hard with a National Housing Strategy where we
endorsed the principles of that multilateral framework back in the springtime,
and then we moved into negotiating the bilaterals with the individual provinces.
There has been a tremendous amount of work done on
that. We've asked for flexibility to come out with an agreement that is the
absolute best agreement for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why would
we rush out with our provincial housing and homelessness plan in advance of
knowing what are the details of this bilateral agreement that we are still
working within? So, we're not out the door fast or first because we want to get
it right. We could spend all day in this House talking about things that were
rushed and then, with the fallout, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians paid the
price because it wasn't right.
We want to get this housing and homelessness plan
right, and we want it to be the best plan that it possibly can be for the people
of this province. Over here on this side of the House, we certainly recognize
that safe, stable and affordable housing is fundamental to the socio and
economic well-being of the people of our province. We recognize that everybody
deserves a place to call home, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we want to see at
the end of the day in this housing and homelessness plan.
So what we're talking about here today – I'm just going
to take a few minutes. It's a brief bill. It's An Act to Amend the Housing
Corporation Act. We've been looking at this for a little while, recognizing that
some of the language is outdated. We need to update that. We have appointments,
board of directors there with no end date of their term. I guess they could stay
on until they went to their long resting home. I'm not sure how it worked prior
to us being here. You had your CEO and your chair that were one and the same.
So, we're going to clean it up a little bit, Mr. Speaker, primarily just some
housekeeping items here.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, as
people in this House would certainly understand, is a provincial Crown
corporation with a mandate to develop and administer housing assistance, policy
and program for the benefit of low-to-moderate income households.
Mr. Speaker, MHAs would certainly be familiar with the
whole suite of programs that are offered under that social Crown corporation.
The programs provide an immensely valuable support to people in our province
that struggle day to day, that need things like Provincial Home Repair to bring
their homes up to a fire and safety standard, our home heating rebates,
affordable housing and I don't need to get into all of them.
The corporation is governed by a board of directors and
reports to the provincial government through the minister responsible for
Housing. Currently, as the Housing
Corporation Act, the chairperson of the board also serves in a dual capacity
as the chief executive officer and is responsible for the day-to-day operations
of the corporation.
The Housing Corporation is a Tier 1 entity. As most
folks in this Legislature would be aware, the Independent Appointments
Commission is an independent body established to provide merit-based
recommendations for appointments to tier 1 entities scheduled to the
Independent Appointments Commission Act.
Since the inception, Mr. Speaker, our Bill 1 – I guess
our inaugural bill as a government – we wanted to take the politics out of
appointments. You can look back through decades of government and one of the
things that comes up again and again is somebody put their buddy in a position
and we discuss those things in this Legislature.
One of the things that we wanted to do was take the
politics out of that. We have the Independent Appointments Commission, a
merit-based process. Since the inception, Mr. Speaker, of the IAC many agencies,
boards and commissions – including the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation – are reviewing their legislation regarding the appointment of board
members and chairpersons to ensure that they are in line with the IAC act.
What we're going to see here in Bill 40, what we're
proposing today in the proposed amendments to the
Housing Corporation Act is to separate the position of the
chairperson and the chief executive officer. I'm not an expert in board
structure, Mr. Speaker. I spent most of my adult life serving on boards and
committees and, generally, I think you do see that a chairperson and a CEO
certainly are two separate roles.
What I'm familiar with is generally the chairperson and
the board of directors, these are volunteer positions. They work and they have
busy lives. You have a CEO that's separate who would be responsible for running
the day-to-day operational aspects of the corporation, but the chairperson
wouldn't be that person because they simply would have another job, Mr. Speaker.
We are going to apply terms to the appointments of board members and, as I
alluded to at the opening, we are going to modernize language in the act.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment to separate the chair and
CEO, under current legislation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint
board members including the chairperson; however, the legislation specifies that
the chairperson shall be the CEO.
Mr. Speaker, we're going through a process right now
where when we reached out to the IAC to say do you have names of individuals
that are interested in sitting on the Housing board. Now, I don't think any of
these folks who put their name forward being interested to sit on the board
really would be willing to take on the CEO part, so it's important that we
separate those two.
With the new merit-based process through the IAC,
people are putting their names forward to be considered as board members and
they likely do not have the time, the interest or possibly even the skill set
necessarily, Mr. Speaker, to fulfill the duties of a CEO.
Before the IAC, Independent Appointments Commission was
put in place there was no process for applying to be on the board – no process.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council would just appoint a board. I guess they
would likely know who these individuals were, they would know these appointees
and the availability of the chair/CEO selected.
Mr. Speaker, we'll all agree that this process lacked
merit and it lacked transparency. Now, with the IAC, the entire public, anybody
in this province, who has an interest with sitting on the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation board, they can put their name forward for
consideration. What happens is we'll reach out and say we're looking for X
number of individuals and they will apply and the IAC will do their work and
they will send some names along. The IAC will recommend qualified people, Mr.
Speaker. The Lieutenant Governor in Council considers those recommendations. But
the LGIC likely wouldn't know if any of those applicants wanted to be considered
as CEO.
Those applicants themselves likely wouldn't be aware
that the existing legislation says the chair would be selected from the board
and the chair would be the CEO. So that's why we're moving forward now, Mr.
Speaker, after all of this time to separate those two.
Conversely, there are people out there, Mr. Speaker,
talented, passionate, capable – what I would call CEO material – who wouldn't
have applied for the board, but they certainly would apply for a CEO-specific
recruitment process. So having two recruitment processes through the IAC that
are merit-based will best serve, I believe, the organization and the province
and separating the chair from the CEO. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, also that
this is a positive step forward in strengthening the governance of the board.
The amendments we are bringing forth today are required
to ensure that the CEO is appointed separately, as this full-time position is
responsible for the general direction, supervision and control of the business
of the corporation. Given that board members may well have other full-time
employment outside their board duties, and the CEO is certainly a full-time
position. So I think you'll know where I'm going with this. It wouldn't be
practical to someone apply for a position on the board and then we say, okay,
you're responsible for the day-to-day running. Probably they're biting off a
little more than they anticipated there. Not practical to fill the position from
those who apply for the board of directors.
Under this amendment, the CEO would be a non-voting
member who would provide operational and program knowledge to the board. While
the chair and the CEO will now be separate positions, both – and I want to
stress this. So while we're separating the chair and the CEO, both will be
subject still to the IAC merit-based process for recommendation to the
Lieutenant Governor in Council.
So, Mr. Speaker, we're separating, but there are no
appointments, I'm going to stick someone in that position. They're still going
to have to apply through the IAC, only now it'll be clearly defined, I am
applying to be the CEO of the Housing Corp., or I am applying to sit on the
board of directors of the Housing Corporation.
Most agencies, boards and commissions separate the
position of chairperson and CEO. This change would, I guess it would bring, as I
see it, the Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation in line with what I believe is
a generally accepted practice. So that's that piece.
Another amendment that we are proposing here today, Mr.
Speaker, the second proposed amendment, it introduces terms to the appointment
of board members including the chair. This will help to establish reasonable
expectations for board members in terms of their appointments and will permit
regular renewal of the board.
I found it interesting when I discovered, Mr. Speaker,
that you could apply to go on this board, this Housing Corporation board, and
there was never an expiry date. Most times we know we are applying to sit on a
board and it's a two year, it's a four year, and then you're up for renewal
after that.
This amendment provides for three-year terms with an
option for three-year renewal. So a three-year term with an option for a
three-year renewal for all 11 board members, including the chairperson. Because
currently the legislation does not prescribe timelines regarding membership for
those 11 board members.
This amendment would also ensure that the NLHC
appointment timelines, again, are in sync with other agencies, boards and
commissions. So simply trying to bring it all in line and to bring some
consistency here, Mr. Speaker.
The third amendment is to modernize language in the
act. The current legislation includes representation for persons with
disabilities as well as regional representation. The final amendment that we are
proposing here today will modernize language in the act in respect to persons
with disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I have a whole bunch of information here
around housing and the suite of programs and what they offer but I really don't
think I need to get into that. This is pretty clear cut and simple, separating
the chair and CEO, putting terms in for the board members and modernizing the
language.
I'll have an opportunity I guess to answer questions
once we go into Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - North.
MR.
LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To speak to Bill 40; foremost, I would like to thank
both the department and the minister for the briefing, and the minister for her
previous speaking there. I believe she pretty well summed up what the intent of
this bill is.
It's definitely something that is a sign of the times.
Separating both the chair and the CEO provides a bit more continuity. Whereas,
to the best of my understanding, the CEO is there by contract; whereas a
chairperson or a member of the board can resign at any time.
Managing such a vital facility within government or
within a Crown corporation, we need continuity. So that was something I did have
a little bit of concern with as it came to the three years with the possibility
of re-appointment.
I almost believe we should put in a termination clause
for half of the board so that we do have a continuation on through it. I did
bring it up in the briefing that I think every, say, six years half of the board
should have to change up. That way we'll always have some experience going
forward, and that will ensure a smooth transition and a smooth functioning of
that board.
Now with both our aging demographic and our challenging
economic times, this corporation in particular is going to come under extreme
stress. It is very important that we have a full-time, dedicated, functioning
CEO to be able to make decisions on their feet.
The same thing with the board, we need an active board.
To make a full-time commitment to a board, for members of the public, often
that's a challenge and it would probably exclude certain members of society from
participating in the board.
So separating the CEO out from the chairperson, that
definitely opens up that chairperson position for basically all members of
society who could commit to the limited amount of meetings that they must attend
and participate in on the board; whereas a CEO, of course, has to be – because
you're dealing with someone's house and someone's shelter and basically sense of
security in the form of their home, I'm sure the CEO is on call 24-7, 365 days a
year.
That's important, that's a big position because, as I
said, with an aging demographic we're looking at seniors who may either no
longer be able to afford their homes or seniors who find themselves suddenly
alone due to the death of their partner or a separation of their partner,
whatever it may be, that's a perfect facility for them to move into, the housing
units. Again, it's something we're adapting to.
The CEO, Mr. Goss, explained to me – because I had
asked a question about the transition of three- and four-bedroom units down to
one- and two-bedroom units, because right now there's a big demand for these
one- and two-bedroom units. It's a challenge. It's not like you can just go and
lop off two of the four bedrooms and there you go, you got a two bedroom unit.
You have to use those other units.
A lot of these facilities, a lot of these buildings
were built several decades ago and renovating them is a challenge. I'm glad to
see the corporation is up for that challenge and it is a mandate of theirs –
under the direction of the CEO – to start renovating and making more units
available with smaller bedrooms.
As an MHA, when I first got elected, one of the biggest
things that struck me – actually, I got the second most amount of Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing units in my district of that of all the province. I do see
the valuable service it provides. The reality is there are lots of jobs in this
province that just cannot afford to pay large salaries, but those jobs are still
important. We as a people and we as a province are responsible for those
individuals who complete those jobs. That means we do have to make housing
affordable to them, as well as people who work at much higher paying jobs.
My theory and my belief have been: if there's work to
be done, that's a job to be filled. It doesn't matter what the pay is, that's an
important job to be done.
With disparity between the lower income and upper
income and rising housing prices in the past decade or so, the ownership of home
has been out of people's reach. So a lot of people on the lower end of the
income scale have had to use – have been stuck in rental agreements or
rent-to-own agreements. Largely, rent-to-own agreements are not really worth the
paper they're written on because they're not registered with the provincial
registry.
So, really, the owner of that piece of property could
sell that piece of property right out from underneath people who thought they
were paying into a rent-to-own agreement. Whereas within the Housing
Corporation, I know of several individuals and families that have been decades
in the one unit. You can see the pride of ownership in that unit. That's
something I'm really proud of when people take pride in their home and put a lot
of effort into putting some small improvements into it themselves, keeping it
tidy, keeping it painted.
As we go forward, I cannot foresee housing prices go
down that significantly that a home will be available to everybody in the
private market. I think there will always be need for a facility like the
Housing Corporation to provide homes for people in certain segments of our
society.
Again, that's part of the gap between the lower end and
the upper end, and, of course, even middle-class people. With the highest rate
of bankruptcy, the highest rate of family breakup and joblessness largely in our
history, I'm getting calls to my office, people who had good homes, because
they've lost their jobs they've largely – through no fault of their own, just a
turn in the economy, now they're coming to my office asking how to get into the
realm of social housing.
I'm very pleased to say that my experience with our
contacts at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has been very positive. Granted,
there are always hiccups and there will always be bumps, but that's just part of
the changing.
One example, and I'll never forget it, it was just
before last Christmas. I had a lady call up and, unfortunately, her and her
husband both lost their jobs. Then I guess the stress of the financial hardship,
the two of them separated, and she went from living in a fairly large house in
Southlands to one of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units.
Not only was there a home there for her to move into,
but there was also a whole suite of other provincial programs that she was able
to tap into to help in this transition in life. She had kids that were 13 and 14
years old, as I said, who lived in a fairly expensive home. Now she was in the
social housing system. I checked in on them just recently and they're doing
quite fine. That's where I could see her with pride of ownership or tenancy in
her home, and I was very proud of her to be able to move on through that crisis
situation in her life.
Again, I support this bill, and I think it makes sense.
If the Independent Appointments Commission does continue or does function as it
is intended, I believe that will go a long way to restoring the faith in these
appointments and in these boards and agencies that it's not the individual, it's
not who the individual knows, it's all about the individual themselves.
So, as I said, I'll be fully supporting this bill.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.
MR.
BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's also an honour to get up today and speak to Bill
40, An Act to Amend the Housing Corporation Act. Mr. Speaker, I've been in the
role of parliamentary secretary since December 2015, shortly after being
elected. First of all, I just have to make mention of the great work that the
staff members are doing at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They deal with
very difficult situations on a daily basis and I have to commend them for the
great work they're doing.
I just want to thank the Member for Mount Pearl North
for his positive comments toward this change we're making in the act. One of the
things he did allude to was the number of housing units and the size of units
that are typical. Traditionally, most of our units were three- and four-bedroom
units and now the demand, as families got smaller and our aging population, the
number of room units that people are looking for now are typically one- and
two-bedroom.
I had the honour to attend the affordable housing for
St. John's this morning when they did their announcement on the 10-year
strategy. Just looking through some of the notes on that, there was an
interesting statistic they put forward, Mr. Speaker. Out of the estimated
population in 2016, for the City of St. John's there were approximately 109,000
people. Sixty-two per cent of those households had one or two people living in
that household. So it goes to show that the population in St. John's, and surely
throughout rural Newfoundland, the houses and the number of people living in the
households is getting much smaller.
Myself, I'm from a large family, 15 children. So, Mr.
Speaker, a one- or two- bedroom house wouldn't do us much when we were growing
up. We probably needed rooms on top of rooms. Most people, years ago when we
were growing up we had a smaller house, probably only five or six bedrooms. When
it got cold nighttime, traditionally people would turn up the woodstove or turn
up the heat. All we did, one kid jumped from the other bed; they still got to
keep everybody else warm.
So times have changed since my family grew up in
Lewisporte. I came from a very proud family. Like I say, we didn't have a lot of
material things but we had a lot of other great things and a lot of love in our
family. So, Mr. Speaker, that speaks high volumes of our family.
As the minister previously alluded to in Bill 40, the
act, there are basically three components to what we're proposing. First of all,
to separate the position of chairperson and the chief executive officer. I'm not
going to take much time but, essentially, as the minister said, this is common
with most boards and commissions now to have it separate, two separate
positions.
Coming from a municipal background, like many others
here, I compare it to a town council. The way it is now, it's basically the same
thing as you're electing a town council and automatically your mayor is your
CEO, a paid position. The way businesses and corporations operate today, that's
a little different. People want to be involved, be engaged as a board member. It
doesn't necessarily mean they want to run the corporation as the CEO.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, applying terms to board
positions; right now under the corporation there are no terms. Someone could get
on the board and essentially stay there as long as they want. There's nothing,
no regulations in the act or no legislation saying that after two, three years
or four years they have to remove themselves from the board.
What we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, is that once you
apply, you have a three-year term to start with. Obviously, people may leave for
whatever purposes, whether it be family or personal reasons before their term,
but they have a three-year term. If suited and they want to stay on for a second
term, and the IAC is willing to keep them on, then they can do a second term for
a total of six years.
After the two terms, Mr. Speaker, they will have to
separate themselves from the board then, but that's not to say – after a year or
two years they can re-apply for another position. Again, they would have to go
through the IAC process, and if it's deemed they're a great candidate again,
then they can go back on the board.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the third item we're looking at is
to modernize the language in the act respecting persons with disabilities.
Currently, the language right now, which is a bit dated, calls for a person
physically disabled to be on the board. And, as I said, that language is dated.
We are proposing that it would be changed to a person with disabilities, because
our government is committed to inclusion. We're just going to update that
portion of it.
Mr. Speaker, I' m not going to take much more time. I
just want to say that I will be supporting this bill and I'm quite sure all
Members in this House will be supporting the bill.
Our government takes the well-being of all residents
within our province very serious, and we are committed to better outcomes and a
brighter future for everyone. I think our CEO, our acting CEO right now and all
of his staff are doing just that, Mr. Speaker. They're working hard each and
every day to make sure that persons that are struggling have the opportunity to
have a good a life as they possibly can.
Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to close on that and saying
that I will be supporting Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Housing Corporation Act,
and I do encourage all other Members to do so.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 40, the
Housing Corporation Act. It's
important that we all make our voices known about this because it is a very
important act and it has a number of pieces to it. Modernizing the
Housing Corporation Ac, I
would say bringing it into the 21st century actually, because there are some
things that are in the act, an act which dates back to 1970, that really are
rather archaic when it comes to accountability and transparency.
I note from the briefing we received, that the
Independent Appointments Commission actually has been recommending to public
entities that they move away from the structure of having the chair and CEO of a
corporation one and the same person. They've been recommending that the CEO be a
separate position, and that's a paid position. Then you also have the chair of
the commission, or whatever the public entity is, in this case the Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing Corporation.
I think it's actually very, very good that the IAC, the
Independent Appointments Commission, sees its role as making these types of
recommendations and not just finding people for boards and commissions. So I was
really delighted when I saw this, and I'm glad to see the minister took that
seriously.
Having the chair and the CEO as the same person puts an
awful lot of weight in one person and gives that person actually quite a
controlling interest – to put it bluntly. The minister spoke to it from one
perspective and I'm speaking to it from another. It's true that it means a heavy
workload et cetera, but what I'm really happy about is it means that – it is a
conflict, really. If the CEO is also the chair of a board or a commission, the
CEO is sort of his or her own boss, and that surely is not a good way to go.
So to even see that the bill or the act will now say
the CEO will, “subject to the direction of the membership of the corporation,”
be responsible for directing the business of the corporation but will not be the
chair of the board. And that certainly, in this day and age, is the way we would
want a public body and a public entity to be run. That the person in the role of
CEO is a non-voting member of a board, and a board – those who are the
volunteers and, hopefully, people with expertise are the ones who make the
decisions that the CEO will then follow.
I really am delighted to see this. It hopefully will
mean that the NLHC will continue to do the wonderful work it does, but will also
now become a board that hopefully will have no ties to government, no ties to
the CEO and will be a board that's there for the good of the people.
I'm not going to speak, at this point in time, to all
the details in the bill. I think that's been done by some. There's nothing there
that I have a problem with; things that I'm pleased about.
I am also pleased about the fact that we're changing
the tenure of board members. Again, I use the word archaic, to think we had a
bill that said: “All members of the” board “hold office during pleasure.” As
long as they want to be on the board, they could be on the board. Again, pretty
archaic in this day and age.
So now with the appointment to be for three years with
an option to renew just for one term, and to do it in a staggering way as is
laid out in the bill so that not everybody comes in at the same time for the
same period and then you change the whole bunch all at the same time, but to
have timelines and staggering terms will be extremely important so that we don't
have everybody going all at the same time. That's sort of the details I want to
speak to.
I'd like to speak a bit about the role of the NLHC,
because it is important. The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is
responsible for seeing that people in this province have housing, and have good
housing; have affordable housing and good housing. Its social mandate has really
increased over the years.
I can remember back in the 1980s, I was doing community
development work in the province, based in St. John's, and our office and one of
my co-workers became involved with the people who live in Rabbittown. They had a
vision, and their vision was they wanted to really deal with the issue of
literacy. So many people who lived in the Rabbittown area were not literate, but
in order to deal with that they also wanted a place where people could come from
the community. They wanted a couple of units to be dedicated to an association
and become a community base.
It took them a little bit of struggling at that time –
I'm talking about 35 years ago. It took a bit of struggle at that time for them
to get NLHC to understand the importance of having a community centre and having
a tenants' organization and a centre that was right there where everybody lived.
The argument was, well, if we take a couple of units that's taking housing away.
But this community group were very strong, they were articulate and they
understood the importance of doing this. NLHC – it didn't have an L in it at
that time – but NLHC at that time finally said yes, and turned over two units to
become part of the community and to be used by the community.
So now it's taken for granted, that where you have NLHC
housing you have a community centre, that you have a tenants' association, that
you have staff from NLHC who interact with the people in the community so that,
right now, with the range of programs that they have, it's wonderful. Their
programs include affordable housing, down-payment assistance, home heating and
repair assistance, homelessness programs, emergency housing for families
escaping domestic violence and, as I've talked about, the community centres. So
it has really developed over the last 30 years and it's been quite exciting.
Recently, the corporation reviewed its own mandate and
went out and consulted, they re-looked at their mandate, their programs, their
service delivery, how they use their money. They consulted with staff and
community organizations, housing residents and clients of their various
programs. From that, they have really brought in a lot of efficiencies in NLHC
itself; 14 management positions were eliminated and an action plan was promised.
Now, we still don't have the action plan, but the
minister did say earlier today in another context that it is hoped for 2019, the
provincial strategy, and I think it'll be extremely important to have that put
in place because the NLHC wants to use some of the federal-provincial strategy
funds to renovate more large units into a greater number of smaller ones. People
are having smaller families today than they did 30 years ago when these units
were first built, so it's important to do that.
But there's one point I want to make, which doesn't
have to do with NLHC specifically, but has to do with housing needs, and that is
we have a lot of people who receive income support from AESL, and adult
education and seniors. The income support from AESL takes care of housing needs
of people. These people may be in apartments; they may be in boarding houses.
The condition under which some of them are living is abominable, but nobody has
responsibility.
AESL does not have responsibility for the housing
situation in which people are. They give money, so that people can be where they
are, but they're not responsible for the condition of the living situation. It
becomes really problematic because NLHC is only responsible for its units. Once
again, it begs the question of why we don't have a housing division in our
government, because housing is more than the units that are owned by NLHC.
I've spoken to this many times in this House, and
earlier this year I spoke to it, because of a situation on one of the streets in
my district where people, homeowners on the street, were having problems in
relations with people who were in a house that was a boarding house. The
conditions of that boarding house were really awful. Yet, the city was involved
on one level, though it didn't have responsibility. The province was involved,
but it didn't have responsibility. Nobody had responsibility for the housing
situation of these people who were receiving money from government to be there.
So, I put this out because it isn't NLHC's
responsibility; they're only responsible for their units. But it does beg the
question of why we don't have a housing division inside of government that deals
with the broader housing issues. Because homelessness is more than just having a
roof over your head, whether that roof leaks or not is extremely important and
everything else about the house in which one lives.
I put that out there; it isn't part of this bill in one
way, but it is in a general way. If we're concerned about the housing needs of
our people, Mr. Speaker, then we have to be concerned about more than just what
happens inside of NLHC and what it's responsible for.
Having said that, I will be supporting the bill and I
will continue pushing government to look at the needs of people and the needs
for having a housing division in government.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just going to take a moment to say that I'll be
supporting this bill. There's nothing earthshattering here, for sure, but, no
doubt, it's sort of cleaning up some of the language, modernizing some of the
language. It's more inclusive certainly for persons with disabilities. It's some
of the wording, which is good to see. I hope we see that in all of our
legislation.
Obviously, we're just making a separation between the
chair of the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and CEO; that kind of
makes sense. The only question I had at the time was did that mean that by
creating a CEO we're going to incur another big salary, but I'm told that's not
the case because the person who is acting in both those roles is already working
for the government with said salary. So it's not like we're creating a new one,
which is a good thing, because obviously where we are financially we need to
look at ways to save money, not spend more.
Anyway, with all that said, the terms of office is
going to be a three-year term of office. The ability to have a second term,
prior to now, someone could be appointed to this board and stay there forever,
in theory. I'm sure that never happened, but they could stay there as long as
they wanted or at the discretion of the minister of the day, as long as the
minister wanted that person. Now, it's three years with the opportunity for a
second three, so six years maximum.
Obviously, I think it's important that whoever's
appointed to the board, that they be staggering terms so that we don't have
wholesale changes and all of the institutional knowledge go out the door with
everyone that was there, so staggering the positions on the board is important.
I'm sure the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi would've been proud; I
asked a question about gender equity, actually, at the briefing, and I was told
that is definitely going to be a consideration for the board as well, so that's
good to hear.
Like I said, beyond that it's nothing here that we
wouldn't support, and I'll be voting for it.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
If
the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation speaks now, she will close debate.
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the Members who spoke to the bill, the
Member for Mount Pearl North, thank him for supporting these amendments that
we're bringing forward today.
He referenced in his district he has a lot of housing,
and I'm familiar with some, spent a little bit of time up in Masonic, and I have
some pleasant memories from there, actually, where those folks really are a
little community within your district. There are some good programs on the go
and we've been happy to support some through our Community Healthy Living
initiatives and things like that, because we recognize also that inclusion and
getting out and about is good for their physical and their emotional and mental
well-being.
I want to thank my colleague, my parliamentary
secretary, the MHA for Lewisporte - Twillingate for speaking, does a great job
assisting me in that really large social department, speaks very passionately
about the issues, and he referenced coming from a family of 15.
This is exactly why, Mr. Speaker, we have a quite a
daunting challenge on our hands right now. We have many, many large housing
units because we had the large families of yesteryear, but to this day and age
we have families, some that are having no children or some that are having one
or two, and we need to figure out how we take these large homes and we break
them down into smaller units, one- and two-bedroom units.
I want to recognize the Member for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi for supporting the bill. I'm sure there are lots of housing needs in
her district as well. I want to say to her, I was fairly new in my portfolio
when it was brought to my attention the need for those support workers connected
with the community centres. I went down and I met with five executive directors
and I understood clearly the need for going out into those little
neighbourhoods, where children are coming from school and that's where they are,
and the value of having supports right there for the people. We were happy to be
able to work through that and to address one of the needs there.
I've heard clearly from the Members, the importance of
maintaining some of the positions on the board in terms of staggering – I guess
we would call it – and having some of that institutional knowledge from the last
number of years there and not just having a whole slate of brand new board
members. So that's something we're certainly looking at as well.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi's comment about a housing division within government; now, I
will say that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing have some fantastic individuals
over there doing some great work, much of it in really challenging conditions.
We've recently – from AESL and from our regional health authorities – folded in
the transition houses and the emergency shelters. All part of a view with this
housing first approach. There are, I would call, experts over in housing. It's
about that housing continuum, all being housed under one roof.
In addition to that, here in this government, since I
have been in this portfolio, there has been tremendous strides to work across
departments to address things exactly like the Member talked about. Myself and
my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, my colleague, the
Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, we all work collectively.
Poverty reduction, Mr. Speaker; we recognize – just
like we're adopting a Health-in-All Policies approach – that reducing poverty is
something we need to work at because of the complexity of the nature of that
across departments. So I would say to the hon. Member, there's a lot of work
happening right now across departments when it comes to things like housing,
poverty reduction, unemployment issues and support those that we might consider
more marginalized or vulnerable in our society.
I also want to recognize the Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands and to thank him for his comments and supporting this bill.
I guess right now, Mr. Speaker, I'll just take my place
and see if my hon. colleagues have any questions as we move into Committee.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 40 be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act. (Bill 40)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Housing
Corporation Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 40)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social
Development, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Whole to consider
Bill 40.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 40, An Act To Amend The
Housing Corporation Act.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act.”
(Bill 40)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
I
would like to know if there will be consideration in the future to put the
staggering effect in for members of the board. Given that it is a possibility
that we could have the whole board resign the one time because their terms are
up. Is that a consideration we could look at?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
I
thank the Member for the question. Having spent much of my adult life on boards,
I certainly have a first-hand appreciation for the importance of that. We have a
number of members that are on the board finishing up. So one of the things we
could look at is not have the whole suite go out the door, to preserve some of
that institutional knowledge and to bring that to the new board members that
will come through the IAC process. So that's certainly something we're looking
at.
CHAIR:
The
hon. The Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Am
I correct in ascertaining that this will not actually result in any additional
costs? Because the original CEO, being the chair of the board, will get paid for
the meetings; whereas now, because it's two separate positions, the CEO gets his
or her salary and the chair will just get their per diem.
So am I correct in ascertaining that there will be no
increase in costs?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Member is correct, there's no additional expense.
The CEO was a paid position, and that'll continue to be a paid position. The
chair will be a volunteer member of the board, just like the directors.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Okay. Are there any efforts now under way to do energy audits on the units
within the purview of the Housing Corporation?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There is always ongoing review, but right now we have
been really down in the trenches for the last number of months working out the
bilaterals with the federal government wanting the best deal. They have some
targets they want to achieve nationally. We have some targets we want to achieve
provincially.
One of the things as a part of the energy efficiency
piece, would be taking some of those larger units and maybe a large house and
making it into two – what do you call that, it's not coming to me – two units –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Duplex.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Duplex – thank you to my colleagues – possibly looking at that as a
cost-effective way.
Also, as you would know, we have programs like our
Provincial Home Repair Program. We have a very big uptake in that program every
year as people want to move to make their homes more efficient. We have the Home
Energy Savings Program, that's always a big uptake there.
So I'm not sure if I answered your question. We have a
number of things happening. We also went out and we did a review over a period
of a number of months, and most of the recommendations that came back to us, I
think probably 16 so far, we have implemented. And the other three or four we've
heard as a part of that review, we're in the process of implementing right now.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
In
reference to the eye toward gender balance, I think that's going to be a very
difficult parameter or benchmark to meet on the account of – gender is no longer
a dual-defined division where we have – basically, if we're going to identify
specific genders, well, we must be inclusive to all forms of gender. Is that
something that we're going to have to deal with? Is that something that you have
considered?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll just remind the hon. Member that we have the
independent appointments process. It is a merit-based process. I don't have the
stats right in front of me now, but I believe when we look across our agencies,
board and commissions and the appointments that have happened to date, over the
last three years since the bill, we are running a pretty even balance there when
it comes to male and female.
In addition to that, with this particular act, there's
also some language around looking for regional representation because the
housing needs on the North Coast of Labrador may vary a little than probably
your district here in the city. There is a specific provision there for a person
to represent a disabilities community.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
I
have to be more specific when I come towards the gender balance. When we look at
there is no longer just male and female, we have LGBTQ and non-gender people. So
I really don't think that that's going to be able to be a target we're going to
be able to meet, that there's a gender balance. I think that we should be
looking more at the merits of the individual and not focus on either the male or
female gender.
Is that something that we can reconsider?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will say to the hon. Member, inclusion is something
that is very, very important to this government, and we've made many provisions
to ensure that we are an inclusive society accepting of all individuals. Even in
my department, I have groups from those that the Member would have referenced
that come in to me, that look for various supports and camps for youth that may
be struggling with different things. We've always been quite pleased to support
that.
The IAC process, as it stands, is a merit-based process
and we look for the gender, the male and female. There is nothing prohibiting
that a number of these people that come forward may actually self-identify in
other areas as well. There may be someone that applies and they self-identify as
an Indigenous person, or as a member of the LGBT community. We're certainly open
to that. But, first and foremost, we look at the individual's qualifications
because the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and their programs are
so, so important to the people of this province, you want the people who sit on
that board to be very qualified in the governance structure overseeing those
programs.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Would it also be a consideration that in addition to the members of the board
having a specific time frame, could we also consider the CEO being restricted to
a time frame as well, albeit I would imagine it would be longer than three
years?
So, is there a consideration for having the CEO – what
am I asking – have a specific – a defined term? There we go.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So we would go through the Independent Appointments
Commission to seek qualified individuals that would be interested in being the
CEO, but we wouldn't put a term on that – would you like to have a job for three
years, and then we're going to replace you.
Generally, if you apply for a job and you're doing a
good job, you're in that job for, I guess, what would be an undetermined amount
of time.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I say to the minister, we do that for four years now,
but I know it's a little different.
I just wanted a point of clarification to the minister.
It's not a big deal, but the minister did say earlier when asked about no
additional costs and so on that these are volunteer positions. I guess just for
clarity – and again, I know it's not a lot of money, but you might call it
volunteer but my understanding is that all the members of this board will
receive remuneration. They get, I don't know, is it $200 a day, or something
like that, for every day they sit.
They meet four or five times a year, usually for two
days at a time, so that's probably like $400 or $500 every time they meet, four
or five times a year, plus travel expenses and hotels and all that stuff. So,
yes, we appreciate what they do, I don't have a problem with the remuneration,
but there is remuneration. They're not doing it totally for free. Obviously if
the CEO was getting paid – he indicated that he wasn't getting additional money
as chair, well now with a new chair there would be that additional expense.
Again, we're only talking $3,000 or $4,000 a year or
whatever, but I'm just pointing it out for clarity and for facts in terms of the
debate. I think I would be correct.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Member is correct. It's a Tier 1 entity, so
obviously those people that would apply to sit on this volunteer board – it's a
volunteer board technically, but of course there would be expense associated
with those individuals travelling in for the meeting, those who in particular
who might be off the Avalon. The board would meet about four to six times a year
and they would be reimbursed for that expense.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, it's not a big deal but, for clarity, they get
reimbursed for expenses, but they also get paid a stipend of between $200 and
$300 per day in addition to reimbursement for travel and expenses and hotels and
stuff. That's correct, right?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
I
know, Madam Chair, that they get reimbursed for their travel expenses to the
meetings. If they get a daily stipend, I'm just waiting for an update on that.
I'm pretty sure they do; I just want to be certain before it goes on the record
here.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers, shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 11 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 11 inclusive.
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 11 carried.
CLERK:
Be
it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 40.
CHAIR:
The
motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 40.
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave,
Deputy Chair of Committees.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters
to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 40 without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 40 without
amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MS.
COADY:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the bill be read a third time?
MS.
COADY:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Committee of the
Whole on An Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of Public Health, Bill
37.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 37, An Act Respecting The
Protection And Promotion Of Public Health.
A bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion
Of Public Health.” (Bill 37)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell
Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's indeed an honour to stand here. We had a great
debate over the last number of days on this particular bill. It's a very
important bill here for the protection of our society and ensuring people's
security and safety and rights are adhered to.
So my first question here to the minister, I just need
an update on the consultation process that was used for this bill to be put
together.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
This has been brewing for a while, so it's not actually
just peculiar to this government. Although, I think the consultations were very
much on again and off again.
Essentially, from February 2018 we had a series of
face-to-face consultations. So that would be: RHAs, Department of Health and
Community Services, obviously, CSSD, Municipal Affairs and Environment, Service
Newfoundland and Labrador, Executive Council, because at that time, and
currently, that's where Health-In-All-Policies assessment is housed. We had
Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, and Nunatsiavut.
We had face-to-face in March, and an online survey
started in February. We had EngageNL at it. We had consultations on the draft
bill in the last couple of weeks, principally with the Newfoundland and Labrador
Public Health Association, but we also followed up with Nunatsiavut, Qalipu
First Nations, Miawpukek and Mushuau Innu First Nations.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the minister for that outline. It seems very
thorough and very inclusive there, great for that.
We asked this in the briefing, and I give credit to the
staff who were very thorough on their briefing of a very intense bill itself,
but I didn't get an explicit answer to the extra resources that may be necessary
– either internally with the Department of Health or with the regional health
authorities, or some other entity you may be partnering with – to ensure that if
indeed we have to invoke the protection plan here, that we have the resources to
do that.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The issue of resources is this work is going on at the
moment. It's not something we are not currently doing. What it does through the
act is to clarify roles and responsibilities. These existing functions already
exist.
What we are trying to do, and what will happen over
time, is certainly at the RHA level and the regional medical officer of health
level, there will be a reorientation of emphasis amongst various divisions
within the RHAs. It's a collaborative thing. We have PHAC, we have MUN, and we
have a variety of groups involved in this.
We don't anticipate in the short-to-medium term any
significant increase in expenditure that can't be met from existing budget. We
actually got federal money. We have three PHAC public health officers paid for
by the federal government. One, as recently as the last couple of months,
specifically for the addictions work. So we don't foresee, currently, any
significant increase in resource requirement.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to ask the minister to answer this, because
somebody had asked me to give a scenario in which we may enact the
responsibilities and rights and privileges here.
Can the minister just outline – I'm not talking for a
long logistical outline, but where the chief medical officer, health medical
officer would invoke this particular piece of legislation?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
I'm
taking from that question the issue around the orders and the 25 pages of
countervailing protections that are in there.
My experience in the office is only three years, but
it's been used once. The old legislation has been used once, and that was used
in a case of a gentleman with active tuberculosis who declined to comply with
treatment. Because of that, there was an order issued under the old legislation
for compulsory treatment. That process is simply one of supervised treatment.
There are various options open should the individual fail to comply, but, in
actual fact, none of those coercive measures were actually necessary. It was
simply a question of kind of pinning this guy down to a specific location each
day and observing him take his medication.
Again, it's a tiered response, depending on the level
of co-operation. That's probably the clearest example and the most likely one
that I can think of.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to look at section 54, that says: “A person who
reports a reportable event or who reports to an inspector or peace officer a
violation or suspected violation of this Act or the regulations, a code of
practice or an order made under this Act or the regulations is not liable to
civil action in respect of the allegation contained in the report or for
anything done in good faith to assist an inspector or peace officer …” and that.
Can you explain, are there any liabilities on an
individual? My fear is, since conversations I had with some entities, was that
somebody could inadvertently or flippantly or through vengeance start making
accusations on a constant basis that causes, obviously, havoc for the department
in having to send in inspectors and this type of thing, but also may have a
detrimental effect on the reputation of an individual or a company, or a loss of
revenue because an inspector comes in and shuts something down while they're
doing the investigation.
Is there a liability process here through assessment
that somebody eventually – or do we follow the same laws that are in play now
for false reporting?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much.
The assumption is that people will act in good faith
and responsibly. And the key there, word or phrase, is “in good faith.” The
whole issue of vexatious reporting and vexatious litigation is not specifically
mentioned in there and is dealt with in other statutes and other codes and
practice. But the assumption here is that by and large the vast majority of
people will act in good faith and responsibly.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate that answer.
Also here I'm looking at section 49 where we talk about
the different authorities that can make the call here, and it talks about chief
medical officer of health, regional medical officer of health, and environmental
health officer and a person or class of persons designated by the minister.
Can you give us some examples of what that may entail,
what particular individuals or group of individuals may also have those powers?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
I
think the first three are fairly self-explanatory. They are career paths. Chief
medical officers of health don't grow on trees, and indeed one of the things
that attracted Dr. Sarbu to the post on a permanent basis was the impending
passage of this legislation.
Regional medical officers of health, again, are usually
board certified or board eligible in public health in this country.
Environmental health officers actually have a unique set of skills which cross
both Service NL and public health arena.
The last piece is really one of those situations where
maybe you might want, under certain circumstances, to designate a public health
professional such as a public health nurse to have that capacity – under
circumstances that may be reasonable at the time, but I can't foresee now. It's
to build in that flexibility. I don't think it's ever envisaged again that the
RMOH or the minister is going to just drag some random individual off the street
and give them those kinds of powers.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm just looking at here section 43(4), “Where a person
subject to an order fails to pay the expenses related to an action performed
under subsection (1), the Chief Medical Officer of Health may issue a
certificate in respect of an amount by the person under the order and file it
with the Supreme Court.”
So who would pick up a cost at the beginning if there's
a cost incurred to demolish a building, remove something, secure something, as
part of the process at the beginning?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
That section of the act speaks of the onus of someone to react appropriately to
an instruction under this section of the act. If, however, that individual or
entity failed to do so, the authority exists for the action to be taken on the
authority of the officers under this act. Then, this gives the ability to file
an application with the court to reclaim those expenses from the person who
should have done it in the first place.
It's a protection for government so that we're not
perpetually on the hook for the omissions or the sins of omissions of others. By
filing it with the court, it gives it the effect of a court warrant.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm looking here at section 46(a), it notes the chief
medical officer advised or take reasonable steps to notify a person who is the
subject of an order. When we say reasonable steps, what are we talking about
there? That's section (a). What would be considered reasonable steps to notify
somebody that there's an order out against that individual?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
I'm
sorry I'm looking at section 46, but I don't think that's the right number.
MR.
BRAZIL:
We
are on page (inaudible.)
MR.
HAGGIE:
So
which paragraph are you referring to?
MR.
BRAZIL:
Advised or take reasonable steps to notify a person who is the subject of the
order (inaudible.)
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Well, I mean, firstly, to actually talk to the individual concerned and say you
haven't complied; secondly, to use any reasonable method of communication so
that, at the end of the day, there would be some evidence for anyone who has to
review this, because it is subject to review and it's subject to appeal. So that
there would be a chain of events that you could identify that said we did tell
you, we did do our level best to inform you that you were subject to an order so
that ignorance would not be admitted as a defence under those circumstances.
It would vary, the situation, but obviously actually
telling the person face to face if at all possible. But if someone's trying to
be evasive, and using the lack of ability for a medical officer or an
appropriate person to communicate with you, I think that all that has to be
demonstrated under this act is due diligence to make the reasonable effort to
show a reasonable individual that attempts were made to convey that information,
just somewhat, and that it was not possible, not through any lack of diligence.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you again, Madam Chair.
Under section 36(1): “Where an application has been
made for an apprehension order or an apprehension order that has been issued
under section 34, a regional medical officer of health may apply to the Supreme
Court for a treatment order.” I understand, obviously, it's part and parcel of
the process, but if there's a specific treatment that's necessary outside of the
province, who's responsible for arranging this, the costing and the supports
that may be part and parcel of that treatment order?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much.
I can't, just off the top of my head, envisage a
situation where that might be the case, except perhaps under a situation, say,
something like Ebola. Essentially, what would happen there, would be that we
have a process within the Department of Health for dealing with insured services
that would be provided outside the province because they're not available in,
and that process would be followed. That is a retrospective. The reimbursement
and the reconciliation of those bills is always done after the fact. The initial
is we get them out there to the care that they need. We'll worry about the money
afterwards.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair, again.
I'm looking at page 8 here, section 34, process to be
released. Under apprehension order, what would be the process used here to
release somebody from a particular order, and who would have the jurisdiction to
do that?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
The person who issued, or who's decision it was to apply for and obtain the
order in the first place – so, you would be looking at a regional medical
officer of health or chief medical officer of health. The process to release
them is either it expires because it's time-limited and not renewed or,
alternatively, the individual would be simply notified that you're no longer
subject to this examination and/or treatment order. So, it would be done in this
analogous way to the way that order was sought in the first place.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you again, Madam Chair.
I'm looking at restrictions to travel persons, and I
believe we're at section 28(h): “Make orders restricting travel to and from the
province or an area within the province.”
Who and what would that be based on directly making
those restrictions for travel, and what would that include? How would you
restrict? If you're out of the country, obviously you take away somebody's
passport. But how would you do that within the province?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Some of the details of that could be generated under regulation, but the one
that I'm familiar with in the past has been where you would want to isolate an
agricultural premise, for example. The Member for Mount Pearl North may have
some familiarity with processes in other jurisdictions, say, for foot and mouth
disease where you would want to protect an area. You simply mark it off, put
signage, put whatever footbaths are there that are appropriate. You would have
officers, inspectors there to monitor passage through that area.
In terms of restricting people's travel, again, that
could well be more of a blanket. These are unusual circumstances and really
would probably apply more to individuals who would then end up under some kind
of slightly different order. This is more envisaged in the case of epidemics
rather than in the case of an individual outbreak.
I think, under those circumstances, you would find that
there would be probably a significant amount of agitation and we may even then
find ourselves in declaration of a public health emergency where those
situations would be extraordinary.
So, individuals, that has happened in the past and I
allude to the case of TB, tuberculosis, that was mentioned before.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to look at section 16 here related to release of
medical information. “The Chief Medical Officer of Health, a regional medical
officer of health or other person acting under the authority of this Act or the
regulations may disclose personal health information without the consent of the
individual who is the subject of the information where (a) the Chief Medical
Officer of Health or regional medical officer of health reasonably believes that
the disclosure is necessary ….”
While I understand the necessity here, I do have a
concern because we're going to, in some cases if we run into this scenario,
probably be dealing with some people who have some mental health challenges or
are not co-operative in some way, shape or form.
Has the Privacy Commissioner been engaged here to give
you some advice on how and to what parameters you would have about releasing
particular health information on an individual?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
The
short answer is yes, the Privacy Commissioner has looked at this. The intent is
to alter the fear as well in the future, but effectively the way that the
Privacy Commissioner recommended was to make the chief medical officer of health
a custodian under the act, and we will be doing that.
The point I would also make is if you look at the
subsequent section, section 17, it also talks about some degree of monitoring of
that and taking reasonable steps to ensure that only the information that is
necessary is released, and that it's accurate before it goes out.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To add on to that, I just need a bit more
clarification. If you're accessing information from the Centre for Health
Information, would the same process be used for that, and the same roles and
responsibilities?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
The
concept around PHIA is circles of care. So, NLCHI, in the recent amendments to
the act that was passed in this House earlier, was actually made a custodian
under PHIA also.
So, what the intent has been, after discussion with the
Privacy Commissioner, was to keep everybody in this same level playing field.
Again, the short answer is, it's all part and parcel of the same protected yet
closely monitored arena.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you again, Madam Chair.
I thank the minister for that clarification here. I
have a question around the time frames for putting the regulations in play and
the process you're going to use.
Can you just explain that to us, please?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
It's funny enough, we were discussing that in the department actually with the
Deputy Minister of Justice and Public Safety today.
The time frame anticipated is July 1, 2019. A
significant chunk of this, in terms of the regulations, exists already, because
it's older legislation. What we need to do is simply to modernize the language
there and essentially import, having done that modernization, chunks of those
regulations into this act.
There will be newer areas where there is no regulation
currently, I'm thinking mainly of codes of practice. That isn't as pressing.
There is no time limit set for that. There will simply be a space left in the
regulation while we negotiate, for example, with business on a consultation
process to craft the regulations, which then in turn will contain its own
consultation process as part of crafting codes of practice.
So, we anticipate July 1, 2019.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the minister. I have one last question here
around the process, be it a public awareness campaign of being able to promote
this to the general public, so they would know their roles and responsibilities,
and how they can be supportive of a situation that they may not be aware of now
but that there would be certain identifying factors or issues that they could
report through the reporting process.
Is there a plan to put some kind of a public relations
campaign together, or an educational process?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
In
actual fact, one of the five pillars of this is around health promotion and kind
of at a meta-level, you could see that that kind of public education campaign
would be a key piece of this. Certainly, we would adopt a variety of strategies
to do that both at local and regional level through the RHAs and the public
health nurses that are out there, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Public
Health Association, through things like NLMA and ARNL.
We're working on a communications plan to make sure the
general public are aware of what we're doing. To be quite honest, I think what
will happen with the communications piece is as each of these five cores starts
to gain critical mass and a life of its own, each of them will have their own
individual communications plan.
I see communications as a key piece of this going
forward.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Because of the specific measures of orders that we see
in the legislation, I'd ask the minister: Was the Newfoundland and Labrador
Human Rights Commission consulted? Did they take a look at this legislation
before it came to the House?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much.
With the infringement or curtailment of personal
liberties, the legislation that is paramount in this country is in actual fact
the Constitution Act and the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms where, on the
recommendation of our constitutional advisors, we settled on that higher
standard rather than looking at what is a provincial legal code.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I would have thought
that, though, it would have been something to do –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS.
ROGERS:
–
in addition to not exclusive of, that we do have a functioning Newfoundland and
Labrador Human Rights Commission and I'm surprised that it would not have been
consulted.
I understand that some of the regulations will be in
place for proclamation by July 1. I'm wondering: Will there be any further
consultation before that time?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
The
principal area of consultation really will be around the new pieces. The old
pieces are essentially just modernizing the language of the status quo. As I
referenced when the Member of Conception Bay East - Bell Island spoke, we will
look to consultations with industry groups around the crafting of regulations
for codes of practice and also what kind of consultation mechanism they feel
there should be for developing specific codes of practice. So, again, yes.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
So I'd ask the minister: Would he be open to having our
provincial Human Rights Commission look at the legislation before he proclaims
it on July 1?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
As
I say, I have no problem with anyone looking at this. It's an excellent piece of
legislation. It will stand anybody's scrutiny. Indeed, I was really quite amazed
with the fulsome praise on Open Line
the other day from the president of the Public Health Association who, when
asked if he would change anything in the act, he said: No, this is the best
you're going to get today.
So the short answer is I'm quite happy for anyone to
look at this act but I think the important thing is to remember that this House
of Assembly is the place where these acts have to come first. These bills have
to be seen first by us in this House. That's our job, that's our responsibility
and that's also our authority. But I'm quite happy to show this to anybody once
you pass it.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
But I'm not talking about just showing it to somebody
after it's passed. I think we have agencies and commissions in place whose role
specifically is to be consulted on legislation and policy.
So I would ask the minister: Was there any gender lens
applied to this particular piece of legislation? Was there an assessment done by
the Women's Policy Office applying a gender lens to it?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Madam Chair, prior to bills being presented on the floor of this House it goes
through an extensive consultation process and Women's Policy Office is part of
that process.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
So I would ask the minister then specifically: Did this
legislation pass through the Women's Policy Office and did they write a report?
Did they give any opinion on it in its draft form?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
For
clarity, every piece of legislation that comes to this House goes through
Women's Policy Office. Any recommendations from Women's Policy Office would have
been incorporated into this act.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would ask the minister: Was it referred to the
Disability Policy Office for consultation as well?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
For
my previous comments, insert Disability Policy Office where I said Women's
Policy Office.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MR.
ROGERS:
Again, because of the breadth of this particular bill – and I also feel it is a
very good piece of legislation and it modernizes our public health legislation.
So I would ask the minister: Was the immigration policy
office consulted on this as well?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Ditto.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MR.
ROGERS:
Okay.
Looking at the five-year plan that the legislation asks
the chief medical officer of health to do every five years, will there be any
new resources required or allocated for the chief medical officer of health to
be able to, in fact, do that?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
If
the chief medical officer of health feels that he or she needs further
resources, my door is always open.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers, shall the motion carry?
The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.
MR.
ROGERS:
The minister said that Health and Community Services, in fact, had a public
health forum and the bill largely emerged from that.
Can he tell us a bit about that forum? How many people
were there, who was invited, and were they able to review any of the direction
that the minister was going in with this bill prior to presenting it to the
House?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much.
The attendees at the public health workshop in February
were public health representatives from the four RHAs, representatives from the
departments of: Health and Community Services; Children, Seniors and Social
Development; Municipal Affairs and Environment; Service Newfoundland and
Labrador; Health-in-All-Policies through Executive Council; Public Health Agency
of Canada; Nunatsiavut Government.
Face-to-face external consultation was launched in May.
Since then, the draft was then reviewed with the Public Health Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador and Indigenous groups, which I listed before – risk of
mispronouncing – Nunatsiavut, Qualipu, Miawpukek and Mushuau Innu First Nation.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.
MR.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
So I ask the minister: Was there any outreach to
women's groups across the province to be part of having that input through his
workshop?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Well, I've referenced Women's Policy Office already. In addition to this, there
was a widespread, well-publicized request for input through online EngageNL. We
have gone very far I think with the consultation process on this act. So I'm
comfortable that we have done the due diligence in this area.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I understand when the minister says they reached out by
inviting consultation online. But he had a specific forum – I think it was
called a forum when we were at the briefing, but you've called it, minister, a
workshop. So there were no women's groups who have the expertise on the ground
about how health and public health impacts women. I would have thought that
would be something the minister would really want to do. So there was no
invitation then to specific on the ground women's groups about this major, major
piece of work around a health population.
I ask the minister: Was there any specific outreach to
women's groups?
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers, shall the motion carry?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think the issues that my colleague is pointing out
are very important issues. If we are going to have a piece of legislation as
important as this piece of legislation, then it is really essential that anybody
who has an interest in it gets invited to consultations and gets to make their
presentation based on their experience. So the issues around the concerns for
immigration, the issues around the concerns for women, the issues around human
rights concerns are very important.
So I'm asking the minister: Would he tell us who was
invited to the consultations?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Once more, public health representatives from the four regional health
authorities; representatives from the Department of Health and Community
Services; Children, Seniors and Social Development; Municipal Affairs and
Environment; Service Newfoundland and Labrador; Executive Council; Public Health
Agency of Canada; Nunatsiavut Government – Nunatsiavut Government again was
consulted – Qalipu First Nation; Miawpukek First Nation; Mushuau Innu First
Nation.
Cabinet process, as Members opposite are aware, would
require input from departments I've already listed: Disability Policy Office,
Immigration through AESL, and Women's Policy Office.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
We know that it looks like there will be more
responsibility, more duties for public health nurses, or community health
nurses. That's a good thing; I think that direction is really encouraging.
But we already know that they have been so cut to the
bone, so it looks like that there will be an expansion in the requirements for
them and the type of work that they can do, particularly in health promotion and
health prevention, and that's a good thing, so it might require more resources.
I ask the minister: Will there be any resources, extra
resources, assigned or provided so that, again, public health nurses who have
been so cut to the bone, and we see the direction in trying to include them more
in this great legislation – what's the consideration in terms of the need for
extra resources for public health nurses?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
The
work that will be undertaken in the short and medium term under this act is work
that is currently ongoing. What will happen with time is, as the other core
activities of public health become more activated, as it were, on the ground in
terms of health promotion and these kinds of things, there will possibly need to
be a shift within the RHAs to accommodate that.
We are doing public health promotion. We are doing
disease surveillance. We are doing public health child clinics, vaccination
clinics. All the activities that this act talks about are not starting from
scratch on the 1st of July 2019. They are simply being put into a single,
cohesive, coherent framework that goes from being the last of the pack, in terms
of Canadian jurisdictions, to being the leading light, not just on the East
Coast, but across the country.
None of this is new. It's simply going to be done in a
coherent and cohesive way.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Minister, again, in terms of the proclamation target
date for July 1, you've said that not all the regulations will be completed in
time for that. Can you just identify – I may have missed that. You may have
already identified this, so you'll have to forgive me if that's the case. Can
you identify the priority regulations that you want to target for July 1?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Essentially, again, the work that is going on at the moment is the work that
will continue under this new act. The regulations that exist at the moment need
to be modernized principally in terms of language. They exist currently. The new
bits are the ones which will need crafting from scratch. That is where the work
between now and July will focus.
The area that will probably get left behind, as it
were, in terms of priorities is the really new area about non-communicable
diseases to some extent but, principally, around codes of practice. We never
ventured into that space before.
So, part of the ongoing work of the department will be
to have that consultation with industry and other stakeholders about how to
craft regulations around codes of practice and, in those regulations, what kind
of consultation mechanism about the regulations on an ongoing basis would be
necessary.
I think that answers the question. The regulations that
we will be using will be modernized versions of the ones we have already.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
It is my hope, Minister, that you would consider in
crafting those regulations, particularly in the new areas that this legislation
is moving into in terms of chronic disease, et cetera, that there would be a
very specific and targeted outreach to women's groups, particularly women's
groups who deal with women and health issues so that they can also be helpful in
strengthening this in any way that it possibly can be to make sure that we have
the best possible legislation that takes fully into account as well the needs of
women and health.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
I
take the Leader of the Third Party's comments. I mean, we do already have work
ongoing. We do have a chronic disease action plan. We have a diabetes strategy.
We will have a variety of other strategies being unveiled, as it were, over the
course of the early part of next year.
It's not as though we're not actually doing women's
health at the moment. Certainly, on an ongoing basis, those are much more
operational level issues than necessarily policy or legislative issues.
I wouldn't like anyone to think at the end of that
question that there is nothing in these areas, because there is. Certainly, on
an ongoing basis, this is going to be a living document in the way that all good
legislation should be. Because of that and because of the five-year review and
the five-year plans, there will be ample opportunity for people to come back at
the end of a period of time and say that worked or that didn't, and we'll listen
to that.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just had a couple of things I wanted to say because
we are talking about the health act, which is very broad. I guess when we talk
about health, there are a couple of areas in particular I just want to comment
on. First of all, long-term care, which is obviously going to be part of this.
I presented a petition, as well the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi, on behalf of a group called the Advocates for Senior
Citizens' Rights, specifically to legislation that they're looking for entitled
Lillian's Law is what they refer it as. Obviously, that wouldn't necessarily be
what the legislation would be called, if there was such legislation. Overall,
their concern with long-term care deals with staffing ratios and so on.
I've heard many stories through that group and other
people have reached out to me about concerns with seniors in long-term care
homes throughout the province, not just in this area but certainly Central
Newfoundland is one area in particular that I've heard a lot of complaints about
as it relates to not having enough staffing, not having proper staffing ratios;
about seniors who are in long-term care that are there for extended periods of
time, lying in their own body fluids and so on because the staffing is not there
to ensure their changed out; issues around seniors not being fed, simply food
being put in front of them and then the person leaves but they're not actually
eating the food, perhaps they are not able, and there's no one to help them eat
the food.
I am certainly hearing issues about seniors falling,
hearing issues in particular about seniors who are perhaps with dementia,
Alzheimer's and so on that are in sort of like a day room type setting and
there's no staff person there to make that they don't hurt themselves, or that
they don't hurt other patients through no fault of their own because of the
disease that they're suffering from.
So, I would certainly say, and just to put on the
record and for the minister – and I'm not suggesting – I know he's aware of
these things, and I'm sure he's committed to trying to improve things, but I
think it is important, when we're talking about public health, we're talking
about an aging demographic, that this issue around long-term care goes way
beyond bricks and mortar.
It's great that we're building new long-term care
facilities. I certainly applaud the government on that. I believe there's
certainly a need for that, but bricks and mortar isn't going to cut it if the
people that are actually in those facilities are not being cared for properly.
Those people, of course, are our grandparents, our parents and, one day, some of
us sooner than others, it's going to be us.
It is something that we all have to be concerned about,
and I think it's important as we look at – I know this is sort of a broader
perspective, this legislation is, but certainly long-term care is an issue that
currently exists and the need is only going to get greater with the aging
demographic that we have. It is important that as the policies and the
regulations, which we don't get to debate in this House of Assembly – which is
nothing new, it's just the way it works. We all understand that. But the
regulations and the policies, which we don't get to debate, that will be
developed, flowing from this, I certainly hope that we're going to be working
hard to address the issue of seniors' care in long-term care.
The other thing I want to mention around seniors' care
is personal care. I listened to the minister in Question Period talking about
there are only five homes that have an issue with personal care and the new
policies or at least – I don't know if they're new policies, or the strict
interpretation of existing policies. I can't say to the minister if that's right
or not. I don't know if there are five; I really don't.
I can speak to the fact that there are at least two in
my area, because I've spoken to two. Actually, one in my area and one in Mount
Pearl North, but I don't draw lines through Mount Pearl, really; Mount Pearl is
Mount Pearl. But at least two in that area that have the same concern as Mr.
Oram and his home has, about this new interpretation, or this enhanced
interpretation around personal care.
Again, as we're developing these policies – which we
don't get to debate on the floor because polices, of course, are going to be
made by the department and by the health authorities and so on, flowing from
regulations which are made by the minister and Cabinet, not anyone in this House
of Assembly – I just want to say for the record and for the minister that people
are concerned about personal care as well. I think everyone understands there
has to be priorities. Obviously someone that has, what he would refer to as
clinical need and so on, would have to be a higher priority than those that do
not.
But when you think about seniors – and in the past, if
you were a senior, you were living home, and let's say for argument's sake your
spouse died. Now you have a senior maybe 80 years old, for argument's sake,
living in the house. More often than not female, because men tend to pass
quicker than females; that's just a fact. But now all of a sudden you have this
lady, she's in her house and she's by herself. She's able to get up and get
herself dressed, she's able to bathe herself and get herself a cup of tea; but,
at the end of the day, she's finding it very, very difficult to maintain her
house, to do the laundry, to do the cleaning. She's finding it very difficult
and stressful and worried about how do I get the grass cut, how do I get the
snow shovelled. Worrying about the bills and all this kind of stuff. Finding it
difficult to do basic things in the house. Not that she can't do it, but she
finds it difficult to do.
Finding it lonely, social isolation – a lot of seniors
I've dealt with are scared; they're literally frightened to death, especially
when they turn on the news, they hear about break and entries and stuff.
Frightened to death in their house by themselves. Especially in the nighttime,
they're afraid to be there. In the past, they could just go in to a personal
care home where they're taken care of. What we're hearing now, and I've heard it
directly from homes and from families, and other Members have as well, we can
deny it's happening, but it is happening, that those seniors are being told
you're not getting in a personal care home, or you may be on the list for a long
period of time trying to get in there, because the subsidies are not meeting the
demand of seniors wanting to go into these personal care homes.
I say to the minister, it is a real issue. You'll say
the policy hasn't changed; you'll say we're just putting a stricter enforcement
of the policy. Well, the stricter enforcement is a concern for many seniors in
this province and for their families. So, as we are addressing these issues
around health and so on contained within this bill – which I support, and it's
good legislation. Not knocking it one bit. Support it 100 per cent, really do.
But as we're developing regulations, as policies are flowing from those
regulations, we have to bear in mind the aging demographic, the seniors in our
province who have contributed a lifetime – like I said, our grandparents, our
parents, and one day, God willing, us, and it's very important that we get this
right.
There are concerns out there. I certainly ask the
minister to take that into consideration. I know he is. I'm not going to accuse
him – I'm not going to say the minister doesn't care. I know he does; we all do.
But it still is important to know that these concerns are real and they're out
there. If I'm hearing about it, and other Members over here are hearing, I can
guarantee to you there are Members on that side of the House hearing it too –
guaranteed. There's no way they're not hearing it.
It is a concern, and I'd certainly ask the minister to
put some focus and some energy on dealing with this issue that we have with this
aging demographic. It's very important to everybody, I think, in the province.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much.
In no particular order, and whilst I didn't hear a
question, I think I will use the opportunity just to stand and address a couple
of things. This bill is about public health and health promotion. Sometimes it's
very difficult – and maybe my oratory has failed to separate the clinical, the
individual patient, from the population approach that this act is concerned
with.
The Member opposite raises important points, but raises
important points that do not fall, directly, under this act at all. The issue of
long-term care is one that is important. The health of seniors is certainly
something that, in aggregate, that public health, as a discipline, would
address. However, the issue around standards of care in long-term care are very
much duties and responsibilities of the regional health authority. There is a
patient safety quality assurance act, which was recently passed by this House,
which actually directly addresses any concerns brought to the RHA by anybody
about the standard of care in one of their facilities, if it falls below
acceptable or best practice. So, that area is not germane to this act.
The other piece around personal care homes, again,
unfortunately there's some conflation with what we're talking about here.
Personal care homes provide an invaluable service. I am not going to repeat what
I said in Question Period about some of the validity of the comments that are
out there, but I will, as a matter of fact, insert into the record that, outside
of Central Health, the only reason for people waiting for a personal care home
place is that they are waiting for a home of their own choice, not a bed that is
vacant in a personal care home. That is the only reason.
For those people who are waiting, the average wait is
two to three months. That has not changed between 2018, 2017 or 2016. Over the
province, there is a 17 per cent vacancy rate, in aggregate, across the personal
care homes of this province.
So, that's just to read into the record some correction
for some of the inaccuracies that are out there. I'm happy to debate that, but
this is not the place to do that. This is around a public health act and this
stands by itself as, literally, a landmark beacon of legislation across this
country, not just on the Eastern Seaboard.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I say to the Minister of Health when he's talking about
the 17 per cent vacancy rate in the aggregate, I'm not disputing that there's
not a vacancy rate. I don't think anyone – I don't know, maybe people are
disputing it. I'm not. The issue is not around vacant beds.
CHAIR:
I
remind the hon. Member for relevance. Please keep –
MR.
LANE:
Pardon me?
CHAIR:
I
remind the hon. Member to keep relevant to the bill, please.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To my understanding, this is about the public health
act. It covers a whole broad range of things. The minister indicated it does
cover a broad range. I'm just making that point, but I will try to keep it more
on track, Madam Chair.
I would just say that the 17 per cent vacancy rate in
the aggregate has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is around subsidies.
I'm not talking about open, empty beds, we're talking about subsidized –
subsidized, that's the key; seniors who need a subsidized accommodation. There
are not enough subsidies. So, you can have a bunch of rooms there that if people
can afford to pay for them and if they can't – which is why there're vacant.
There are not enough subsidies for people who can't afford to pay the full shot.
That's the issue.
I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair, other than to say
that I do realize, I say to the minister, that I was being a bit specific about
certain things. I do realize what the bill is about. It's not that I don't
realize; it's that I was using the opportunity to raise a very important issue
on behalf of seniors in this province. That's why I raised it and my comments
remain the same.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers, shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 67 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 67 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 67 carried.
CLERK:
Be
it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of Public Health.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I
move, Madam Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 37.
CHAIR:
The
motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 37.
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.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave
and Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee of the Whole has considered the matters
to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 37 without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 37 without
amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered
read a third time presently, by leave.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I call Order 3, third reading of Bill 37.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Does the Member require consent of the House?
CLERK:
No.
MR.
SPEAKER:
No,
okay.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I
know we shouldn't question the Speaker, but maybe you shouldn't question the
House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Right, it was Committee and then third reading.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
It's Thursday, Mr. Speaker, we're all a little stir crazy.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health
and Community Services, that Bill 37, An Act Respecting The Protection And
Promotion Of Public Health be now read a third time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
The motion is carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of Public Health. (Bill 37)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and
its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection
And Promotion Of Public Health,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title
be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour, that the House do now adjourn.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, ‘nay.'
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, the
third day of December, at 1:30 o'clock.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.