Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 15 June 2010 (46th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLVI No. 38)
2010-06-15
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
June
15, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 38
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today the following members' statements will be heard: the
hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the
Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District
of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; and
the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.
The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Rhonda Martin, a
physical education teacher at Cloud River Academy in Roddickton, who received
the Newfoundland and Labrador Coach of the Year Award at the School Sport
Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Awards Banquet that was held in St. John's on
June 4. Since the awards inception in 1975, Ms Martin is the first female to
receive this honour.
Ms Martin who was nominated for this award by Alexandra Ellsworth, a student
who on is on her girls three-time provincial winning volleyball team, coaches
volleyball, softball, badminton and ball hockey at the Roddickton school. Ms
Martin had always enjoyed the sport in high school, so becoming a high school
physical education teacher and sports coach was just a natural progression.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating Ms Martin on this wonderful achievement and wish her well in her
future endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to once again recognize the
Summerside Rockets 4-H Club who travelled to Riverhead on Friday, June 4 for the
Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial 4-H Competitions.
Mr. Speaker, there was twenty-plus competitors from all over the Province
competing in public speaking and demonstration competitions.
There were junior and senior public speaking, junior and senior single
demonstrations and finally junior and single double demonstrations.
The Summerside Rockets sent the following district competitors to the
competitions: Wilfred Bellows, single junior demonstration; Abigail Blanchard,
junior public speaking; Brook Otto and Melissa Taylor, junior double
demonstration; and Melissa Brake and Sarah Brake for senior double
demonstration.
Mr. Speaker, all of the above competitors in each of these categories were
the top winners for the Province. I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate all winners for a job well done.
Mr. Speaker, the club was formed fifty years ago when the rockets started
flying out in space and the leaders and members of the club have been aiming at
the sky ever since.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members here today to recognize the
accomplishments of these fine young people.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Ed Lawrence on
being inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame on June 5.
Ed currently resides in Pasadena and is an active member of the Humber Valley
Senior Citizens' Club.
Ed Lawrence put an extremely impressive fifteen-year senior hockey career
together as an extremely talented and effective defenceman who was universally
respected for his exceptional sportsmanship for the Corner Brook Royals.
Mr. Speaker, he played a major role in four Herder Memorial Trophy provincial
championships that the Royals won in 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1968. Twice selected
as top defenceman, he won one sportsmanship and ability award, and was a
standout Royals player in 1968 in the National Allan Cup series against
Victoriaville, Quebec.
Regarded as the strongest player during his career, he drew his nickname
"Diesel" because of strong skating ability that was often shown by his on-ice
performances.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to his strong, solid skating and his great ability
to get the puck out of his zone, he always displayed an impressive knowledge of
hockey. His hard work in games and in practices, as well as the friendship he
earned with teammates like Danky Dorrington, were important aspects of Corner
Brook's successes in provincial hockey.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating Ed Lawrence on being inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador
Hockey Hall of Fame.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you have slept well.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate and recognize Mr. Luke
Neville, a teacher at St. Peter's Junior High School, on his recent achievement
in being selected for a National Inclusive Education Award from the Canadian
Association for Community Living and Inclusive Education Canada.
Mr. Neville teaches physical education. At the Volley Fest tournament in
January of this year, he helped showcase St. Peter's inclusive nature by
embracing the spirit of inclusion. His tireless efforts and dedication are to be
commended.
Luke is well known to his peers as a leader who always does what he can to
encourage and engage those students who are reluctant to participate. He
constantly changes and modifies activities for students to ensure that they
remain interested. His dedication to inclusion for all students is admirable and
inspiring. His efforts have no doubt led to the success of many students in the
area of physical education. By helping to develop positive relationships between
students at St. Peter's Junior High, Mr. Neville has helped create an
environment of mutual respect.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr.
Luke Neville on this great honour and wish him all the best as he continues his
efforts on ensuring inclusion for all students at St. Peter's Junior High.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, in April 2010, the Canadian Powerlifting
Competition was held in Quebec City. Two young athletes from my district, Stacey
and Stephen Price, a brother and sister team, represented this Province in their
weight classes.
Stacey, a nineteen-year-old second year Memorial University student, won a
medal at this event. She set a Canadian record for bench press in her weight
category. Stacey was presented with the Premier's Award for Athletic Excellence
on May 20. She currently holds eight provincial powerlifting records, and will
represent our Province in the World Sub-Junior and Junior Powerlifting
Competition in Prague, Czech Republic as part of the Canadian twenty-two person
team in August of this year.
Stephen is an eighteen-year-old Level III student at St. Kevin's High School,
Goulds. He plans to attend Memorial University in the fall to do a physical
education degree. He currently holds eight provincial records in two weight
categories and recently set a new Canadian deadlift record during the April
Quebec Nationals. He too will be part of the Canadian team in Prague this
summer.
Both of these athletes train in a homemade gym in their family shed. They
have spent countless hours training and volunteering in their sport while
holding down part-time jobs and excelling at their school work. Their story is
another example of the quality of the youth in our Province.
I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating these two
fine young people.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has demonstrated its
commitment to developing the growing, $850 million tourism industry in this
Province, and most people are aware of our investments in marketing Newfoundland
and Labrador as a traveller's destination of choice.
I rise in this hon. House today, Mr. Speaker, to draw particular attention to
our efforts to extend tourism activity beyond the traditional peak season.
I had an opportunity in mid-May to attend the opening weekend of the Trails,
Tales and Tunes festival with my colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, which has
become a signature event which helps kick off the tourism season on the West
Coast of our Province.
While I was there, I was told on several occasions that our $14,000 support
of this event helped increase visitation and provide an early boost to tourism
operators and other local businesses. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one local business
owner had sales in one day that would normally take one week.
We know this is true of the other season extension investments on the West
Coast, which include the Feather and Folk Festival on the Southwest Coast, and
the Humber Valley Spring in Your Step Festival, to which the provincial
government has provided $19,000 and $10,500 respectively.
Mr. Speaker, there is great potential for further development of our tourism
industry. To the end of April, we are seeing a 7 per cent increase in visitor
traffic over the same period in 2009, and a 21 per cent increase in visits to
our Web site, Newfoundlandandlabrador.com.
We hope and expect this will continue, Mr. Speaker, and that the 2010 year
will be one of the best if not the best tourism season to date.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his press release and his
ministerial statement.
We would certainly applaud the government in providing funding to the ones
that the minister has noted. We also feel that there should be contributions
made to the many other festivals we have here. For the small amount of money
that one puts in, there is certainly a great return on it.
We have all kinds of these festivals around the Province which have taken on
a life of their own in terms of generating revenue. We have the Labrador Straits
Bakeapple Festival; the Burgeo Sand and Sea Festival; we have Mary's Harbour and
Triton crab festivals; we have the Brigus and St. George's blueberry festivals.
Every few dollars that these people get it comes back tenfold.
I have seen the minister put out press releases in the past that talked about
not only attracting tourists from outside the Province but the interprovincial
tourism as well. These festivals add greatly to it.
I know on the West Coast there are whole groups who have trailers, for
example, who make a point now of travelling around each summer to different
locations. Of course, they spend money, and that is what it is all about. In
terms of tourism, it keeps the many people that we have who operate B&Bs,
hotels, motels, service stations and food establishments and students employed
in the summertime.
We applaud the money that is going in, and hopefully if we had a few more
bucks to spread around to the rest of them it would be that much better as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am glad to see
that he was out at the Trails, Tales and Tunes festival in Norris Point. It is a
great festival that Anita Best and others have worked hard on getting set up out
there.
The minister talks about a 7 per cent increase in visitor traffic, and that
is good, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if we could have a breakdown some time
and I know the department has this of visitors who are from in Province and
those who are coming from outside the Province. Because while it is important to
get residents in the Province to visit our own tourism areas and a lot of
people do not get around the Province and it is good to do that - we also get a
lot of economic benefit from attracting visitors from outside as well.
I would like to recognize the recent government commission rental vehicle
report which proved what the hospitality industry has been saying about rental
cars. I do know, having heard the minister in the news, that he is working with
Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador to help find solutions with regard to the
rental cars. I am really glad to see that co-operation between the minister and
the industry.
Other issues that I would like the minister to look at is more training for
workers in the hospitality industry and attention to young workers who get hired
in the summer, and how we can continue young workers in that trade in industry
throughout the whole year.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, during the Finance Minister's Budget consultations, personal
care home operators made a lengthy submission to government of some of the
challenges that they face asking government to address their problems. The
personal care association, Mr. Speaker, did an independent review on the impacts
that changes of this government's board and lodging rates as well as the
increase in minimum wage would have on their business. The report verified, Mr.
Speaker, what the home owners have already known that the monthly subsidy
increase for seniors in personal care homes were not sufficient.
I ask the minister today: Will government commit to granting an appropriate
rental rate so that the personal care homes in this Province can provide the
kind of service that is being legislated by government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government has invested over $200 million since its first mandate to
address high priority needs within the system. Mr. Speaker, there has been $110
million invested in infrastructure and $103 million in home support wages and
personal care homes. To put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, there has been $38.5
million invested since 2005-2006 to increase the home support hourly subsidy
rates. Since 2004, government has increased the personal care home subsidy rate
from $1,172 to $1,717; increased by $584 a month, Mr. Speaker, since 2004.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the steps we are
taking are certainly ones that should be seen as very positive, ones that are
addressing the needs in the community, and ones that we continue to work on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister also knows that along with those increases came very specific
legislation and requirements of personal care home owners that actually clawed
back a great deal of what those subsidies were.
One of the challenges, Mr. Speaker, that they have is financing for small
personal care homes. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation offers
long-term financing rates to larger personal care homes with fifty beds or more,
however, the financing options for smaller homes are not the same.
We are asking the minister today: If government will assist with mortgage
loan insurances, which the larger homes access though Canadian Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, and make those kinds of programs allowable to small
personal care homes through provincial revenues, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation that the
member opposite talks about.
I recently met with one of the larger personal care homes and they are not
even looking for increases in the amounts of subsidies. They are looking for
ways that we can improve their ability to offer service, but, Mr. Speaker, let's
look at - not only did I outline what we have done since 2004, let's look at
what we have done in the 2010 Budget to deal with the issues of personal care
homes.
Mr. Speaker, we put $8.9 million in this year's Budget for an increase in the
home support hourly subsidy rate by an additional seventy-five cents on July 1,
2010. We, Mr. Speaker, invested $3.2 million to increase the personal care home
subsidy rate and the number of portable subsidies to expand to respond to
current personal care home wait-lists. So, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the
personal care home subsidy by another $73, to $1,717 from $1,644, with a hundred
new portable subsidies. Mr. Speaker, again I reiterate that since 2004 we have
increased the personal care home subsidy rate from $1,172 to $1,717.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What the minister fails to mention, Mr. Speaker, is that over those same
periods of time they have also forced additional costs upon these home owners
for staffing requirements, Mr. Speaker, and new formulas that they have
introduced into the system.
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not give us any assurances as to whether the
provincial government will make available a program for small personal care home
operators in the Province. I would like to ask him again, Mr. Speaker, because
when government last addressed this issue they referred to the program under
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, but we know that that program, Mr.
Speaker, has interest rates that are probably three times higher than what the
federal loans program is that is afforded to larger operators.
I ask you, minister: Are you prepared to look at a program that will meet the
needs of these home operators?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we have indicated on numerous occasions, and as I have indicated in this
House and publicly, we are committed to providing the services required to allow
our seniors to be treated with dignity and respect, but it does not mean, Mr.
Speaker, focusing on one particular area. What we are looking at, we have
increased the home care subsidy rates. We have increased the personal care home
subsidy rates, but let's also look, Mr. Speaker, at what we are doing with our
infrastructure. We have invested, Mr. Speaker, this year, $27.3 million for the
continuation and development of long-term care in St. John's for 460 residents.
We were in Corner Brook last weekend where we opened up a beautiful facility in
Corner Brook. Happy Valley-Goose Bay, a facility is opening up. We have
announced a facility in Carbonear that will house 250 people.
So what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to deal with all aspects of
providing services to our seniors, and it does not simply mean focusing on one
particular area, such as smaller personal care homes. There is a much larger
picture, and we are addressing that picture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the minister chooses to confuse the
issue. He is talking about apples and oranges.
Long-term care and personal care homes are two very different groups of
people that are being served, minister, and people with two very different sets
of needs, I say. A senior living in a personal care home has to give up their
entire pension cheque and gets to keep about $150 of expenses for that month. In
last year's Budget, government provided a cap on home care rates in the Province
so that seniors would have to pay significantly less for home care services.
However, they did not provide the same treatment for those who wanted or needed
to go into a home.
I ask the minister: When will government put a subsidy rate in place for
personal care homes that is on par with the subsidy rate for people who are
choosing home care?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, it is not the minister who is choosing to
confuse the questions; it appears to be the Leader of the Opposition who either
does not understand or simply refuses to understand and thereby is confusing the
issue.
What we are looking at is a continuum of care, Mr. Speaker. We want to keep
our seniors in their homes as long as possible, so home care becomes very
important there. What did we do last year? We increased the various rates there,
Mr. Speaker, to assist in that respect. Then we continued to build our long-term
care facilities. We are increasing personal care home subsidy rates. We are
looking at, Mr. Speaker, the long-term care strategy, and as I have indicated,
we hope to be doing consultations this summer.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at that continuum of care. The smaller
personal care homes are part of it, but it is a private business, Mr. Speaker,
just as the bigger, long-term excuse me, personal care homes. It is a
business. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is provide the levels of care
from level one to level four, but always allowing for our seniors to remain in
their homes if they can do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will tell you what I am not confusing here, and that is the letter that was
sent by the Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, to a personal
care home operator in this Province saying that the plight of personal care home
operators were unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I am not confusing the fact that the seventy-five cents that the
minister talks about in increases is also subject to clawbacks in allowances by
the federal government. They are the only government, Mr. Speaker, that has done
that since they have been in power.
In the last Budget, Mr. Speaker, personal care homes received an increase of
$73 per person per month. We have spoken to the Personal Care Home Association
that represents about forty of the smaller homes and eight of the larger homes
in rural areas of the Province. No one from this association was consulted to
determine the effect the increase would have for these homes.
I ask the minister: If you are not talking to this association or any of its
members, why not, and who are you talking to when making these policy changes?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite refers to the letter written by the Premier referring to
the plight of the personal care homes. I think we have addressed that and I have
gone through this in great detail today.
Mr. Speaker, when you see an increase of $584 since 2004, that is a
significant increase in the personal care home subsidy. When you see in this
Budget alone, Mr. Speaker, an increase of $8.9 million for a seventy-five cent
increase in the home support hourly subsidy rate, we are continuing to invest,
Mr. Speaker, in our long-term care and community support services. We are, Mr.
Speaker, continuing to build infrastructure. These are significant investments,
Mr. Speaker, and one of the reasons we have to do it, because when this group
was in government they did not do anything at all. They let these people suffer
in silence. The Premier wrote that letter and we have addressed the situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I say to the minister, they are not suffering in silence now; they are
making their views quite known.
Mr. Speaker, the preliminary work shows that personal care homes in this
Province, compared to the rest of Atlantic Canada, has the lowest subsidized
rate, I say to you, minister. The highest minimum wage, the highest staff to
resident ratio and yet they are compensated the least by any government.
I ask the minister: Has your government completed a review to determine
whether subsidies should be increased in our Province to closer match the rates
that are being paid in other Atlantic Provinces?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Now, I do not know if I understood the hon. member
correctly, but is she complaining that our minimum wage is too high? Is that
what I heard over there, that we are paying too much money to our home care and
personal care home workers? Is that what I heard, because that is an interesting
position, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, we are actively engaged in dealing with the long-term care and
community support services strategy. As I indicated during earlier sessions of
this House, and during Estimates, we are aggressively attempting to put this
strategy in place but we are not stopping while we are waiting for the strategy
to be put in place, Mr. Speaker. We are investing significantly. We went out to
Lewisporte recently and turned the sod for the new long-term care facility in
Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker, which is an investment of, again, another $8 million to
start that. We are going to finalize a long-term care facility in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay. We will engage in consultations, Mr. Speaker, this summer and
these smaller personal care homes, like home support workers, like family
members will have their opportunity to present their case and be heard.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Small rural personal care homes have their hands tied as a result of
government's policies. No one is complaining about the minimum wage, Mr.
Speaker, but accept the reality. These businesses have higher costs because of
the minimum wage, because of the night security being added, because of the new
models of staffing that the government has implemented. Yet, Mr. Speaker, their
subsidies they are given does not measure up to compensate for all of those
costs.
I ask the minister: Is he prepared to address this in some meaningful way and
will he commit to include the personal care home association in formulating the
long-term care strategy for the Province because at the current time this
particular group of people do not feel that they are included.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that anyone in this Province or
the people of this Province would consider a $200 million investment as
addressing a situation in a meaningful way. Mr. Speaker, again $12 million in
this year's Budget to deal with it.
I forgot to mention earlier that there was $1.5 million in this year's Budget
to support the continued implementation of what is called the InterRAI suite of
assessment tools for long-term care and home care in the Province. Mr. Speaker,
the difficulty is, I understand from talking to people in the industry and my
officials, is that someone who is classified as a level two can remain in a
personal care home, but that line between level two and level three where you go
into a long-term care facility is one that is sometimes difficult to determine
and thereby can be very subjective.
So this InterRAI suite of tools will bring an objective assessment. It will
allow us - and I have been in some of these larger personal care homes, I have
to tell you they offer all the social amenities, they are doing a very good job
and we are willing to work with all stakeholders in this system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If was asking about long-term care today the minister would be talking about
personal care. You ask about personal care and he talks about home care and
long-term care.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government provided an update to the people of
Hopedale last night related to contamination in their community. Concerns were
expressed related to PCBs and other chemicals that were present, including near
a residential areas, an issue that was raised in the community, I think, about a
year ago, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Can you outline what problems have been identified and
what actions will be taken to address these concerns?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as a government we certainly take these issues
very, very seriously and so signs, that is why today as we speak we have two
ministers up at the site last night and held a public meeting. The Minister of
Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister of Environment was there with the people on the
ground in Hopedale.
Mr. Speaker, just to support the people of Hopedale, in this year's Budget,
the 2010-2011 Budget, we committed $1 million to assist in the cleanup of
Hopedale. Whatever we can do to assist, we certainly will.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of course the minister did not give me an answer in terms of what the
problems were that were identified.
Mr. Speaker, there are concerns being raised that some of the residential
areas of the town may have used contaminated soil as backfill for their houses.
We know that government reacted when similar issues were identified in Buchans
in residential neighbourhoods.
I ask the minister: What are the estimated costs of cleaning up these sites?
Will government commit funding to immediately address the contaminated areas of
Hopedale and when will this work be completed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as a Province, I would just like to let the hon.
member know, that we certainly have already done some remediation in the area
and will certainly continue to do soil samples and air samples over the next few
shorts months.
We realize there is a short time frame here during the summer construction
season, but we are certainly there with the people. We assured them last night
again, with a brief conversation that I had with my hon. colleagues, that we
will certainly stand with them and clean up the environmental mess that
unfortunately was left behind some years ago by American bases, not only in this
place but throughout various places around our Province.
We have been left with this cleanup, Mr. Speaker, and as we did in Buchans,
we will step up once again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I thank the minister for his answer.
There have been some concerns expressed about the health impacts also
associated with the years of eating wild berries that grew in the area before
the scope of the contamination was known.
I ask the minister: We know that government plans to hire a toxicologist to
review the environmental report, but does government plan on testing residents
for the presence of any chemicals as was done recently in Buchans when these
issues were identified?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was in Hopedale last night.
She was accompanied by the medical officer from Labrador-Grenfell. Mr. Speaker,
it is my understanding from the report that was provided by the environmental
group who looked at this that there were no immediate health concerns. However,
issues recently arose as to whether or not there would be or could be long-term
effects.
So what we did, Mr. Speaker, is the same thing we did in Buchans. We hired an
individual by the name of Dr. Ray Copes. I happened to be present in Buchans
with my colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and
the Minister of Environment, when Dr. Copes provided his report. He is a very
confident individual, very knowledgeable and very experienced in this type of
situation. Dr. Copes has been retained and will review the situation and will
report once he has an opportunity to review all the facts of the case, Mr.
Speaker.
So, the environmental report has been prepared, the remediation is ongoing,
and we are examining the health concerns, Mr. Speaker (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we understand that reshaping the fishery in the months and years
ahead will mean that will likely be plant closures in our Province. The
corporate sector will dictate the closures and the decisions will be based on a
business model approach that that is their business. Our concern is that they
will have little regard to sustaining rural communities.
So I ask the minister: Can he commit here today to ensuring that a regional
plant concept and strategy will be part of the final outcome of the MOU process
so that fish plants are left in rural Newfoundland to sustain these regions now
and into the future?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: I am starting to see, Mr. Speaker, that they are warming up
to the MOU process anyway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the industry players
who are sitting around the table in this MOU process are the ones who can make a
difference.
Mr. Speaker, the one thing about it, if we do not do something within the
next two, three, four years, we will see more of the communities suffer. So, the
intention of us, as a government, is that rather than let people suffer through
this painfully, we hope that the parties will all come together and develop a
plan here that will certainly strengthen rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the MOU process many times
in this Legislature, and while we support the spirit of moving toward long-term
solutions to stabilize the industry, we recognize that the MOU, at the same
time, has many shortfalls. One of these is the fact that it addresses the
effects but not the cause of fishery problems. There is still a basic issue with
the biomass of our resources. In particular, the fact the cod and shrimp are
below historic levels.
So I ask the minister: How is he aggressively addressing the recovery of our
resource with his federal counterpart?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I met with Minister Shea on Saturday, and two
of the species, plus turbot, I will add, I spoke to Minister Shea about. I
indicated to her the last-in first-out formula is not one that we definitely
we do not support it. Certainly, there is a huge impact on the Northeast and the
North Coast of this Province. We have asked and she has committed to taking a
look at that. We certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that she will consider this
strongly and that she will change for the future.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we outlined to her where we are within the MOU process. We
said to her that we will have a progress report by July 11, and that she can
expect that, early fall, we will be presenting to her a unified plan of action
coming from the MOU process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in a few years we will hit the twentieth year
anniversary of the cod moratorium, and sadly there will be little chance that we
will be celebrating that anniversary. Despite the establishment of the cod
recovery team in 2005, and the strategies and action plans it produced, there
has been little or no progress in rebuilding our resource. The recovery of our
cod stocks, Mr. Speaker, is the single, largest legacy we can leave our children
and grandchildren, and yet this government is not taking this responsibility
seriously in the seven years they have been in government.
I ask the minister: How does he intend to support rural Newfoundland and
Labrador if this government does not make the recovery of cod more of a
priority?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member is missing one important point. It
is more than cod that we have to protect, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the member
opposite that one of the most important species right in this Province right now
is the crab. If the bottom were to fall out of crab, this Province would be in
the direst of straits.
So, Mr. Speaker, not only do we have to look at crab, but there has to
research done around all the species. There is one thing he is right in, Mr.
Speaker, if the resource is not there and it is not protected, there will not be
a fishery. So that is where we have to start. We are looking at certain issues
within our own government around research in that regard, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Because we asked a question about one part of the resource does not mean we
recognize the other species involved, Mr. Speaker, and we will ask questions
about these certainly.
The Government of New Brunswick is taking a leadership role, Mr. Speaker, in
the fishery in several initiatives, though its fishery is smaller compared to
our $1 billion a year industry. Just recently, the New Brunswick government
responded to lobster fishermen's request for assistance by providing an $11
million loan to assist them through their challenges. Last week their minister,
Rick Doucet, announced that he was inviting members or ministers from other
Atlantic Provinces and the federal government to join him in a symposium to deal
with the potential impact of oil spills on Atlantic Canada's seafood industry.
Clearly, the minister of New Brunswick is concerned about this issue.
I ask the Minister of Fisheries today: If he has received this invitation,
and if he will participate in this summit, and if so, can he tell us when and
where it will take place?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive the invitation and will
certainly be willing to attend any meeting. We will sit down with anyone to talk
about issues related to the fishery.
Mr. Speaker, around the restructuring within this Province, the minister from
New Brunswick acted in the manner that he did. In this Province, Mr. Speaker, we
have much control over our own destiny. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I again go back
to a process of restructuring that is required within this Province. It is going
to take commitment and true grit on behalf of the people that are involved in
this entire process, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous housing announcements lately, but the
minister in most cases is talking about money committed a year ago and allocated
by last July under the Affordable Housing Initiative. Mr. Speaker, both the
federal and provincial levels of government committed to three more years of
that initiative, but we have heard nothing concrete so far this year.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for Housing: Will he give us
an update on the Affordable Housing Initiative and when the next proposal call
will happen?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question from
across the House. Again, this government certainly have invested over the last
number of years significantly in social housing, both in maintenance, in
renovation of our units, and of course the construction of new units.
With regard to our Affordable Housing Initiative with the federal government,
it is not a one year thing, but we certainly have over the last two to three
years now, basically been involved in that Affordable Housing Initiative. When
it is finished this year, and perhaps even a little bit next year, we will have
put, Mr. Speaker, close to 1,000 units in the system, affordable housing for our
seniors and people with disabilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, affordable housing groups across the Province were hoping that
the government would provide bridging funds until the next phase of the
Affordable Housing Initiative kicks in. The minister did not say that there is
another phase, but there is supposed to be. So, Mr. Speaker, these groups have
projects ready and they are waiting for funds to build more affordable housing
which they were told was going to happen. If they do not start soon they could
lose the construction season.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will this government allocate bridging funds
so that new affordable housing projects can be planned now while they are
waiting for the announcement on the Affordable Housing Initiative?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, once again, as I pointed out, we have an
ongoing Affordable Housing Initiative that is continuing year to year, and it is
up to this particular year and into the future. We, as a government, will
continue to invest in this Affordable Housing Initiative to make sure that we
are meeting the needs that are out there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Another minister who has learned how to not answer questions.
Mr. Speaker, the Community Coalition on Housing and Homelessness
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS MICHAEL: He did not.
The Community Coalition on Housing and Homelessness in Corner Brook says
there is a serious lack of housing for seniors, students and people with
disabilities and affordable housing in general. Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook has
the lowest rental vacancy rate in Atlantic Canada at 0.4 per cent. Skilled
workers and professionals that are needed in the Corner Brook economy are not
moving there because housing is so unaffordable and scarce.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will this government recognize that the
shortage of affordable housing is affecting our economy and do something about
it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I will pass over the fact that I am
not getting up and answering questions. I believe that I have gotten up and
answered the questions and clearly indicated
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: - the commitment that this government has put towards
social housing. Now when you talk about affordable housing, you are in another
sphere because you are talking about basically getting into rentals and that
sort of thing. We are talking about, or at least I am talking about, the
Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing which is about
affordable housing, social housing and for people with incomes less than
$32,500.
Now, if we want to go further, I will refer to the Minister of Education and
talk about the thousands of units that are going in place for Grenfell and
Memorial University when we talk about that. We will also talk about other ways
that this government is certainly investing in the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and I will stand on my feet any time and
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I clearly, throughout each of my questions, talked about the Affordable
Housing Initiative which this government is part of and he is the minister
responsible.
Mr. Speaker, tenants across the Province are seeing their rents doubled and
tripled, since he wants me to talk about rental housing, and some are being
evicted without just cause by landlords who want to renovate and charge high-end
rents. The Residential Tenancies Act allows landlords to do this while other
provinces have placed limits on rent increases and evictions when rents start to
go through the roof.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will his government commit to making changes
in the Residential Tenancies Act in order to bring us up to standards in other
provinces with protection for renters?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
First, I would like to inform the hon. member that the Residential Tenancies
Act is under total review, with the view of bringing it in line to current
practices and best practices across all jurisdictions, but as well, we are
having a look at rental control.
I have to correct the hon. member, there are very few provinces today have
actually rental control legislation in place. They certainly found challenges in
regard to that in the private sector but we are a government that researches our
legislation, researches our opportunities. We recognize the need, we recognize
that there are challenges out there in the market. Certainly, we will have a
look at it over a period of time in a consultation process. We will take that
period of time and then we will have a look at it over that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Report by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the
Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board annual activity report for 2009.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn
at 5:30 p.m. today on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that
this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock
p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00
o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, June 15.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper we will go through a number of third
readings.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that
Bill 1,
An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth, be now
read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1,
An Act
Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth be now read a third
time?
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 Care And Protection Of Children And
Youth. (Bill 1)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 1 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And
Youth", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 1)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 4,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court
Act, 1991, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 4,
An Act To Amend
The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991", read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice
and Attorney General, that Bill 7,
An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths
Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 7,
An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, be now read a third
time.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act", read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice
and Attorney General, that Bill 8,
An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, be
now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 8,
An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, be now read a third time.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act", read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice
and Attorney General, that Bill 11,
An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act, be now
read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 11,
An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act, be now read a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act", read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice
and Attorney General, that Bill 15,
An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act, be
now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 15,
An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act, be now read a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act", read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Government Services, that Bill 16,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act,
be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 16,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that Bill 16 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act", read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services, that Bill 17,
An Act Respecting The Regulation Of
Certain Health Professions, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 17,
An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions, be now
read a third time?
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 Regulation Of Certain Health
Professions. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health
Professions", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Government Services, that Bill 18,
An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness
Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And
Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act, be now read
a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 18 be now read a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act,
The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act,
The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act. (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that Bill 18 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act,
The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act,
The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act", read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Government Services, that Bill 19,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act
No. 2, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 19,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2, be now read a third
time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2. (Bill
19)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that Bill 19 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2", read
a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order paper. (Bill 19)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services, that Bill 20,
An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social
Work be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 20,
An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work be now read a third time?
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 Practice Of Social Work. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work", read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Government Services, that Bill 21,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters,
Agents And Brokers Act be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 21,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act be now
read a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And
Brokers Act. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that Bill 21 do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And
Brokers Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Government Services, that Bill 23,
An Act To Amend The Securities Act be now
read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 23,
An Act To Amend The Securities Act be now read a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act", read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice
and Attorney General, that Bill 24,
An Act Respecting Court Security be now read
a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 24,
An Act Respecting Court Security be now read a third time?
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 Court Security. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security", read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Government Services, that Bill 26,
An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008 be
now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 26,
An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008 be now read a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26 has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008", read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call Order 19, second reading of a bill, Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development,
that Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second
time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act".
(Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
There are a number of amendments that I am proposing here on the floor of the
House today in regard to the Highway Traffic Act. It mainly concerns increasing
the investigative powers to our peace officers, mainly the RNC and the RCMP. It
has some amendments in regard to blood alcohol levels. It also has an amendment
in relation to driving in school zones. It also reflects an amendment in regard
to texting or using programmable technical devices while driving as well, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, up front, I would like to say that driving in Newfoundland and
Labrador, driving anywhere in Canada, driving anywhere in the world is a
privilege, it is not a right. Certainly, when you are driving as a privilege,
you have the responsibility to drive safely, not only for yourself but also for
the travelling public at large and also for pedestrians who may be walking on
the shoulders of the road on any of our provincial roads and highways. It is
your responsibility. As soon you as you enter that vehicle, you are the person
who is behind the wheel; you are the person who is in control of that particular
vehicle. So it is your responsibility to drive and operate that vehicle safely.
It is in your best interests, and more importantly, it is in the best interests
of the public at large.
So, I say that up front, Mr. Speaker. I will also say that most collisions
and I say most, not all are preventable because really, people must make a
choice between driving responsibly and driving in a dangerous behaviour.
Certainly, when they drive like that it affects their driving ability and it
also affects all the people who are around them in regard to the other people
who are using our public highways on a daily basis. Strengthening the
enforcement against these unsafe driving habits will help to educate people
about the dangers of impaired driving and careless driving. We hope that will
reduce injuries and deaths on our roads.
As the Minister of Government Services, I feel a responsibility, not only to
strengthen the Highway Traffic Act in regard to the enforcement provisions
provided under that act and the penalties that are provided under that act, but
I also take the responsibility of trying to communicate to the people, the
travelling people, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people at large,
that it is their responsibility as well to adhere to the law to the best of
their ability and make sure that they keep, not only their own lives in respect
to their driving habits but also in regard to the other people who may find
themselves driving on that particular day, that they might be using our public
highways.
This piece of work here, Mr. Speaker, was an ongoing piece. As the Minister
of Government Services - I have been the minister now for some three years. We
own 160 pieces of legislation, approximately, in the department, which really
reflects about one-third of the total legislation in government. One of those is
the Highway Traffic Act. We have an ongoing process within the department of a
review process. We review the legislation to make sure that it is reflective of
what we find in society today. We make sure that it is what it is, other than we
can strengthen the legislation as well to reflect what we are trying to achieve.
In this case here, there is a consultation process as well that we might enter
into in regard to any piece of legislation. We consult with industry in some of
the other pieces of legislation that I have tabled here in the House and spoken
to in the House in recent days, but also, we consult with various groups.
In regard to the Highway Traffic Act, we have consulted with the RNC. We have
consulted with the RCMP and police officers at large. We have also consulted
with various groups. One in particular, Mr. Speaker, is MADD. They have lobbied
hard. I have had a number of meetings with them over the last three years or so.
I am at various events in regard to their participation as well and I always
welcome their remarks in regard to how we can strengthen our legislation to make
sure that we have the proper provisions and penalties in place as deterrents to
people who might drink and drive, text while driving or just driving in a
behaviour that is unbecoming in regard to our provincial roads.
I must commend these three particular organizations, in regard to our police
forces, and MADD in particular, in regard to me, as the minister responsible,
and my department being able to achieve those kind of results that we are going
to discuss and debate here on the floor of the House today.
Certainly, I also have to say that as this bill reached first reading from
notices of motion, it has generated a fair bit of media attention. I have done a
number of interviews this morning in regard to this particular bill. I believe
that they see it as very progressive. They see it as I see it, that it is a need
that we need to do these kinds of things in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I was upfront in regard to speaking to this legislation too in that it is not
really rocket science, we are not really leading the way. We are certainly in
the top end of the jurisdictions in Canada and the U.S. in regard to having our
legislation up-to-date and reflective of what we are trying to do, but we are
certainly using other jurisdictions that also have legislation in place in
regard to the amendments that I am proposing here in the House today. So I
cannot take credit that we are developing new amendments, new legislation, a new
way forward, but we are certainly keeping up with current practices and best
practices and safety standards across Canada and North America.
Just to reflect, as well, specifically, the amendments that are sought here
where one of them is to authorize the use of random stops by peace officers.
Another is to expand upon a peace officer's power of arrest without warrant for
offences under the act. We are also proposing to provide for - actually change
the twenty-four hour suspension and the ninety day suspension for a driver who
fails to comply with a demand for a blood sample pursuant to
section 254 of the
Criminal Code of Canada. We are also proposing to introduce a seven to fourteen
days administrative suspension for persons impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a
combination of alcohol and drugs. We are also proposing to amend the legislation
to reduce the blood alcohol levels to 0.0 per cent from the current 0.05 per
cent BAC for accompanying drivers. We are also proposing amendments which will
ban texting and the use of iPods and GPSs and other similar electronic devices
while driving, with limited exemptions for emergency situations, and police,
ambulance and firefighter personnel. We are also proposing amendments in regard
to doubling the fines for speeding through designated school zones, and apply,
certainly, associated demerit points as per other speeding infractions.
Some of the provisions that are included in this act, as it sits today are as
follows: We regulate the licensing of drivers in regards to the various classes.
There is a process of education before you receive a driver's licence, then you
go through a road test and all of that kind of thing and then you receive
whatever type of driver's licence, your regular one or some type of a class that
you are after in regard to heavy equipment and that kind of stuff. That is
actually under some of the provisions that are included in the act. We regulate
the licensing and registration of vehicles themselves. We establish rules of the
road and we also establish motor vehicle insurance requirements under the act.
The proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker,
section 60.1 of the act, which
increased the roadside suspensions to seven days. Currently under the act, if
you are stopped by a peace officer out on our provincial roads and highways and
you are tested and you have a blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent to 0.08 per
cent you receive an automatic twenty-four hour suspension. Under the proposed
amendment, that twenty-four hour suspension will be increased to seven, and then
it will be, for a subsequent offence, increased to fourteen days. It will be
graduated upwards in regard to the number of subsequent offences, to the point
that if there are a lot of offences then a court, a judge, can actually lift the
licence for a longer period of time reflective of the different offences that
the person may have offended in regard to this act.
We believe - I believe, that this is very, very, very important because the
twenty-four hour suspension was a deterrent but a seven day suspension is much
more of a deterrent. People have to understand that it is not acceptable in our
society to drink and drive. It is their responsibility to have control behind
the wheel. In regard to alcohol within your system it certainly decreases your
reaction times. It decreases your attention spans and your focus in regard to
what you are doing which is driving. We do not condone - I do not condone, as
the minister responsible, that anybody should be out drinking and driving. The
acceptable levels these days 0.05 per cent to 0.08 per cent, then after the 0.08
per cent, well then you are into impaired driving and that is not acceptable as
well in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The most recent data that we have in regard to fatalities and drinking and
driving was done in 2006. It was concerning to me when I saw it because it
showed that there was a 2.8 per cent increase in fatalities for drinking and
driving in Newfoundland and Labrador. This really concerns me. Also, in 1996, we
will go back as far as that, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation indicated
that drivers with blood alcohol levels in the 0.05 per cent of the 0.08 per cent
range are seven point two times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than
a driver with 0 per cent BAC.
So, I see this - the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which I referenced
before, recommended that the Province increase its twenty-four-hour
administrative roadside suspension to seven and fourteen days for first and
second offences. I certainly concur to that. I think it is a worthwhile
amendment. We certainly have to communicate it to the public that this is going
to be in effect in Newfoundland and Labrador shortly, once this bill is passed
in this hon. House and gazetted and proclaimed. If I were them I would start
practising that now because these are going to be the penalties that they are
going to be subject to in the very, very near future. There is nothing like
starting today and not putting off today what you can do tomorrow, or whatever
way you say that, Mr. Speaker. I believe in going upfront and I want people to
be aware of this. As I reference as well, other jurisdictions have implemented
similar impaired driving measures.
There is also a provision in the amendment in regard to blood demands. What
happens sometimes in a serious accident where a person is severely injured they
may very well not be able to give a breath sample, that breath sample will
provide the necessary information to our peace officers in regard to the blood
alcohol levels, but sometimes they cannot give that. There was no provision
within the act in regard to licence suspensions for those people who would
refuse giving a blood sample, so we have closed that loop in regard to that, in
regard to this amendment, and
section 60.1 will also be amended to permit a
seven day administrative suspension when the driver provides the blood sample
under
section 254 of the Criminal Code and the results certainly would indicate
that the blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent or more, and then an additional
ninety day administrative suspension where the results indicate that the blood
alcohol content of 0.08 per cent or more. The seven day suspension will begin on
the fourteenth day following the person's receipt of a copy of the blood
analysis report, and ninety days will begin fourteen days following the expiry
of the seven day suspension. The blood analysis report will be provided to the
driver by the peace officer.
Blood demands, like I said before, are generally due to the person not being
able to provide a blood sample. Now we are going to amend that. That if they do
refuse, well there are suspensions and penalties they are subject to if they do
refuse. Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all have
legislative provisions for the demand of a blood sample and associated
administrative suspension.
Section 6.(2) of the act increases the roadside suspension to fourteen days
within twenty-four months for impairment of alcohol, drug, or a combination of
drug and alcohol. Other jurisdictions have implemented similar impaired driving
measures as well.
In Ontario, as of, I believe May 1, 2009, drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and
0.08 per cent will have their driver's licence suspended for three days on a
first occurrence and seven days on a second occurrence within five years, and
thirty days on a third or subsequent occasion, plus the requirement to complete
a remedial alcohol treatment program and an ignition interlock condition will be
placed as well on their driver's licence for six months. P.E.I. has a seven day
administrative suspension for the first occurrence and thirty days on a second
within two years as well.
Also, we had some consultations and some discussions with MADD in regard to
this particular amendment as well. So, we see this as very worthwhile. We will
be moving forward with this and hopefully get concurrence and support from my
hon. colleagues across the House.
Mainly, Mr. Speaker, we can drill down, I guess, in regard to the various
amendments and the various sections in act, but in regard to that suspension
period, it is pretty straightforward. Mostly what we are doing is increasing the
twenty-four hour roadside suspension from a twenty-four hour to a seven day and
then to a fourteen on a subsequent offence and that kind of stuff. It just bodes
very, very well in regard to what we are trying to do in deterring people from
drinking and driving.
As well, then, we are also going to address the issue in regard to driving
under the influence of alcohol. People who would have a serious accident or
whatever and refuses to give a blood sample, now they will be subject to certain
penalties and certain suspensions as well.
The other piece too, Mr. Speaker, is that we also had some consultations; we
had some lengthy discussions with the RNC and the RCMP. We proposed under these
amendments to increase, by amendment, their investigative powers.
One of the areas that we will amend, and which we will allow, is our peace
officers to do random checks. In other words, in a random check they can pull
you over for no reason. They have the right to ask for your driver's licence,
they have the right to ask for certain information. They have a right to ask
you, have you been drinking on that particular day or evening or whatever it may
be. They have a right to test you for a blood alcohol level if they suspect that
you have been drinking. This gives the - and I think this serves as a huge
deterrent because now under the act they have to have a reason for pulling you
over, be it mechanical or be it whatever it is. I think, I may be corrected, but
lawyers probably know this better than me, there have been certain cases where
peace officers have brought people before the courts in regard to their blood
alcohol levels and because they did not have a reason to pull over that
particular vehicle, well then it was thrown out of court.
So we wanted to strengthen that piece. We wanted to make sure that people did
not fall through the cracks. We wanted to make sure they were subject to the
suspensions and penalties and we certainly wanted them to know that we meant
business in regard to a deterrent in the blood alcohol level and we do not
condone people drinking and driving at any point in time.
In regard to that as well, there might be some concerns I guess. I should say
too that if a person, a citizen believes they are subject to abuse in being
pulled over, there is an option to file complaints through a number of channels,
including the RNC Public Complaints Commission, the Commission of Public
Complaints against the RCMP, or the Office of the Citizens' Representative. You
can probably even commence a civil action in the Supreme Court Trial Division.
A citizen's rights on a random stop is protected too. I believe too that
most, if not all, the jurisdictions now in Canada have this provision under
their legislation. We were probably one of the last to do this. I think it is
absolutely needed. I think having a peace officer trying to find some mechanical
reason to pull over a vehicle, or driving erratically, or whatever it may be, to
determine if the person is drinking and driving, it is just not up to today's
standards. It is not up to what we find in our society today. So I think they
have to have that power.
We are also proposing another amendment to expand a peace officer's power of
arrest without warrant for offences under the act. This is an area here that
broadens those powers and would assist police in apprehending impaired drivers
and those driving while suspended or without insurance or repeat offenders. This
is noted in regard to our consultations with the Department of Justice, that
there are occasions when it is not in the public interest to release an
offender. In these cases, the offender needs to be arrested without warrant. So
if the police have somebody stopped, they have to make a professional decision.
Under the act now, they have to let the person go because they cannot apprehend
the person without a warrant, but now they will, after this amendment is
discussed and debated and passed in this hon. House. Some of the areas where
power of arrest without warrant would be used, and it tended to be exercised, is
when police need to establish the identity of the offender. Secure or preserve
evidence is another example of where they would use that.
Also, as well, some of the legislation in other jurisdictions, British
Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, contain provisions on particular driving
offences of which an arrest by a peace officer without warrant is available. So
we are not leading the way here, as well. I think this is very, very important
in regard to enabling our peace officers to have the tools to actually do the
job that they are expected to do in protecting our public highways, and yes, it
is in the best interest of all the public that we make sure that people who
might entertain drinking and driving or anything like that, that we have the
proper deterrents in place under the legislation, and the police have the proper
tools in place as well, Mr. Speaker, in regard to being able to do their job.
We discussed, Mr. Speaker, the increase from the twenty-four hour to the
seven, I think that is pretty clear. One of the other areas, Mr. Speaker, we are
proposing under the amendment, in regard to this bill, we are proposing that the
current 0.05 BAC, that is blood alcohol level, for drivers accompanying a novice
driver to be reduced from the 0.05 per cent down to 0 per cent. In other words,
the person that might be on the passenger's side who is accompanying a novice
driver, they are the person who is teaching that novice driver how to drive. Not
only do they have the responsibility to be alcohol-free, but they are a role
model in my mind. They are the person who is teaching that young person to
drive, that will form habits in regard to that process there. Certainly, I
believe that if they suspect that person is having a beer before they go out and
actually start the process in regard to teaching the person to drive, well then,
I think they are giving a bad example. Here you are sitting at a table watching
a person have a beer before they actually go out, so then it is acceptable for
them to do the same.
I think that half of the battle in regard to drinking and driving certainly
is centred really on our young. I think if we do a really good job in regard to
educating our young people, putting the proper deterrents in place, making sure
that they understand the deterrents, understand the implications of drinking and
driving, understanding the value of life, I think we can actually make some
great strides in regard to people drinking and driving, not only at a young age
but at a middle age and an older age. Once your habits are formed, they usually
stay with you all of your life. If you establish those habits when you are
young, then I think they will stick with you most of your life. There might be a
few that might stray from that, but I think we will be very, very successful in
regard to what we are trying to do, the responsibility we have as a government,
and the responsibility that we have as a society. I think we would be a lot more
successful if we started in that area and worked ourselves up. That is a part of
doing this because I think that person who is teaching that person to drive has
a responsibility, not only to teach him the best practices and safety standards
in regard to their driving habits and their driving education, but I think they
have to show a role model as well. They have a responsibility of that as well.
That is the reason why that it is not going to be acceptable any more in
Newfoundland and Labrador to have any alcohol in your bloodstream in regard to
an accompanying driver with a novice driver.
Another one, which is now really covered in the act, it is covered in a
section of the act I think that deals with distractive driving. It is kind of a
grey area. You can be charged under it. It is not used very often in regard to
the act, not to my knowledge anyway, but we want to clarify in Newfoundland and
Labrador and I really believe that this is warranted. I think it is actually
probably more prominent. I probably think it is more dangerous than actually
talking on a phone in regard to a cellphone, and that is texting while driving.
The use of other electronic devices, such as iPods and GPSs too, and any
handheld device really, is reflected here.
What I mean by that is and I do not want the public to be really concerned
in regard to their iPods and whatnot. They can still use their iPods in their
cars or whatever it may be, and plugged into their radio or whatever. What we
mean is that has to be in a one touch mode. In other words, you might be
changing the channel no differently than you are changing the channel on your
radio that kind of a thing. If a peace officer observes a person driving for a
period of time continually using their iPod, well then they can be charged under
this act because that is programming. That is not just a normal use of an iPod
while driving; that is a programming feature.
So that is where we are going to be centred and focussed into, but then as
well in regard to the texting piece, it is a big issue. I know some of the hon.
members in this House, across the House, on government side, will say to me
today, and I have also been challenged in the media today: Well, I drove to work
today and I saw five people between a kilometre and they are all on their phones
and they are doing it. Yes - and maybe they are. I know that we had good results
when we brought in this legislation.
I, as the minister, have been trying to communicate to the public that it is
not acceptable; it is against the law in regard to driving while on a cellphone.
I will be communicating to the public as well in regard to the texting and the
use of iPods and other electronic devices. I will do my best to communicate that
because I believe it is a two-pronged approach. I believe that we will never,
ever, ever, in my lifetime or anybody's lifetime for that matter, have enough
resources to enforce the legislation and the intent of the legislation that we
have that down to a zero.
We have had speed limits posted in not only Newfoundland and Labrador
this world for as long as there have been vehicles on earth, just about. Each
and every day we can go out on our highways and people are breaking speed
limits. You can only have enough resources out there to try to keep most of the
public, the larger portion of the public safe. I said that when we increased our
fines, doubled our fines, in regard to construction zones. That was very, very
successful. We see a vast decrease in those violations and that was due to
communication and education, not by enforcement.
I just wanted to reflect on that because I am sure it is going to be
referenced in regard to some of the other people who might want to comment in
regard to this act. We have invested in resources over the last number of years.
We have invested heavily into the RNC in regard to our Memorial University
program. We have also invested in the RCMP and we will continue to invest. Like
I said, you can invest and invest, but I do not think you will ever have enough
resources to actually bring it down to a zero.
I certainly will be, as the minister responsible, communicating to the police
force that we want to increase their surveillance. We want to hopefully
increase, in regard to bringing that down, in regard to what I see and you see,
in regard to our public, we will be charging under the act and we will try to
charge more. Certainly, this is an area that the police forces will be
concentrating and focusing on and, hopefully, with my communications we can
bring it down, I was going to say to an acceptable level, but there is no
acceptable level. The acceptable level is zero. That is what we are trying to
achieve. So, we continue to try to achieve that. Hopefully we can get it down
there, and hopefully, some time in the future, it would actually go down to
zero. I cannot see it ever happening because, as I just referenced, I think you
can have as many resources - we have had highway traffic violations, speeding,
and that kind of stuff, as long as cars and vehicles have been on our public
highways.
Last, but not least, in regard to the amendments that are proposed here today
deals with speeding through designated school zones, and then to apply the
associated demerit points as per other speeding infractions. So that is
reflected in the act.
We are also looking at amending the fines as well from $100 to $1,500 as
reflected in speeding in construction zones. I should have a look at that, Mr.
Speaker, to just make absolutely sure of that in regard to the actual monies
amount. Yes, the existing fines for speeding ranges from a minimum of $50 to a
maximum of $135 now on the first offence for up to ten kilometres over the speed
limit to a high of $750 on the third or subsequent offence for thirty-one
kilometres or more over the speed limit. Doubling the fines would now have them
range from $100 to $1,500 and also the loss of demerit points will be reflected
there too.
Drivers, in regard to texting - I might want to just reference that as well.
In regard to texting, it will be the same as talking on your cellphone. Drivers
convicted of a violation will be subject to a minimum fine of $100 to a maximum
fine of $400 and the accumulation of four demerit points, which I believe is a
significant number. We only have twelve over the - over the twelve months, but
we have fairly good, substantial penalties in place in regard to deterrents.
I think with a good piece of communication, a good piece of education, I
think we can educate the public and hopefully move them in the right direction.
I believe that if we communicate, communicate, communicate, give the right
leadership in what we are trying to achieve and how important it is to the
public, and not only to the person behind the wheel but also to the persons who
are also availing of our public roads and highways, but also to the pedestrians
that these are very, very important. I think it reflects what we need to achieve
and what we see in society out there today.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my seat in the House. I think I
have covered just about all the amendments or not all the amendments. I
welcome any remarks by my hon. colleagues. I suspect, I would not want to put
any words in their mouths, but I think they are going to have I suspect
support. I expect support, not only suspect support I expect support in regard
to these amendments because they are very, very important to the public of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I see my hon. colleague there trying to get me down
as quickly as possible because I think he believes that this legislation and
those amendments are very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my seat in the House and listen to
his comments and if they have any questions I will try to answer them either in
second reading or in committee stage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the
District of Port de Grave, the Chair would like to rule on the point of order
raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader yesterday, June 14, with respect
to the adjournment proceedings of June 10. There is no point of order, as a
point of order must be raised when the disorder occurs. However, there appears
to have been some confusion on Thursday with respect to the adjournment
proceedings. Perhaps this is attributable to the informality of the way in which
the adjournment of the debate has traditionally been carried out in our
Legislature.
The member speaking just before 5:30 p.m. should actually move that the
debate be adjourned rather than just say: I adjourn the debate, or I will
continue later. While the House has acceded to this practice, the adjournment
should actually be put from the Chair and voted on. If the motion is carried the
member then has the option of continuing his or her speech the next time the
matter is called for debate. This does not constitute a second speech as the
member is merely continuing his or her speech. However, the member must stand
first when the matter is next called or he or she loses the right to continue to
speak on that particular matter.
If the member who has the floor does not move the adjournment of the debate
at 5:30 p.m., the Speaker leaves the Chair until 7:00 o'clock in accordance with
Standing Order 9 as the business of the House is not concluded. The Speaker will
continue to ask for direction if a member has control of the Chair at 5:30 p.m.
and ask if it is the wish of the House to have the clock stopped or if it is the
wish of the House to return at 7:00 o'clock, and at that particular time either
the debate will be either adjourned or the House will return at 7:00 o'clock.
I hope that this brings some clarity to some of the confusion that might have
happened here in the past at 5:30 p.m. So when a member looks at the clock and
sees that the clock is at 5:30 p.m., the member has every right, if he or she
has control of the floor, to continue with debate and have the House return at
7:00 o'clock or else to put forward a motion to adjourn the debate and then the
House would decide if they want to accept that particular motion or have the
motion defeated.
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure today to be able to stand and make a few comments with
regard to Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. I guess for the
response to the minister, yes sir, I will say right from the outset that I agree
with the amendments that are put forward in this act. However, there are a few
comments I would like to make.
Mr. Speaker, according to this bill that is being put forward,
An Act To
Amend The Highway Traffic Act, principally, in the provisions related to licence
suspension, arrest without a warrant, the random stopping of vehicles by peace
officers, and the use of cellular phones and communication devices. I have to
say from the start, the minister has gone through each of those and made a very,
I think, valid explanation to where this piece of legislation is coming from.
The proposed amendment, as we understand it, is to come into force on October 1,
2010, with the exception of the proposed
section 110.(5) of the Highway Traffic
Act, which is to come into force on, I believe, September 1, 2010.
Under the licence suspension part of it, the bill would amend the act to
provide for a longer suspension of a driver's licence, changed from a
twenty-four suspension to a seven day suspension. Mr. Speaker, I think that is
very important with the many stories and scenarios that we hear, not only from
the Mothers Against Drunk Driving but many other individuals throughout this
Province. I am sure they are going to be pleased to see this twenty-four hour
suspension increased to a seven day. Under the licence suspension, it also goes
on to say: where a driver fails. What brings this about is where a driver fails
to provide a breath sample, where an analysis indicates a driver's blood alcohol
level of 50 mgs or more, where a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe
that the ability of the driver is impaired by a drug or a combination of drug
and alcohol, and where the driver fails to refuse to comply with the demands
under
section 254 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, the bill also provides for more progressive increased
suspensions, where a driver, within twenty-four consecutive months, incurs a
second seven-day suspension, that seven-day suspension will be increased to
fourteen, with the third offence it will go to two months, the fourth offence it
goes to four months, the fifth offence goes to a six-month time frame. Mr.
Speaker, I know that is quite a change from what we have today, but many people,
I think, will still ask: If someone carries out the same offence five or six
times in a period of twenty-four months, is that really strong enough to send a
clear message to those individuals?
The bill would also amend the act to provide for zero tolerance on novice and
accompanying drivers. I think this is very, very important. As the minister
stated, if you have a novice driver, number one, who is out just learning to
take control of a vehicle, the first time on the road, preparing to write for
their licence or just after getting their licence, and they have to be stopped
by a peace officer and it comes to the point that they were impaired to whatever
level, I think that is a terrible offence. I can understand where the government
and the minister are coming from with that particular piece of legislation.
I also totally agree with the part and probably stronger - where the
accompanying driver, someone like the minister stated, whether it is a friend or
a family member, who is willing to sit on the passenger side of a vehicle with a
young driver who is out training, and a peace officer is able to pull those
people over and determine that they do have an alcohol content in their blood.
It goes on to say that their driver's licence will be suspended. I do not know
if it is listed for how long, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I think it
should be suspended for a tremendous long period of time. If someone is willing
to get in a vehicle with a young person out training and to be under the
influence, I think it is a terrible offence.
Mr. Speaker, also in this piece of legislation it mentions arrest without a
warrant,
section 202 of the act, which provides: a peace office may arrest
without a warrant a person who he or she believes on reasonable grounds has
committed an offence other than one for which a penalty prescribed in the
sections of the act would be repealed by this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we all know from time to time, and I think there were different
callers on Open Line this morning who had questions about the random stopping of
vehicles by peace officers. I do not know about anyone else, but when we have
Safety Week here in our Province, or coming up on some of our festive times of
the year, even like Christmas, we all know that the peace officers of our
Province have roadblocks set up. I can tell you, I do not know about you, but
when I go around a corner and see them, I think it is a welcome sign to know
that they are out there and have the concerns of the people of this Province
first and foremost.
Anybody who wants to go and celebrate, I do not care what type of celebration
they are involved in, I think there are many ways that they can take care of
themselves, whether it is going in a cab, whether it is having a designated
driver, rather than to getting into a vehicle knowing that they are under the
influence and probably not only take their own life but the lives of others.
Mr. Speaker, also under this bill is the use of cellular phones and other
communication devices. I have heard of many incidents. I know of one individual
in my own district who was using the cellphone, whether it was a call or he was
on a BlackBerry texting, but I can tell you he came very close - not only
causing tremendous damage to the vehicle, but probably extensive injuries to
himself.
That is how simple it is, Mr. Speaker. We know that this is going on
constantly. It is like the minister said: You drive around this city or you
drive the TCH, and I would say every second or third vehicle that passes you or
that you see coming toward you, someone has a cellphone up to their ear. It is
not the one where you just push the button; it is hand-held and it does not mean
one thing to them. They are just whipping out the TCH, going at high speeds, and
they think they have everything under control; but, let me assure you, the least
little thing can go wrong, and what happens? We have a major accident on our
highways and many lives will be lost.
I think the minister I stand to be corrected, but - I thought he said the
fines for those who are caught, unless they have a hands-free mode, the penalty
at the present time is $100, and in the future that has been increased to $400
and also you will lose so many points points will go against your driving
record.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that we have heard much about the Mothers Against
Drunk Driving and the tremendous job they do to educate the people of this
Province, and not only in our Province but right throughout Canada, of the
dangers that people encounter on our highways. Too much cannot be done. The more
education is put forward and that is like this piece of legislation. Like the
minister said, one thing is to bring this in, but the people have to be made
aware of it.
I know probably before it is implemented I think there should be a tremendous
campaign advising the people of this Province of the new penalties that will be
put forward if you are prepared and you want to go on the highways under the
influence. I have an
article here that I know was printed in our local paper,
where it says: Like moose, drunk drivers are loose on our highways.
That is a very strong statement for an editorial, but, Mr. Speaker, I think
he was referencing one individual who had been convicted, had fourteen
convictions for drunk driving. I cannot imagine. I do not believe he had a
licence; he should never have had one, anyway, after you get twelve or fourteen
convictions like this. Probably this individual did not have one, but it was
like the minister said: Once you go so far, the rules and regulations, you have
to have the laws there, that the judges have the responsibility and have the
power to bring down sentences that hopefully will enlighten the problems within
our people.
As I stated earlier, I know there were several calls on Open Line this
morning. I did not hear them all, but I know it was mentioned to me that one
issue was random stopping. I do not know, but probably the minister, when he
closes debate - there are probably other issues that he heard where people think
that maybe this is going too far, that some of the issues in this piece of
legislation are going too far. My personal opinion is that it has not, but I
guess we have to listen to the opinions and views of every individual.
Mr. Speaker, like I said, the promotional part, I think, is very important.
There are many good sections in this piece of legislation. As we go about
carrying out the rules and bringing in new legislation, as we do from time to
time here, I know the hon. Minister of Government Services has brought in quite
a number of pieces of legislation, all important, but none any more important
than what this piece of legislation is.
I think that the people who want to go and have a good time, if you drink, I
think the message should be that you should never drive. All too often we hear
of so many incidents, what can happen. Because anyone who is under the
influence, whether it is only minor or major, I do not care what anyone says,
you are not in the right state when you go behind the wheel travelling at,
whether it is 80, 100 or 120 kilometres an hour. It is bad enough travelling
those speeds when you are in a good state of mind, let alone under the influence
of any substance, whether it be liquor or otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, with those few comments I just want to say, as I stated from the
outset, that I think Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, is a good
piece of legislation. It outlines not only the penalties that will be imposed if
you do not abide by the laws and rules of our land, but it also gives extra
strength to the peace officers so that they can, whether they take random checks
or whether it is roadblocks, the ones that we hear announced from time to time,
by whatever means, Mr. Speaker, hopefully when this legislation comes into law,
that it will instill in the people of our Province to make sure that if they
want to enjoy themselves, have a good time, make sure that they do not drive.
Hopefully, the enforcement of this law will bring about what we all want to see
on our highways is a safe highway. When you are travelling, whether it is the
Trans-Canada, or on some city street, or in some town, the vehicles that are
coming toward you, you want to make sure that everyone is in control of those
vehicles. The key to it all, as the MADD group is all bringing about and asking
us to do, is to make sure that we do not drink and drive, and for every life
that is saved by promotional, along those lines, I believe this bill will help
to enforce what we all want to see.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Baie
Verte-Springdale.
MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a delight and a privilege to stand in this hon. House today to say a
few words on Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. Here lately it
has garnered a lot of attention for good reason because it is a very important
piece of work. Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the
Minister of Government Services, Minister of Justice, and the Minister of
Education for using a collaborative approach and using their officials and their
departments in making these amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. They all did
a marvellous job, Mr. Speaker, and they are to be commended. It certainly
strengthens the act and adds clarity, and like the minister said earlier, it is
a progressive piece, it is a proactive approach, it updates the legislation, and
it stays current. So, I applaud his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, from my understanding, the Highway Traffic Act was passed in
1990 and governs all laws related to driving vehicles. It provides details on
everything from the definition of a car to the penalties for breaking traffic
laws. It has been amended several times, recently as 2009. That brings us to
where we are today, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read the explanatory note that
is in the bill. "This Bill would amend the Highway Traffic Act principally in
the areas of the provisions related to licence suspension, arrest without a
warrant, the random stopping of vehicles by peace officers and the use of
cellular phones and other communication devices."
Mr. Speaker, these amendments will enhance enforcement against impaired
driving, against distracted driving and speeding in school zones. These
amendments to the act are part of our government's ongoing commitment to raise
awareness of unsafe driving habits with the ultimate goal, Mr. Speaker, to
protect the public, to reduce injuries and to prevent accidents on our highways.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, all too often we all hear of tragic incidents or
tragic stories that may or that could have been prevented if the driver opted to
choose safe driving.
Our government has taken some proactive measures to improve road safety. Just
an example what is in the amendment - and the minister and the member opposite
both did an outstanding job in explaining the amendment, so I will not go into
any detail, but, one, just doubled the fines for speeding through the school
zones. We know the safety of children is very important. As a former school
teacher, I do realize that safety around the school parking lot and highway is
very, very important. I believe Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Ontario,
Saskatchewan and the North West Territories have all doubled their fines as
well, so we are following suit.
Also, the amendment on banning cellphones or iPods or other electronic
devices, text messaging, for example, is also a good move, because we all know
that these practices are very distractive to the driver. In fact, if we engage
in these kinds of habits I think we become oblivious to our immediate
surroundings and I think our safety is compromised.
Mr. Speaker, raising penalties for offences, raising the likelihood of
detection by authorities, hopefully, will act as a strong deterrent against
unsafe driving practices that ultimately will result in loss of life. What these
amendments do is it fosters responsible driving habits for the general public
and as individual drivers.
In conclusion, I just want to say I concur with these amendments. I think it
is very positive, very progressive amendments put in the legislation. With that,
I will take my seat.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act.
I think this is an extremely important bill and has taken some very important
steps in trying to make our highways safer.
I would like to see a couple of things pushed a bit further than they are in
the bill, and I will speak to those. At the moment, the bill as it stands has
some very important things in it. The minister has, of course, gone through the
bill and the speaker from the Official Opposition, the Member for Port de Grave,
has certainly pointed out a lot of things in the bill, but there are other
points that I would like to make as well.
You have to excuse my voice. We all know why my voice is like this today,
after all of us being up until 2:00 o'clock in the morning.
I think one of the things that I am most pleased about in the bill is the
zero tolerance for Blood Alcohol Content when it comes to novice drivers and
drivers who are accompanying novice drivers. I think that is where we really
have to start. The minister made a very important point when he said the habits
that we start off with, in the beginning when we first start driving, are the
habits that often remain with us. So, getting a message out to people who are
supporting young drivers that they have to be role models and that there is a
zero tolerance with regard any blood alcohol level at all is extremely
important. I am really glad to see that in the bill.
I am also very glad to see the administrative suspensions being upped for all
categories. That, too, is extremely important. I was struck today I was
listening, or had Open Line on in the background, and there was reference to:
Isn't this a bit of an imposition on the way we are used to socializing, a bit
of an imposition on what we are used to doing culturally? I was a bit shocked
when I heard that because, number one, whether we are talking about 0.05 or
point 0.08, or we are talking about a shorter or longer suspension the ultimate
goal is the same. It is to not have people out there driving with unacceptable
alcoholic content in their blood.
I thought that one of the things that was starting to happen, although
statistics are saying we may be backing back a bit in this Province, but
certainly you do see more evidence of people realizing: Well, if we are going to
go out and socialize, we do not drive; there is a either a designated driver or
we use taxis. Even events, for example, like wine tasting events in this city,
or any events that are focused on alcohol. Last fall there was a Scotch tasting
event, and what happens is when you buy your ticket for the event there actually
is a voucher to go towards your taxi so that the message is: Do not come to this
event - where you are going to be enjoying wine and tasting wine - in your car.
If you do not have a designated driver then here is a voucher to go towards your
payment towards a taxi to come and go, to go home from the event. I guess to
come and go to the event.
There are a lot of things in our society that have started changing over the
last, I would say, fifteen years or so with regard to recognizing that if we are
going to out and socialize and have a nice evening, enjoy some alcohol, as a lot
of us do, then you accept the responsibility for doing that and recognize that
there are other ways of dealing with mobility. As I said, either having a
designated driver or using taxis.
I am sure the taxi industry would be very happy if more of us started using
taxis when we go out to socialize in the evenings. They would be very happy to
see more of us using taxis. I think we have to just build a whole different
mindset to the mindset that we had in our culture. When I think back to my years
of growing up, that was never even talked about, just like with smoking. We all
had parents, or most of us, a lot of us had parents who smoked in the home, had
relatives who smoked in the home. We have managed to change that. People now do
not even smoke in their own home. They will go out on their deck. I know a
person who lives by herself but she smokes outside her house because her
grandchildren come to visit her and she does not want any second-hand smoke in
her house. We have gotten that far with smoking and I think we have a long ways
to go in this Province with drinking and driving but we can get there. I think
this bill is going to help us get there.
I would like to talk a little bit, before I talk to some more details in the
bill. Certainly, the reason why we have the bill I think is because the minister
and his ministry recognize that we do have a long ways to go here in this
Province. The latest study that was put out by MADD - which I am sure the
minister does have - from 2009 gave Newfoundland and Labrador a C+ grade and
ranked us eighth in the provinces and territories with regard to our performance
as a Province in the area of drinking and driving. That is not acceptable.
They looked at many aspects. It just was not how many people are out there
drinking and driving. They looked at our legislation. They looked at the level
of our suspensions, for example. They looked at all kinds of aspects of what the
attitude here is in the Province, both in terms of our culture as well as our
legislation. Putting it all together, we came pretty close to the bottom. I
would hope that with this new legislation we can start changing the culture.
Now, having said that, there is an area that I really do think is weak. I am
surprised, based on the changes that have been made with regard to the
suspensions related to blood alcohol levels and based on the fact that the
legislation has zero tolerance with regard to blood alcohol content in novice
drivers and those who drive with them. Based on all of that, I was really
surprised when I came to the
section dealing with progressively increased
suspensions or to put it in common language for people who might be watching:
How do you deal with repeat offenders?
There has been one change to the
section in the act, the current act, that
deals with that but for the most
part it has remained unchanged. So what we have
is that: "The registrar shall suspend the driver's licence or driving privileges
of a driver who within 24 consecutive months has incurred a 7 day suspension (
a) for a second time, for 14 days". So if they get a suspension a second time in
two years, they get fourteen days instead of seven days. If they repeat within a
two year period, a third time, their suspension will be two months. If they
repeat a fourth time, the suspension will be four months. If they repeat a
fifth, or however many more times in two years the suspension will be six months
with each repetition.
What I wanted to see was: Well, when do they stop being able to drive? When
is it taken away for life? That does happen in other provinces and it is not
there. I have to say that I was really disappointed. I think we had an
opportunity here to really come up with a piece of legislation that would have
moved us way up that line in terms of where we stand in relationship to other
provinces.
I say to the minister, I am not sure what the reasoning was with regard to
not going further and saying there has to be life suspension, and there are
times when that has to happen. When you get somebody who is repeating to the
point that he or she has been picked up a fifth time or a sixth time or a
seventh time then, I am sorry, a six month suspension - I do not care how often
they get it - is still not enough. That if they get to that point, then it
should be, it is over, you no longer are permitted to drive. So this to me is
one of the weaknesses in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I really would have liked to
have seen it.
Another thing that I would have liked to see in the bill and this is
something that has been spoken to by MADD, by the way, and that is why I am
sorry to see that it is not there to the degree that I would have liked it, and
that has to do with the alcohol interlock program. Now, it is true that we have
a small alcohol interlock program, but I know that MADD, with whom the minister
consulted, and I am using their document, their 2009 report, that they spoke
specifically to the alcohol interlock program in Newfoundland and Labrador. One
of the things they say is that the minimum interlock period should be one year
for a first offence, three years for a second offence within ten years. So in
other words, if within ten years you have another offence, you would get three
years of having to use the alcohol interlock, and five years for a third
offence, if a third offence happens within ten years.
According to MADD, what they would like to see is that once the minimum
period ends, the interlock order should remain in effect until the registrar is
satisfied that the offender does not pose a significant risk of re-offending and
has overcome any underlying alcohol problems. Now I think those two things
together become very important. Having the alcohol interlock program and also
having a it is not a re-education, it is the person going into some kind of
therapy so that they recognize they have alcohol problems and they have to be
dealt with. This would be one way of certainly strengthening the bill as well,
Mr. Speaker, and it is something that I certainly would like the minister to
look at. I mean, it is quite possible - I do not know - it is quite possible
this could be brought in without being actually in the legislation. It could be
regulation, or the minister could rethink and we could see, down the road, in
the fall, maybe, even before the bill is gazetted, an amendment brought to the
floor with regard to the two issues that I am raising. Maybe the minister thinks
there needs to be more discussion, maybe he thinks there needs to be more
consultation on these issues, but if he did consult with MADD, which I am sure
he did, and with the RNC and maybe the RCMP, I think that looking at stronger,
stronger, regulations with regard to the alcohol interlock program, and looking
at the potential for somebody, repeat offenders, losing their licence for lif