PDF Version

November 21, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 45

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to stand on a point of order under

section 49

in the Standing Orders. Last night, the Minister of Justice and Public Safety

spoke of me in this House in an unprovoked sense of rage, and I don't know if

his intention was humiliation or intimidation, but this is my place of work.

Mr. Speaker, the tone and the vitriol with which he

spoke of me in this House, I believe, is unconducive to the work that we do

here; particularly in light of all that we have undergone in the past few

months, and I would appreciate if the Speaker could look into this.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Anyone else wish to speak to the point of order?

While I recall the exchange, I would prefer to review

Hansard and I'll report back to the

House.

Thank you.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on another point of order. We have seen,

periodically, and once again last night, with the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety consistently referring to the Member of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi as

the former leader of the Third Party. I' m not sure again what the intention is.

I believe that it is necessary, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

ROGERS:

to use the appropriate title for every Member in this House. The appropriate

title for the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi is the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi and Members of the government have consistently

referred to the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, instead of her official

title, as the former leader of the Third Party. I would like you to look into

that, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

And

I will do that. Thank you for raising that point of order on your perspective.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Order 5, Bill 39.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Harbour Main that Bill 39,

An Act To

Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 39,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No.

2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act No. 2.” (Bill 39)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, I'm honoured to stand once again in this hon. House on this very

important topic of road safety. As the Minister of Service NL, I've had the

opportunity to stand on numerous occasions to speak to amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act – a subject that

has a great impact on all people in the province.

Service NL is committed to doing what we can to make

our roadways as safe as possible for the travelling public. Part of this

commitment is to periodically review and amend the

Highway Traffic Act , as required, to ensure it is kept current in

its purpose of protecting highway safety.

We are all too familiar with the devastating effects of

crashes on roadways and the many individuals, families and friends who have had

their lives altered as a result. In fact, today, in the lobby I will attend an

event for the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims.

This event recognizes and honours the many individuals

in our province who have lost loved ones or suffered great injury on our roads.

I have seen many tears shed and looked at many photos of people who have had

their lives ended much too soon because of the actions of those behind a wheel.

I read comments by one family member who talked about how the crash that took

their loved one altered their lives instantaneously, and it was 100 per cent

preventable, which is the hardest thing to take.

Since coming to Service NL, I cannot tell you the

impact of the many stories of loss and injury on our roadways has had on me.

I've met individuals and families who've had their lives forever changed because

of incidents on our highways. That is why it is very important that we continue

to take action and promote awareness in an effort to improve safety on our

highways.

We know there are many unsafe driving practices on our

roadways that are putting people in danger every day. When you hear national

statistics such as 2,300 people lose their lives every year, and over 160,000

are injured on our roadways, it is startling, Mr. Speaker. I recently read

information provided by the World Health Organization which says that more than

1.25 million people throughout the world die each year as a result of traffic

crashes.

Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death

among people between the ages of 15 and 29 years. Nearly half of those dying on

the world's roads are vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists.

It also stated that without sustained action, road traffic crashes are predicted

to become the seventh leading cause of death by 2030. That is why our government

will continue to make public safety a priority.

In terms of vulnerable road users, Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased that one of the amendments we are introducing today is the expansion of

the Highway Traffic Act to include the

one-metre rule which provides for minimum distance between motor vehicles,

cyclists and pedestrians.

Advocates such as Bicycle NL requested that we take

action to improve road safety by implementing the one-metre rule to enhance

cycling safety on our roadways in the province. With this change, motorists are

required to maintain a one-metre distance from bicycle or pedestrian where the

speed limit is 60 kilometres per hour or less, and a 1.5-metre distance where

the speed limit is over 60 kilometres per hour.

The fine for this offence will range between $100 to

$400, or two to 14 days imprisonment, as well as two demerit points which will

be incorporated into the regulations. This change will make Newfoundland and

Labrador among the most vigilant provinces in increasing both pedestrian and

cyclist safety, given the rule will apply to pedestrian traffic as well.

When the MHA for Mount Pearl North tabled a petition in

the House in March, I said at that time that we actively working on the

one-metre law. And I am pleased to be presenting the results here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, in the last session of the House of Assembly we debated Bill 23,

regarding amendments to the Highway

Traffic Act around drug-impaired driving. At the time, we introduced a zero

tolerance policy for novice drivers, drivers under 22 years of age and

commercial drivers. The detectable presence of drugs in such drivers, unless

they are authorized medical users, can result in their vehicle being impounded

for seven days.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, police officers trained

in standard field sobriety testing and drug recognition experts continue to use

their knowledge and skills to assist in the detection of drivers who may be

operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

We recognize the important role that taxis play in the

transportation needs of our towns and our communities and the many people who

rely on them. As such, we have expanded upon the amendments we introduced in

Bill 23 to now include zero tolerance for drug use for a driver of a taxi and a

person who has care and control of a taxi.

Mr. Speaker, many times I have stated that this is

incumbent upon us as a government to ensure our legislation is adequately

serving the people of the province. Legislation is most effective when it is

clear and direct and easily understood by all whom it affects.

We also became aware last spring that amendments would

be needed in the Highway Traffic Act

to align with

Part 2 of Bill C-46 which changes the numbering of certain driving

offences in the Criminal Code of

Canada, which are effective December 18, 2018. The legislation we are debating

today includes these updates.

The penalties are unchanged. If a driver is convicted

of a driving offence under the Criminal

Code , there is an associated licence suspension under the

Highway Traffic Act . Since the

section number in the

Criminal Code is changing, we need to make these amendments to

ensure the right length of suspension is given.

These amendments follow recent improvements we made to

the Highway Traffic Act , which came

into force upon the legislation of cannabis on October 17 related to

drug-impaired driving, as well as other amendments that came into effect on June

7 related to distracted driving, excessive speeding, stunting, street racing and

other offences.

Mr. Speaker, our government prides itself on our stance

persons with disabilities. Considerable work has been done in these areas,

including the development of a Words with Dignity policy and Accessible

Communications Policy developed by the Disability Policy Office.

It is important that our legislation mirror the work

that has been done, and, as such, we have updated the definition of pedestrian

in the Highway Traffic Act . The

previous language in the act included the phrase “a handicapped person in a

wheelchair.” This language was contrary to government policies regarding

respectful language.

The new definition of pedestrian in the act now

references “a person in or on a mobility aid,” while mobility aid is defined as

“a wheelchair or other device, whether motorized or not, designed and being used

to facilitate the transport, in a normal seated orientation, of a person with a

physical disability, including a physical limitation on the ability to walk or

move.” The updating of the language aligns with other provincial government

Mr. Speaker, we also have an addition to the

Highway Traffic Act which enables the

Minister of Service NL to adopt codes or standards for accessible parking.

Before I speak to the actual amendment, I want to take this opportunity to

Last fall, our government amended the buildings

and Labrador. The amendments represented our first step in a two-phased approach

which is currently under way.

In terms of accessible parking, my department and

representation from the City of St. John's on potential improvements to the

designated mobility and impaired parking regulations to support enforcement and

compliance regarding issues such as signage and the size of accessible parking

spaces. The amendment to the act we are introducing today will facilitate such

regulatory improvements by providing the Minister of Service NL with the

authority to adopt codes or standards for accessible parking. These include

those of the Canadian Standards Association and Transport Canada, for example.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see with the various amendments

to the Highway Traffic Act brought

forward today, we are continuing our strong focus on road safety. As I stated at

the beginning of my comments, I have stood many times in this House regarding

amendments to the Highway Traffic Act .

Each amendment represents another improvement we have made in our efforts to

help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador remain safe on our roadways. We

made a commitment to continue to identify opportunities to improve highway

safety with input for community stakeholders and law enforcement, and that is

exactly what we are doing.

I want to thank everyone who helped us with the latest

amendments including Bicycle NL, law enforcement officials, the City of St.

John's, as well as other individuals and groups who have made representation to

my department. We recognize the ability we have to change lives for the better,

and amendments to the Highway Traffic Act

certainly span all residents and regions of our province.

I look forward to debating these amendments with my

hon. colleagues in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again it's an honour and a privilege to rise in

this House. As the minister just stated, some of the bills we bring forward in

this House really do make a difference in improving the lives of others, and

that's really what it's all about, Mr. Speaker.

I commend the minister for bringing this act forward.

I've only recently been appointed critic to Service NL. I have to say, I think

it's an incredibly busy department, and some great work is being done in terms

of the bills coming forward.

Bill 39, in particular, will amend the

Highway Traffic Act to modernize the

definition of pedestrian and add a definition for mobility aid. It also updates

references in the Highway Traffic Act

to correspond to amended sections of the

Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, many of these sections required amendments

federally to be in line with the changes forthcoming with the introduction of

the legalization of cannabis. So many of the changes we're making here are

housekeeping changes to correspond with the relevant changes to the federal act.

There are some changes in particular that are

substantive as well. Applying zero tolerance for drugs to taxi drivers is a new

piece that didn't get captured in our last amendment. As well, setting minimum

distances that a driver of a vehicle must keep from a bicycle or a pedestrian.

It corrects an error with respect to applying zero

tolerance for drugs to taxi drivers because it was applied in the last bill to

commercial drivers and various groups. So this just encompasses taxi drives as

well. It allows the minister to set standards for accessible parking signage.

Mr. Speaker, the

Highway Traffic Act is amended frequently. As the minister has outlined, a

number of initiatives have been brought recently. Some of these include changes

regarding impaired driving, increasing penalties for excessive speeding,

stunting and street racing, and increasing fines for various other driving

infractions, such as driving without a valid licence, failing to provide proof

of insurance and driving without clearing snow from a windshield. So, these are

some of the changes that have been made leading up to these changes, Mr.

Speaker.

As was outlined in our briefing yesterday morning, a

large number of these changes can be considered housekeeping, again in line with

the federal changes; but, in particular, the more substantive ones of this bill

would be the application of zero tolerance for drugs to taxi drivers, and the

minimum distance that a driver of a vehicle must keep from a bicycle or

pedestrian.

So, I'm just going to overview some of proposed

amendments again for purposes of our listening public. I do know from talking

with constituents that many people do watch the House of Assembly and find it

very informative. So, for that purpose, sometimes there may be repetition in

what we talk about, but it's all about increasing the awareness and

understanding of people with respect to these bills.

In terms of

definitions,

section 2 of the act is being

amended to modernize the definition of pedestrian, and add a definition for

mobility aid. When this bill was first drafted back in the day, scooters weren't

as commonplace as what they are today, and, as technology changes, we need to

adapt our legislation to ensure we're keeping pace.

Under the current

Highway Traffic Act , a pedestrian is defined as “a person on foot, a

handicapped person in a wheelchair or a child in a carriage or a sleigh.” And

just reading that sentence, Mr. Speaker, will certainly highlight for many

people how that particular terminology really does need to be modernized. It's

archaic language. The new definition will include a person in or on a mobility

aid. And mobility aid will be defined as “a wheelchair or other device, whether

motorized or not, designed and being used to facilitate the transport, in a

normal seated orientation, of a person with a physical disability, including a

physical limitation on the ability to walk or move.”

I said a little while ago that many of these changes

are housekeeping in line with the changes to the federal

Criminal Code . I won't go through them in detail; they are quite

extensive and quite comprehensive. But a number of the proposed amendments,

specifically those which are outlined in sections 2 to 5 of the bill, 7 to 15 of

the bill and

section 18(2) of Bill 39, they will update references to the

Highway Traffic Act to align them with

sections of the Criminal Code of

Canada that were just amended recently under Bill C-46, the new impaired driving

legislation which took place in June of this year at the federal level.

Part II of Bill C-46 made significant changes to the

Criminal Code and changed the

section

numbers for certain offences. The current

Highway Traffic Act references the former sections of the

Criminal Code of Canada, so consequently changes have to be made to

our Highway Traffic Act to ensure that

the penalties will be aligned with the new federal

Criminal Code sections. There will be no change in penalties for

offences, Mr. Speaker.

The federal legislation will come into force on

December 18 of this year, so it's only a few weeks away. It is imperative that

the changes we are making here in this bill are proclaimed by that date. All

provinces across the country will have to make similar amendments to their

legislation as well.

In terms of taxi drivers, Mr. Speaker, there will be

zero tolerance for drug use under this new bill. Under the current

Highway Traffic Act , that zero tolerance was introduced already for novice drivers,

drivers under the age of 22 and commercial drivers. These changes were part of

Bill 23 which we actually debated here in this House last May of this year.

But amendments to paragraph 60, outlined in

section 6,

of this bill will result in zero tolerance also being applied to taxi drivers,

and to a person who has care and control of a taxi, Mr. Speaker. That is a

rather substantive change, but certainly an essential and necessary change that

we're just trying to ensure is consistent across the board with respect to all

public service providers.

The one-metre rule is emerging, as the minister

outlined, as a result of consultation with various groups and a response to the

voice of the people as brought forward to this hon. House through a petition

from the Member for Mount Pearl North. Petitions are very important. They do

bring awareness to this hon. House of issues that are affecting citizens,

concerned citizens across this province. Certainly, I'm glad to be a part of the

responsiveness to that request.

Amendments outlined in

section 16 and 17 of Bill 39 set

minimum distances that a driver of vehicle must keep from a bicycle or a

pedestrian. The new rule, Mr. Speaker, will state that a driver must maintain a

one-metre distance, or three feet, from a bicycle or pedestrian where the speed

limit is 60 kilometres or less. In the event though, Mr. Speaker, that the speed

limit is posted at 60 or higher that distance increases from one metre to 1.5

metres. So that will be an important issue for people to become aware of, both

drivers and cyclists, moving forward.

Amendments outlined in

section 20 of the bill outlines

the associated penalties which will be the same as those for overtaking another

vehicle. That offence has a fine of $100 to $400 or from two to 14 days in jail,

Mr. Speaker. That is significant and it is very important that the public be

aware of these changes because it is a substantial penalty in the event that the

law is broken.

According to department officials, Bicycle NL lobbied

for this amendment. As well, in our briefing, it was noted – and the minister

acknowledged as well – that the MHA for Mount Pearl North presented a petition

back in March of this year on this very topic and urged the government to help

save the lives of vulnerable bicyclists using roadways in our province by

implementing a one-metre law.

So it is important that people who have issues of

concern do feel confident in bringing their issues forward to this hon. House

via petitions because, where possible, to implement them they certainly will be

considered. Similar legislation has been effectively implemented in five other

provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and PEI.

Mr. Speaker, I also spoke about correcting an error.

The amendment outlined in

section 18 of Bill 39 does exactly that.

Section 186

of the current Highway Traffic Act

states that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing

the proportion of a drug in a person's body or blood that is prohibited for the

purpose of this act. That

section will be revised to state that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the proportion

of a drug or a combination of a drug and alcohol in a person's body or blood

that is prohibited for the purpose of this act. That wording “or a combination

of a drug and alcohol” is what was omitted. It was just an oversight, Mr.

Speaker, in the last bill.

It's important that we have laws which state this is

how much alcohol and this is how much cannabis, but the combination of the two

also needs to be considered when it comes to a person's impairment for driving.

That's a very important change that's being made to this bill, Mr. Speaker.

The last change that this bill is going to speak to is

accessible parking signage. The amendments proposed in

section 19 of the bill

refer to the accessible parking signage piece. Currently, in our

Highway Traffic Act there's no

authority to set standards for accessible parking signage. So an addition is

being made to allow the minister to adopt codes or standards. Officials in our

briefing said this will allow for common standards that will be nationally

recognized, and they also mentioned that the City of St. John's was consulted on

this. These changes, Mr. Speaker, will also enable future amendments to the

designated mobility impaired parking regulations.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in terms of commencement of the

bill, which we're now debating here in the House,

section 21 refers to the

timing of when these amendments will take effect. Overall, the housekeeping

amendments which put us in line with the federal bill, will take effect upon

Royal Assent. But, as previously mentioned, the amendments regarding the

Criminal Code will take effect on

December 18, 2018, and those related to taxi drivers will also take effect on

December 18. The proposed amendments regarding the one-metre rule will come into

force 90 days after Royal Assent.

Mr. Speaker, just in listening to the minister's

comments this morning with respect to the effectiveness of petitions and how

they can make a difference in terms of some of the bills that come forward, on a

light-hearted note, I'd like to close by saying that I hope the Minister of

Transportation is responsive to our petitions as well, and we'll see more brush

clearing to improve safety for highways as well in this hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and certainly a bill we all

support. It's a good bill, and it will make a difference to the safety of our

travelling motorists.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MS.

PARSLEY:

Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House to speak to Bill 39, an

amendment to the Highway Traffic Act.

This is my first opportunity to stand as parliamentary

secretary to speak to the amendments to help increase safety on the roads in our

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

PARSLEY:

the Minister of Service NL stated, we cannot state often enough how important it

is that we keep the dialogue going on road safety. It is also important that we

as a government regularly review the act to keep current with changes in safety

codes, vehicle design and other highway safety improvements, as well as

responding to driving behaviours. Any time we, as a government, can make

improvements to help increase safety on our roadways it is a win for us all in

this House and for every resident of our province.

Since I became parliamentary secretary for Service NL,

I have come to learn the great level of interaction our department has with the

public on a daily basis. There aren't many services you can avail of in our

province that don't touch Service NL in some way. With this high level of

interaction also comes the responsibility to ensure we are providing the best

service possible to the people of our province. Service NL, through its

Government Service Branch, is responsible for highway safety legislation in the

province through administration of the

Highway Traffic Act .

Mr. Speaker, the

Highway Traffic Act is a very significant piece of legislation with more

than 250 provisions as well as 17 associated sets of regulations. The act has

been amended on a fairly regular basis since its original inception. Some of the

amendments are designed to improve highway safety. Others have been made to

ensure the act is responsive to changes in vehicle technology and drivers'

behaviour and other conditions. All of the changes help us ensure that drivers,

their passengers and other road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, are all

protected.

A wonderful example of this, Mr. Speaker, is the

one-metre rule we have introduced today. It is another measure aimed at safety

for vulnerable road users in our province, namely cyclists and pedestrians. It

allows for a safety distance between vehicles and cyclists or pedestrians.

Mr. Speaker, the zero-tolerance policy for drugs or

drugs and alcohol for taxi operators is another significant amendment we are

introducing today. The last amendment made to the act introduces zero-tolerance

for novice drivers under 22 and drivers of commercial vehicles. Both the taxi

industry and their passengers will have an increased level of safety as a result

of this change we are proposing.

We also have addressed language in the act that

references persons with disabilities. It was important that we change the

language in the act to ensure it is respectful. Our government has done

tremendous work to help support a province that is accessible, inclusive and

supports diversity.

These are just a few examples of the ways amending the

Highway Traffic Act can improve road

safety and help ensure it is modern and responding to today's environment. It is

important that we continue to look at the information before us and determine

what can be improved upon.

Every day thousands of people travel the roadways of

our province. Each vehicle carries a mother, a child, a grandparent or a friend.

It is incumbent that we take that into consideration every time we get behind

the wheel of a vehicle. Every interaction under the

Highway Traffic Act has the potential to have far-reaching

consequences for everyone travelling on our roadways. That is why it's important

that we take steps, such as Bill 39, to make changes and improvements wherever

we can.

Our government hopes that the amendments we are

proposing will once again remind motorists of their responsibilities when

driving on our roadways in our towns and communities. Road safety is everyone's

responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 39,

An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act.

When these petitioners presented the petition to me

last spring, I had to recollect a story; own personal story of mine. Back about

40 years ago, when Brookfield Road was kind of a country road, we often used to

travel up and down the road on our bikes. I can remember one day, and this kind

of really sums it up in this legislation, this guy who was – back then we

considered him a bit of a hard case. It was a local taxi driver who happened to

indulge in some beverages, and he was kind of going all over the road. You know,

back then that was – it was not looked at with the same lens as it is today.

As I was driving along on my little bicycle, giving her

up the road, he came along and struck me with his mirror and sent me off into

the ditch. He got out, and barely able to stand up, and said: Watch where you're

going. So when you look at this legislation, we've come a long way, and

thankfully so.

As I said, society has changed. The way our society

operates and travels it's going to continue to evolve and change. As people

become more aware of the impact driving to and from places in motor vehicles

operated by fossil fuels has on our environment, there'll be more people biking.

I'm still a biker myself, and I do enjoy taking time

and going for a leisurely ride. I don't do it for purpose, more than just

relaxation, but you will see – and I'd like to encourage more people to take a

cycle versus a car. Now that this legislation and the amendments that we're

making are going to make it safer for these people to travel on our roads, I

think that more people may think about it.

I'd like to thank the minister and her department for

considering the petition and bringing this forward. I'd also like to commend

them for including the taxi driver suspension analysis in this as well. Because,

of course, when you jump into a taxi, you're doing it thinking that the driver

is a contentious and a fit person behind the wheel. There was a gap in the

legislation where taxi drivers were not specifically referenced as it pertains

to licence suspension.

Another thing I was really pleased with was the

amendment to the definition of mobility aid. I often see motorized wheelchairs

and mobility aids for people who have mobility challenges and people seem to

look at them, or not people, but some people seem to look at them as an obstacle

in travelling. They, I'm sure, would love to be able to run along with everyone

of us, but because of the deck of cards or the hand of cards that life has dealt

them, they require these pieces of equipment to carry on a normal life. We have

to make accommodations and give them their right to travel around unimpeded by

belligerent motorists.

Redefining that mobility aid is a big factor in making

it more, I guess, concrete and acceptable for us to accept mobility aids as a

commonplace.

Once again, when we go back to talking about bicycles

and pedestrians, it's also necessary – because it's part of our initiative as a

province, I believe, to get people out, get them being active and get them

exercising and getting in better physical condition. Because, of course, it has

great benefits to their health and great benefits to our health system. That's

how we're going to change our dismal statistics about our overall health.

If we can do anything else within any other department

or any other purview or realm to make it safer for people to get out and

exercise or commute by using their own calories versus petro carbons, it's

definitely a step in the right direction.

That's about all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR.

HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly pleased to stand today to speak to Bill

39, which is

An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act.

I want to express my deep gratitude to the Minister of

Service NL and her staff for bringing forward the amendments being proposed here

today. As the department responsible for the

Highway Traffic Act , I'm pleased to see that Service NL takes its

role in protecting the public very seriously.

It is fitting today, Mr. Speaker, Wednesday, November

21, that we are furthering road safety by making these changes to the act. As

many would know, the third Wednesday each November is recognized as National Day

of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims, and today is an opportunity to remember

and honour those individuals and their families. The National Day of Remembrance

draws attention to thousands who have died or have been affected by road

crashes, and to the importance of driving safely on our streets, our roads and

our highways. It is so important that we continue to take action and promote

awareness in an effort to improve safety on our roadways.

Since coming into office in 2015, Mr. Speaker, our

government has taken significant steps to improve road safety. Many of my

constituents often talk with me about these important changes and feel we have

moved in the right direction. The Members in this House would recall that we

recently amended the impaired driving legislation in an effort to further

strengthen both alcohol and drug-impaired driving laws in the province. The

changes include tougher penalties for impaired drivers and new rules that'll

help ensure young people develop safe and sober driving habits that will last

them a lifetime. These revisions will help ensure we continue to protect public

safety.

On Friday, I was in Gander, along with the Minister of

Health and Community Services, and one of our federal MPs, Scott Simms, for the

MADD Canada 31st annual Red Ribbon campaign launch. It's heartbreaking to listen

to the stories from families about lost loved ones due to impaired drivers.

Because of the changes we have made to the

Highway Traffic Act , those who choose to drive while impaired by

drugs, or drugs and alcohol, will face more significant penalties.

While our most recent amendments following the

legalization of cannabis, novice drivers, drivers under the age of 22, and

commercial drivers will be subject to zero tolerance for the presence of drugs,

while requirements for all other drivers will be consistent with the recent

improvements to the Highway Traffic Act

for alcohol. Anyone who chooses to drive while impaired by drugs, alcohol or

drugs and alcohol will now face more significant penalties as a result of these

changes to the act.

The amendments we are proposing here today continue our

efforts to help make our roads, our highways and communities safer for everyone.

There must be zero tolerance, Mr. Speaker. We need to work together with our

community partners including our police services, our first responders and

advocacy groups to ensure that we have the best legislation possible.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we are bringing forward an

amendment to include zero tolerance provision for drugs or drugs and alcohol for

a driver of a taxi and a person who has care and control of a taxi. I think this

is significant. I want to reiterate the important role taxis play in our

transportation network. As the Minister of Service NL said in her remarks, this

change to legislation will help increase safety for both the taxi industry, as

well as their passengers.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out, the inclusion of

taxis was done after consultation with the industry. In fact, after we brought

in legislative amendments regarding alcohol and drugs we were asked by the taxi

industry, why was it not included. Well, today, Mr. Speaker, we are making these

changes. I want the people of the province to understand that as a government we

listen and we take the steps necessary to improve their lives. In this case, we

are talking about improvements to road safety.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move on to another proposed

change being made in Bill 39. This one involves the one-metre rule for the

protection of cyclists and pedestrians in our province. As the Minister of

Service NL mentioned, Bicycle Newfoundland and Labrador is very supportive of

this change.

I recall first being contacted by Andy Poole, a

constituent from my district, back in January, who approached me about the need

to introduce a one-metre protective zone for bicyclist who cycle along our

public roadways. During our conversation, we discussed the legislation that was

already in place in other Atlantic provinces, including New Brunswick and Nova

Scotia. It is now my understanding that PEI and Quebec have similar legislation

in place.

In New Brunswick, for example, Ellen's Law was

developed in memory and in honour of Ellen Watters who was struck by a vehicle

while cycling on a stretch of highway on December 23, 2016. Sadly, five days

later Ellen died. Ellen's Law requires drivers to keep a minimum distance of one

metre from cyclists.

In Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, Bill 93 was introduced in

2011 to encourage safe sharing of the road by cyclists and drivers and includes

requirements for both. The motto in Nova Scotia is: I share the road; and

requires that drivers leave at least one metre of space when passing a cyclist.

Mr. Speaker, in this province, we have developed a

positive working relationship with Bicycle Newfoundland and Labrador. I recall I

meeting I had with the president of Bicycle Newfoundland and Labrador, Kevin

Flynn, in March. At that time I was trying to understand what was meant by a

one-metre rule. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Flynn for taking

the time to educate me and for following up by further engaging other key

stakeholders, such as the Cities of St. John's, Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, in

addition to some provincial organizations such as Sport NL, Municipalities

Newfoundland and Labrador, and of course SafetyNL.

Mr. Speaker, these legislative changes came about

because of the advocacy from the community, as well as support from our police

agencies and our municipal leaders. If I may quote Mr. Flynn, who said, adopting

this law will bring us one step, or pedal stroke, closer to safer commuting on

our roadways. Thank you to Bicycle Newfoundland and Labrador for your support of

Bill 39. We look forward to working with you again on future initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, there are also amendments to address the

definition of pedestrian in the Highway

Traffic Act . The new definition will respectfully address persons with

disabilities. Our government has a strong focus on inclusion and diversity, and

we have made significant strides in these areas since coming into office. Many

would know that I spent the first half of my career working in the disabilities

movement. So the changes being proposed gives us better, more modern and

inclusive language, which is very dear to my heart.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we constantly review

our legislation to ensure that language is respectful of all the people in our

society. It is also important that we review our legislation to ensure that it

is aligned with other pieces of legislation that will have an impact. As such,

we have also introduced changes to the Highway Traffic Act which align with changes in the

Criminal Code of Canada. I should

point out that there are no changes in penalties for offences as of the result

of the amendments proposed here today.

With the number of sections changing the

Criminal Code, we have to update

references to them in the Highway Traffic

Act . Consistency, Mr. Speaker, is especially important. If someone is

convicted of a driving offence under the

Criminal Code , their driver's licence would be suspended under the

Highway Traffic Act . I'm very proud of

our governments continued commitment to ensuring the safety of drivers and

passengers on our province's roadways. The changes we are debating here today

follow a long list of improvements we have made to the act, with the travelling

public of our province in our minds.

Over the past while, we have amended the legislation to

reduce excessive speeding, stunting and street racing. I am sure that most of my

colleagues have witnessed some of these behaviours on our public roadways as

each of you drive through your respective districts.

Mr. Speaker, Move Over provisions were enhanced by

requiring drivers to reduce their speed by 30 kilometres per hour below the

speed limit and move to an adjacent lane when approaching law enforcement or

other emergency vehicles stopped at the roadside. When this first came into

effect, I saw little change in the habits of some drivers. However, with time

and with education, I am pleased to see that things are changing.

Also, a new offence for driving without due care and

attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons causing bodily

harm or death was also added. All of these changes, Mr. Speaker, were made in

consultation with safety advocates including Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Canada, the S.T.A.N.D. For Hannah Foundation and their victims' families. These

were also made in support of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police.

I was pleased – as I mentioned, I was in Gander on

Friday – to see the representation from both police forces as well as our fire

departments, and first responders were there in support of MADD Canada and that

31st anniversary.

All of these changes to the

Highway Traffic Act speak to our government's commitment to safe and

sustainable communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is our job as a government, and

all Members of this hon. House, to do our best to further the protection of the

people of this province. I am delighted to join my colleagues here today for the

debate on Bill 39. As I conclude, I would like to once again thank the Minister

of Service NL for bringing forward these proposed changes here today. I look

forward to our continued debate and I am hopeful that we give unanimous support

to Bill 39.

Thanks so much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to

speak today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER (Warr):

recognize the hon. Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, as well, to stand and speak to Bill 39,

An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act. I note that it was only in the spring

that we did amendments to the Highway

Traffic Act , and some of these today are new ones and some of them are

actually corrections based on Bill 23, when we made amendments last spring.

I think it's really important that we are having

regular amendments to the Highway Traffic

Act because, like all acts, it's a living document. But because of the

changing times and new issues that continually come up with regard to the

highway and traffic issues with regard to driving, it's important that

government is always on top of that and making changes that need to be made.

Before speaking specifically to the act – and I thank

the minister for her outlining of the act, and my colleagues have made

references to the very specific points that are in the act, and I shall do that

as well. But before doing that, I'd like to point out the whole issue of

enforcement. It's fine to have

an act. It's fine to be updating our act. It's

fine to be bringing in tougher rules and regulations as this bill does.

So, for example, when talking about the use of drugs,

having a zero policy with regard to taxi drivers, not just with regard to novice

drivers, I think that's extremely important. But if we don't have adequate

enforcement and resources for enforcement, what we have on paper will not mean

anything. I continually hear people talking about how they see so many

infractions on a daily basis of drivers, but we don't have enough police

officers who are enforcement officers with regard to traffic, to catch the

infractions. And we know you're not going to have somebody at every corner, but

we really do need more resources with regard to enforcement of our traffic act;

there's absolutely no doubt about it.

While this bill doesn't deal with something like the

use of cellphones, we all, I'm sure in this House alone, can attest on a daily

basis, seeing people using cellphones while they're driving. With all of these

changes here today, it's the same thing. Who is picking up on the infractions?

It's good that we have it in the rules, but who's picking up on it?

One that I'd like to make reference to, in particular,

is the change with regard to the definition of a pedestrian. The current act

says that a ‘pedestrian' means a person on foot, a handicapped person in a

wheelchair or a chair in a carriage or a sleigh.” The change says: a person in

or on a mobility aid. This is good, but it's not inclusive enough, and I'm

actually going to want to speak to the minister about this, and maybe bring up a

suggested changed when we're in Committee.

It says: a person in or on a mobility aid. As a person

who, right now, because of a knee injury, is using a cane, a cane is a mobility

aid; so, in or on doesn't cover that. I have friends who are visually impaired.

I have one, in particular, who uses a white cane. Her complaint is that people

pay no attention to the white cane, and how nervous she is at various

intersections in the city. I know that's not a provincial highway, but various

intersections in the city, because people pay no attention to the white cane.

So, I'm going to speak to the minister about – and her

people would have to look at it, and maybe even the Department of Justice would

have to, but a person using a mobility aid, rather than a person in or on a

mobility aid. Because I think if we really are going to be concerned that we're

covering all, then I think that's a bit more inclusive language than “in or on,”

because “in or on” narrows the

interpretation of the mobility aid. But I'm

really glad to see the more modern language and, perhaps, we could make it even

more inclusive by what I'm going to suggest to the minister outside of second

reading.

The enforcement issue is a key one. Then that becomes

key, also, with regard to the drugs. This bill is a mixed bag of different

amendments to the Highway Traffic Act .

So we also have a number of references to drugs, the use of drugs and how that

is enforced. So for example, the zero tolerance – I've already mentioned this –

for drugs being applied to the driver of a taxi and a person who has care and

control of a taxi, not just zero tolerance for drugs for novice drivers, drivers

under age 22 and commercial drivers.

I think it's really important and I understand that it

was consultation that led to the addition of taxi drivers, and that's extremely

important. But the bottom line is – and I make reference, also, to the change to

the act which talks about the current act makes reference to the proportion of a

drug in a person's body or blood that is prohibited for the purpose of this act.

I think it was accidental that the notion of a combination of a drug or a

combination of a drug and alcohol in a person's body or blood that is prohibited

is now the change. And that's good, because we know that it's not just drugs by

itself or alcohol by itself, that you can get a combination.

However, once again, how does one enforce that? And we

had this discussion when we were debating Bill 23 in the spring, and that was

the whole issue of detecting drug-impaired drivers. I think we all know that the

roadside sobriety tests which are being used – they're called standard field

sobriety tests – is the only way that we have of on the road determining whether

or not somebody may be under the influence of a drug.

We do have drug enforcement experts, and I've listened

to the drug enforcement experts when they've been interviewed in the media. I'm

not putting down their expertise. They are trained; there's no doubt about that.

I know that the RCMP and I think the RNC also have people who are trained, but

the thing is we also know that the drug recognition is not a science. That the

field sobriety tests are highly subjective, and are determined by what an

officer or the drug recognition expert is recognizing in the person that they

suspect is under the influence.

We know that they can bring a person whom they suspect

of being under the influence back to police headquarters, and we know that urine

and blood tests can be done, but we also know that none of that is

scientifically definitive either. As I recognized last spring, the federal

government needs to really take very seriously the fact that we don't have

definitive scientifically approved ways of showing whether a person is under the

influence, how much it takes to make a person impaired when they're on drugs,

how much it takes when the drugs and alcohol are combined. It's still a problem.

I know it's not just a provincial problem, but I would

hope that the provincial government and the minister would be working with their

federal counterparts to see what the federal government is doing to come up with

various roadside screening devices for cannabis that are effective, that can

give answers.

I haven't heard anything recently. I know that in the

spring there certainly wasn't anything coming forward and I certainly haven't

heard of anything definitive being found yet. Once the federal government does

find a device that will work, then we would have to make sure that on a

provincial level the province would be involved in making sure that provincial

officers would be trained to use it but, right now, we do not have anything

definitive.

So, in all cases with regard to the amendments that are

here today, overall enforcement is an issue, from different perspectives.

Overall, enforcement is an issue. We do know that enforcement takes resources,

but we have to put more money in in order to make sure that we have adequate

enforcement so that people are safe. People are not going to be safe because of

what's written on paper. They're not going to be safe because something is in

the act. They're only going to be safe if we can ensure that people are

following the new rules and that the roads are safer, so that my friend who uses

a white cane can go down to Elizabeth Avenue and Portugal Cove Road and not feel

her life is in danger. So that she can walk to her physio appointment without

feeling her life is in danger. That's as practical as we have to get, Mr.

Speaker.

Once again, I make the point: Enforcement is the key

issue and that takes resources.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 39,

An Act

to Amend the Highway Traffic Act No. 2. I will say up front, Mr. Speaker, I will

be supporting this bill, these amendments in this bill, as I'm sure all of the

Members will likewise be supporting it. There's no reason why we wouldn't.

There are a few changes here to the

Highway Traffic Act . I don't want to

be too repetitive, but I will say I think the change in definition to a

pedestrian, where it references somebody with mobility issues, I think it's very

important that that language be changed to be more inclusive and more respectful

of persons with mobility issues. So I'm certainly supportive of that one.

Of course, there are also a number of changes here in

terms of where the Highway Traffic Act

references the Criminal Code , because

apparently the Criminal Code has

changed, or the numbering of the Criminal

Code around impaired driving and so on has changed. There are codes on over

.08, impaired driving, refusing the Breathalyzer and so on.

Now that we've added cannabis in there, they've changed

the numbering of the sections of the

Criminal Code to incorporate cannabis on the federal level. Of course, the

references currently that exist under the

Highway Traffic Act are referencing the old

Criminal Code numbers for those

offences, not the new ones. So, basically, there have been changes made to the

provincial Highway Traffic Act to

reference the new Criminal Code

numbers. So that's more of a housekeeping issue, but something that needs to be

done all the same. Of course, I'm sure nobody would have an issue with that.

I think the zero tolerance for taxi drivers is a good

move. If I'm not mistaken, at the time when we debated the bill this spring, I

believe it was a number of Members, I believe myself as well, including others,

referenced the fact that we found it a little strange that taxis wouldn't be

referenced. Anyway, I'm glad to see the taxi industry themselves have come

forward and requesting that change, that it would be zero tolerance for taxis.

One question I would have for the minister when we get

to Committee, is that it talks about – so now we have zero tolerance for taxis,

zero tolerance for drivers under the age of 22 and zero tolerance for commercial

drivers. So I'm just sort of wondering – and I forgot to ask this at the

briefing. Actually, it didn't occur to me at the briefing, it occurred to me

after the fact. But when we're talking about commercial drivers, I'm assuming –

and I'll get clarification from the minister – that would encapsulate people

driving buses, because there are people – for example, Metrobus drivers.

Now I don't know if that's considered commercial

drivers, if that's considered taxi, if it's a classification onto itself, but I

just use Metrobus as an example. If taxi drivers have to be at zero tolerance

because they're transporting passengers around the city, then I would assume

that a Metrobus driver should also be zero tolerance. I would assume that a

school bus driver should be zero tolerance. I would assume that a GoBus operator

should be zero tolerance. A daycare bus should be zero tolerance.

Of course, then we have those tourist buses that you

see when the cruise ships are around taking tourists up to Cape Spear and Signal

Hill and all that kind of stuff. Or the DRL buses that are taking people around

the province, or buses being hired to take seniors on their day trips to

Carbonear or whatever the case might be. All of those buses.

So busing in general, and there are a whole range of

categories, but I'm wondering if all of those buses, including school buses,

Metrobuses and so on, do they all fall under the category and the catch-all of

commercial drivers. Because if they don't fall under commercial drivers, then I

really believe that bus drivers should be zero tolerance the same as taxi

drivers are going to be zero tolerance. Even more so when you think about school

children and stuff like that, depending on the bus. We certainly would want zero

tolerance for our school bus drivers. So I throw that out there just for some

clarification.

I also want to echo what the Member for St. John's East

- Quidi Vidi said as it relates to the equipment that is available, or should I

say that's not available to enforcement officers in the field when it comes to

detection of cannabis. Because, yes, we all know when we debated the various

pieces of cannabis related legislation that we do have police officers that are

trained – I forget the terminology now, it eludes me at the moment. Anyway, they

have special training to be able to detect if somebody's impaired by cannabis.

That's impaired, that's the key point here: impaired by cannabis.

So if someone has had enough cannabis that they are

actually driving impaired, then the police officer is trained to detect that,

give a person their rights and caution, charges them with impaired, bring them

to a hospital for a blood test or whatever the case might be to confirm that,

but there's no way a police officer who is trained in impairment can tell if

someone has had, say, one puff. Because we're saying zero tolerance, that means

you have zero in your body. That means if someone had one puff of a joint or

whatever, they might not be impaired but they still have some in their system

which means the zero tolerance kicks in.

How are we going to know if someone has had, not enough

to be impaired but they have had some? So there's no way to prove zero

tolerance, is my point; unless you have some kind of a device, the same as an

alert that is used for impaired driving, that someone could – a police officer

could do, I don't know, random road checks, or haul someone over and say, here,

and give them the alert, be able to do the same thing for cannabis.

So until we have such a device – and it's my

understanding they have these devices in some provinces now, the Draeger

something it's called. I forget the name of it, but I understand there are a

couple of provinces that have something now; we don't.

So I guess this legislation is kind of – it's still

good to have this, because once we do get the device the legislation will

already be in place. Plus, it sends a message, if you will, to the public that

the expectation is zero tolerance. But, at the end of the day, there's no way to

enforce it, unless you have a device to tell if someone has anything in their

system in terms of cannabis.

As I said, I think the Member for St. John's East -

Quidi Vidi raises a very good point in that regard. I concur with her on it for

sure.

The next thing, of course, the one-metre rule for

persons that are riding bikes, bicycles. It could also apply to pedestrians,

which would include people in wheelchairs, scooters and so on.

I had a meeting – I don't know, I'm going to a say a

month or a month-and-a-half ago – with a representative from Bicycle NL. That's

what he was asking for on behalf of his group. So I'm sure he and his group are

pleased to see this legislation come into effect. It is being done in other

provinces.

It's kind of like the Move Over law to some degree;

it's kind of like the Move Over. The police have someone hauled over, you take

the other lane or you try to slow down and you try to give them wide berth if

there's an emergency vehicle stopped on the side of the road. It's a similar

type concept to someone on a bicycle. You pass them when it's safe to do so,

giving them a wide berth of a metre or 1.5 metres, depending on if it's a

bicycle or a pedestrian, which could be someone in a wheelchair, scooter or so

on.

I would certainly support that. I know that there will

be some people that – I can see areas where that could be challenging; there's

no doubt I can see areas where that could be challenging. It could work fine in

an area like Mount Pearl, as an example, or the newer parts of the city, where

the roads are wider and it's easier to do that. I could see it being a little

more problematic in the downtown core, where you have narrow streets and

on-street parking, and there's barely enough room to get through in a car, at

the best of times, and now you're going to add this.

I could see some potential there where it could be

somewhat problematic but, at the end of the day, under our

Highway Traffic Act , persons on bicycles – and like I said, there

are people that use scooters, for example, people with mobility challenges that

have to use scooters. That's their mode of transportation, and they have to use

the side of the road, particularly in the wintertime, the sidewalks are not

there and so on. So they have no choice, and they have a right to get around,

just like everyone else.

So, it's important that we put in legislation that

allows them to navigate our city streets safely, but, by the same token, I'm

sure that I can envision, in the downtown core of St. John's, where there's no

doubt that people would suggest that it could be somewhat problematic because of

the nature of the streets, the narrowness of the streets, and the on-street

parking and everything else. But, at the end of the day, people have the right

to be there, and drivers are going to have to get used to the fact that they

have to respect people that are on bicycles or are using scooters and electric

wheelchairs and everything else.

One of the things that's not identified here –although,

staff said they would certainly try to promote this – is the fact that under

the Highway Traffic Act , according to

staff at the briefing, the only thing that it talks about, like bicycles and so

on, is basically a reflector on the front of the bike and a reflector on the

back of the bike. It's only a little reflector. I'm not sure how effective that

is in terms now if potentially more people are going down the street on narrow

roads, in the nighttime, with just a little reflector, I don't know how

effective that would be. It would be great – I would like, personally, to see

something here that would say that you should be required to wear some sort of a

vest or something in the nighttime if you're driving a bike on a city street, a

requirement to wear a safety vest as opposed to a little reflector on the back

of the bike so that drivers could see you. If we really want to talk safety,

that's to my mind where we should be going.

There's a gentleman in Mount Pearl, I see him all the

time, and he has a scooter and he actually has a safety vest attached to his

backseat, the back of his seat, and he has a pole attached to the scooter with a

flashing light on it. It's really neat. There's no chance that you're not seeing

him. He's really done a good job and he got her covered in reflectors and

everything else. He goes down Old Placentia Road or down Smallwood Drive or

whatever; there's no missing him.

If we're going to encourage more people on bicycles,

people on scooters, the electric wheelchairs and so on to be utilizing the

roadways, along with vehicular traffic, then I really think it's important that

we place some more onus and ensure that people on bikes, on scooters and so on

to have that requirement that they can be seen by drivers. Like I say, a little

reflector on the back of a bike, underneath their seat or something, doesn't cut

it to my mind, but there should be some sort of a balance – maybe what this

gentleman is doing is over the top. I think it's perfect, to be honest with you.

I think it's awesome because you cannot miss him. I think that's something that

needs to be considered.

Accessible parking – this is, I think, really the final

thing, is accessible parking signage. Basically we're putting in a reference

here now that will allow the minister to adopt standards for blue zone parking

signs. Basically when we're talking about the blue zones, there's a requirement

of course with blue zones that, in addition to blue zones, there has to be

permanent vertical signage in place along with the blue zone. Because in the

wintertime, of course, if it snows and there's no sign, you don't even know

there's a blue zone there. So, there is that requirement for that signage.

Basically now, what we're saying is that as opposed to

different businesses and so on sort of creating their own version of what a blue

zone sign is going to look like, perhaps the size of it, the layout, the design,

what it says and all that stuff, that we're actually adopting a uniform standard

to be applied so that everybody's blue zone signage, wherever it's to across the

province, will be the same.

That's important because at least then, once you've set

a standard, everybody knows what it is, what it means and so on. So, it

eliminates any possible confusion or debate. Of course, the other thing is when

it comes to enforcing blue zones, apparently we were told that there had been

some issues perhaps where somebody may have knowingly, or unknowingly, parked in

a blue zone and because the sign that was there was perhaps not that standard

signage, someone had their own spin, or own version on the sign, maybe where it

was placed, how high it was, what it looked like exactly, that when it went to

court and they challenged it, the judge threw it out because there were

questions around the signage.

What's being done here is to say all signage must meet

a certain criteria. Here's the size of it, here's what it looks like, here's the

height of it when it's put up, all those things so that it's standard right

across the board, everyone knows what it is and if anyone parks there, there'll

be no tickets thrown out. You're getting your ticket because everything was done

in a standard manner, and then it eliminates people getting off with tickets

that they shouldn't get off with.

So I want to certainly thank a constituent of mine on

that one: Craig Reid. He really was the catalyst for a lot of the changes we've

seen over the last two or three years as it relates to blue zone parking,

moved from the front door and put blue zones, that was all Craig's doing. A

inventory of all the schools and bring them all up to snuff, that was all

Craig's doing. He was certainly the catalyst behind it and I want to thank him

and congratulate him for all of his advocacy.

I also want to thank and acknowledge the Minister of

Service NL because I have to say we may not agree on everything all the time,

fine and dandy, which we never all do, but I got to give her credit when it

issues we've had here at the Confederation Building, things that I've brought

up, other people have brought up relating to persons with mobility issues, with

disabilities, she really has risen to the occasion and done some really, really

good work in that regard.

While I might criticize her tomorrow on something else,

I have to say today, on this one, and in other cases, when it comes to this

whole idea of persons with disabilities and access and inclusion, she has done a

really, really good job and I want to acknowledge her for it.

Mr. Speaker, that's really all I have to say.

Generally, it's good legislation. Like I said, there are a couple of challenges

with the cannabis that we still have, in terms of the enforcement piece,

hopefully that will get resolved over time. In the meantime, these things, no

doubt, are helping make our roads safer tomorrow than they are today, and I

think that's a good thing. I think we should all support it, and I know we do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

the hon. the Minister of Service NL speaks now, she will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The proposed amendments we have introduced here today

are an important part of our government's public safety agenda. These amendments

help us continue the dialogue of enhancing safety for the travelling public and

help ensure our roadways are as safe as they possibly can be.

The Highway

Traffic Act is a substantive piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, it includes

215 sections, plus a

schedule of penalties. The amendments represent one more

step in our ongoing efforts to improve safety on our roadways in every town and

in every region in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'd like to close debate by specifically highlighting a

few of the amendments we will be making, namely enhanced safety for cyclists and

pedestrians, increased safety for both the taxi industry and their passengers,

modernized language to respectfully address persons with disabilities, as well

as a number of changes to implement updates and to reflect changes in the

Criminal Code of Canada. All of these

changes would not be possible without the input we receive from numerous

community stakeholders and law enforcement personnel in our province.

Groups like Bicycle NL lobbied government to strengthen

the province's regulatory regime in order to increase safety for cyclists and

pedestrians in our province. I want to express my gratitude to the numerous

individuals and groups like them who provide government with feedback on the

Highway Traffic Act , and I want to

highlight their willingness to continuously work with us in our efforts to

improve road safety in the province. I cannot state often enough how important

it is that we keep the dialogue going on road safety.

It is also important that we as a government regularly

review the act to keep current with changes in safety codes, vehicle design and

other highway safety improvements, as well as responding to driving behaviours.

We've had numerous changes to the Highway

Traffic Act in the recent past. The amendments we will put forward today in

the House of Assembly help us continue the ongoing focus on strengthening road

safety in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Every person who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle

must realize the responsibility that is theirs. Every single one of us must make

sure we abide by the rules of the road and make decisions that will help us

improve safety on the roadways of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to conclude by thanking all hon. Members for

contributing to this debate today. We must all remain committed to making public

safety a priority.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 39 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 39)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole?

MS.

COADY:

Now.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act No. 2,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House presently, by leave. (Bill 39)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that

the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 39.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

We are now considering Bill 39,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act No. 2.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No.

2.” (Bill 39)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Madam Chair, and what a pleasure it is to say Madam Chair.

I don't have a lot of questions, Minister, but there

are a few questions we did have with respect to the bill. A lot of people are

unaware, confused about certain aspects of the current legislation regarding

cycling. They are not laws that are often talked about.

We were wondering if there will be a public education

awareness campaign to inform the public, both cyclists and drivers, as well as

pedestrians, about the new one metre and 1.5 metre rule.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, Member, we are committed to ensuring that the

general public realizes that there has been a change. We are also committed to

the educational component regarding the current rules around cycling because we

understand, and it has been brought to our attention, that people really don't

know that you shall not ride on a sidewalk, that you shall ride as near as

practical to the right-hand curb or edge of a roadway. And there are a number of

other rules around cycling that people are not aware of.

So, yes, we will continue to work with Bicycle NL and

anyone else in the province who is willing to assist us to get it out.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Minister.

In terms of one of the proposed amendments regarding

the one-metre rule, the bill said they will come into force 90 days after Royal

Assent. So will that awareness campaign occur during that 90-day period?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, we'll start immediately informing the public.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The changes with respect to accessible parking signage,

can you expand on this in terms of what else is being considered or what some of

the thoughts of the department are with respect to future amendments?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

what has actually happened is the City of St. John's has brought it to our

attention that they are having difficultly with enforcing fines because the

standards for the blue zones signing is not consistent. We are going to be

consistent with the Canadian regulations, and it will give me the authority to

do that, to make sure there's consistency so that they can actually enforce the

law around the blue zone signage.

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Is there any plan to work with the municipalities in

installing the permanent signage, advising motorists of this new rule, and can

you explain how this new rule will apply in areas where there is construction or

other obstacles?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

What I can say is a plan to address the issue related to signs, as was

highlighted by the city, will require an amendment to the regulation and the

ability to adopt the standards for the signs for the national standards in the

Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada or the Canadian Standards

Association. So, we're working alongside and with the municipalities.

Are you asking me if there's funding? No, there's not

funding; but, as Service NL, we are the regulators and we are willing to listen

to the concerns of the municipalities right across Newfoundland and Labrador as

it pertains to the blue zone signage, and to work with them.

It's done on an individual basis. You just brought up

construction zones. We would have to deal with that construction zone when it

occurs. But, yes, we are the regulators of the blue zones, so we will ensure

that the blue zone signage, to the best of our ability – and the Member brought

it up a few minutes ago regarding the blue zone parking at Confederation

Building. That was brought to our attention and it was changed. So, as we move

forward and as municipalities and interested individuals bring this to our

attention, we work to change it.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you.

Can you inform us if there's a plan to educate and

inform taxi drivers of the new zero-toleration amendments?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Well, our department is working very closely with some of the taxi drivers.

Newfound Cabs, Jiffy Cabs and the Alliance, we've had conversations with.

There's no doubt there are times that we don't totally agree on everything.

However, yes, we will definitely work with the taxi companies to ensure they are

aware of the change.

We actually consulted with them and worked with them

before bringing this change in, so they're aware this is happening today.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, just a couple of quick questions that I

raised in second reading. I'm just wondering, in terms of buses – and that would

include, as I said in second reading, things like Metrobus, school buses,

daycare buses and so on. Are they considered commercial vehicles under this

catchment that you have for commercial vehicles and, if not, is there a plan or

a willingness to also create zero tolerance for buses the same as you've done

for taxis?

If an individual is in a taxi, our children are riding

a school bus or a daycare bus, safety is paramount there and I can't see why

they shouldn't be zero tolerance – if they're not already covered under

commercial.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

what I'll do is just read out the definition of commercial for clarification. It

means “a vehicle designed to carry goods, and includes a bus, a school bus, a

truck, a truck tractor and other motor vehicles designed for commercial use but

does not include camper type vehicles designed or adapted exclusively for

recreational purposes.”

So the answer to your question is yes, they are

included in commercial.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Perfect, thank you for the clarification, Minister. I'm glad to hear that.

The only other question I have, again, is something I

raised in second reading. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. As we are

going to be with this legislation, we're kind of being more inclusive to

bicycles, scooters, motorized wheelchairs and so on, of sharing the roadways –

which they already have the right to do, but the fact that we're bringing in

this one-metre rule and so on, we're on that topic and it's creating a sense of

more inclusion and recognition of their right to be on the roadway.

So with that said, I'm just wondering what your

thoughts are on – because right now, according to staff at the briefing at

least, the only requirement under the

Highway Traffic Act is that they've got to have a reflector on the front and

on the back of the bike. I would submit to you that that's probably not doing

the job that it should in terms of people driving cars actually seeing people in

the nighttime.

I would certainly think that we should be looking at

requiring people who are riding bikes in the roadway in the nighttime, or on

scooters, or whatever the case might be, to have reflective vests or other means

on their bicycles or scooters, whatever, so that they can be seen by the

operators of motor vehicles. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that.

Would you be willing or open to making an amendment at some point, perhaps, if

necessary, to make sure that happens?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, I agree with you regarding the reflectors, and I'll certainly take that

under advisement, but would really need to consult with my colleagues across

Canada just to see what they're actually doing to address that. Because an

individual on a scooter is considered a pedestrian, so that's where they fall

under.

I will certainly take that under advisement, and I

really can relate to what you are saying there and will go back and check with

my colleagues.

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to extend that point that the minister just

made, because I had raised the issue of the definition of pedestrian and the

definition of mobility aid. The minister and I have had a chat, but I think we

should also put it on the record because I was questioning the use of the words

“in or on” in the definition – a person in or on a mobility aid.

The minister, clearly, said she, too, actually had

questioned that. When you look at it as coming after a person on foot, then a

person on foot who would have a cane, for example, would be a person on foot.

Subsection (2)(ii), a person in or on a mobility aid, then is somebody who is

not on foot, but does not exclude somebody who's with a cane. So I just want to

make sure, from the minister, that I'm interpreting that correctly.

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, that is correct; that's exactly what it is. The act is repealed and the

following substituted: Pedestrian means a person on foot, a person in or on a

mobility aid, or a child in a carriage or sleigh. So, in fact, it is an

individual on foot, with a cane or any other type of mobility aid, is included.

CHAIR:

Seeing no further speakers, shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 through 21 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 through 21 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 21 carried.

CLERK:

it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative

session convened, as follows:

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

On motion, the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS.

COADY:

move, Madam Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 39.

CHAIR:

The

motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 39 without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR.

SPEAKER (Warr):

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Chair of the Committee of the

Whole.

MS.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters

to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 39 without amendment.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered

the matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 39 without

amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS.

P. PARSONS:

Now.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

MS.

P. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted.

Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, Bill 37.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very happy to speak to Bill 37, which is the

Public Health Protection and Promotion Act .

I would like start off by saying that this is a very important bill. It's very

comprehensive, and it attempts to modernize our health policy and our

legislation around health promotion, prevention, treatment.

I would like to congratulate government and the

Minister of Health and Community Services for bringing forth this bill. Again,

it's a bill that's long overdue, and we do need to modernize these different

areas. I would like to congratulate him and his team for looking at this bill,

because it's a comprehensive bill and there are over 50 pages.

There's a lot of work that went into this bill. So I

would like to congratulate the Minister of Health and Community Services and his

team for doing this very important work and for bringing it to the House. It is

important legislation. Again, its goal is to rewrite and modernize an area that

was long overdue, and it takes years. There are often years in between times

when we see rewrites of legislation on this scale, and it happens in a number of

government departments but oftentimes it takes years before we do this because

it's a significant amount of work.

In this legislation itself, there's a mandate in this

legislation that requires the Minister of Health and Community Services to

ensure that this legislation is reviewed every five years. So we'll be back in

this House, Mr. Speaker – some of us will, some of us won't – looking at this

legislation once again. The Minister of Health and Community Services will be

reviewing it and looking at what needs to be updated. We're living in a time

that is changing so rapidly, and there are such complexities that arise in the

area of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to thank the folks who gave

us a briefing. It was Dr. Claudia Sarbu, who is the chief medical officer for

the province, Ms. Gerrie Smith, the legislative consultant for the Department of

Health and Community Services, and Mr. Michael Harvey, the ADM for Health and

Community Services. They kept saying throughout the briefing they realize how

comprehensive this bill is, all the intricacies in the bill, and they said,

well, I'm sorry there's not quite enough time, but they also went over time for

us to help accommodate us in terms of the questions that we had.

The bill really gives more authority and orders to the

minister and to the chief medical officer of health, and it's around

communicable diseases and non-communicable diseases. There's an order for

looking at also chronic diseases, because we have chronic diseases, outstanding

chronic diseases in our population around diabetes, heart health, et cetera,

that really affect the health of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So there's a balance here in this bill. It's about

giving more orders, more authority with the minister, the department, and with

the chief medical officer and regional medical officers, but balancing the

rights of people. They have an incremental approach, a last resort, because at

times they're looking at enforced treatment, looking at access to people's

health information, at times when permission may not be given, but it's a

balancing act between the rights of individuals and the rights and the safety

and the protection of the health and well-being of the people of the province.

So it's always a delicate balance, and there are new

challenges. Since the last public health legislation there are new challenges.

We see more and more global travel. We see more health challenges. We see the

emergence of more diseases that may be more complex, more complex to diagnose,

more complex to treat.

When we look at what happened here a few years ago with

SARS, when we look at what happened in the past 20 – longer than 20 – 30 years

around HIV and AIDS. So it's good that the minister has done this work and his

team has done this work.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, in our briefing is that

those who were part of developing this legislation and bringing it forward,

we're proud to say they believe this is the most modern and comprehensive

approach in the country, and that Nunavut has the most recent policy but they

have not yet proclaimed their policy. They've not yet enacted their legislation.

Actually, its legislation, they have not yet enacted their legislation. They're

still working on their regulations.

One of the wonderful things that this bill will do, Mr.

Speaker, is that it addresses the issue of health in all policies, meaning that

every decision in every department that makes any legislation or policies has to

look at how it impacts the health of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That's a good thing. That's something that many of us have been calling for.

That's something that the minister has been speaking about in the past few

years. So this is a really good approach to this particular legislation.

And the other thing is, it specifically identifies, as

a consideration, the issue of the social determinants of health. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that I have stood and my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi

have often spoken about the social determinants of health in this House when we

look at the Adult Dental Program, when we look at accessible, affordable

housing.

How many doctors have said to me that, at times, it's

almost impossible to treat their patients if they don't have access to

affordable and safe housing, or if they don't have access to transportation to

be fully involved in the community? These are really important issues when we

look at the social determinants of health.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just go through some of the

details of the bill. I have mentioned before how important this kind of bill

would have been to be to an all-party select committee to review this bill –

again, because it's so comprehensive and it deals with such intricate matters.

We're looking at issues of balancing people's rights with this wide-ranging

number of orders and how important that is that this legislation be the best

that it possibly can.

When government talks about being proud of making it

the most modern that it can be, that an all-party committee, a select committee

on this legislation, would have ensured that even more so. I've done some

consultations with folks in the health field who have pointed out some potential

gaps or areas that they would like to have seen identified. That's the kind of

work we could have done in committee.

The other thing is because it's such a major piece of

legislation – we received this legislation at 5:35 on Friday evening; most

people had gone home by then. Then, we got our briefing at 11 o'clock on Monday

morning, and now here we are, Wednesday morning, debating this. We've worked

really hard –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

ROGERS:

We've worked really hard to be able to do as much consultation as we can and a

thorough examination of the bill, but really that gave you, after the briefing,

only a little more than 24 hours to be able to do that. Because here we are,

it's Wednesday morning, Mr. Speaker. I would say that this is a prime example of

why we need to use select committees, why we need to update our democratic

processes here in the House.

One of the issues that is outstanding from some of the

folks we talked about is that there's no real imperative in the bill to do

public engagement. We know that for the benefit of health promotion, health

prevention, health treatment that the public has to be engaged.

Now, the bill does speak to giving more powers to our

public health nurses. Already we know, Mr. Speaker, that our public health

nurses are over extended. They were cut to the bone over the last few years, and

they are over extended, but we are asking them to do more work. I believe that

that's important. That we must once again expand the role of our public health

nurses.

I've heard the Minister of Health and Community

services speak in this House about the important role of nurse practitioners, of

public health nurses, and I believe he's committed to that. But, will there be

resources committed to this? We asked in the briefing will there be extra

resources required and they said no, but maybe what's going to have to happen is

that the regional health authorities may have to reallocate and move resources

around.

The other thing that this calls for is for an update of

five-year plans developed by the regional health authorities. We know that it's

only Eastern Health that currently has a health plan in place. The minister

would like to see the regional health authorities all do that. That requires, we

believe, probably extra resources to, (a), develop the plan, if the plan is

really comprehensive, helpful and useful, and it also will require monitoring

and assessing that as well. So, that may require extra resources.

The other thing in this, we do not see any imperative

around the issue of research. The legislation does speak about the collection of

data but, actual research, we don't see anything really specifically pushing for

that. Again, that would require extra resources as well. In order for us to

continue to be – as the minister has said, that this will be modernizing our

health care system and I believe that he wants to do that. Then that's going to

require primary research and it'll require resources for that research.

There's also really nothing, which I was surprised by,

nothing explicit – the minister, in the legislation, talks about the diverse

populations. But there really is nothing explicit about Aboriginal health and

rural health. Those are some of the areas where we see a real need for health

promotion, prevention and different forms of treatment. So, I'll have some

questions about some of these issues when we do go to Committee, Mr. Speaker.

The other issue is that also the legislation speaks

about water quality, but we know that we have incredible – a surprising, here we

are near the end of 2018, number of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador who

don't have access to safe drinking water. I would've liked to have seen a little

bit more in the legislation that gives it more of an imperative, that access to

drinking water is a human rights issue.

I also would've liked to have seen explicitly stated in

this legislation the authority of medical officers around the health conditions

in correctional institutions; so looking not only at the delivery of health, but

specifically something mentioned, because we know it's a huge problem, the issue

of social determinants of health, and the Health-In-All-Policies in all of our

corrections facilities.

I know that in the legislation it identifies that the

chief medical officer of health has access to a number of facilities. I know it

would be impossible to list them all, but I believe when we see what has

happened in our Justice facilities, our incarceration facilities, corrections

facilities, that I would've liked to have seen a specific reference to that as

well, because it is so problematic and has been so problematic over the years,

and again we're talking about people's rights as well.

The extra orders that we see enshrined in this

legislation, and as well there's a lot left to regulations, and the minister has

said that he would like to see this enacted by July 1, 2019, so there's still a

lot of work yet to be done, and that work will be primarily around regulations.

We were also informed in our briefing that not all the regulations will be

completed by July 1.

The powers of the chief medical officer of health and

the regional medical officer of health are extraordinary, and at times they may

need to be so. We know that the Privacy Commissioner has been consulted on some

of these issues, because they're about accessing a person's personal health info

without consent and, at times, again, I'd like to state that in this legislation

they say that it is a stepped approach, a last approach, the least intrusive,

that there are incremental approaches to this, and again it's that constant

balancing of the health, the well-being, the rights of an individual and the

health and well-being of the population.

I have an outstanding question as to whether or not our

Human Rights Commission was consulted on this legislation. Again, because of the

extraordinary powers that can be used in times of emergency, or to be able to

prevent a health emergency. So, I have some questions about that that I'll ask

during the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few other issues that I

think might be important to raise. For instance, will be a commitment to

resources, where the minister sees some of their extra resources might be

needed? I do like the overall direction of this legislation and where government

is going with it, and I would think that government should take some pride, and

the team of people, who've worked on this, should take some pride.

We have a province with among some of the worst health

behaviours around smoking, heavy drinking, bad diet in the country. So, for the

chief medical officer of health to be able to look at chronic diseases, not just

communicable diseases, is so important. I believe this is going to take more

resources for the chief medical officer of health, to be proactive, to be able

to reach out and to reach in, and to give direction, so that we are looking at

Health-in-All-Policies and also the social determinants of health.

One of the issues that I have raised, constantly, in

this House is the issue of boarding houses, and how unhealthy they are. People

with very complex, people with severe mental illness, people with intractable

addictions issues, who may be solely dependent on income support, how they don't

have enough money to eat properly. They don't have enough money for

transportation, to attend doctor's appointments, to attend support groups.

I would hope that this legislation will also impel the

chief medical officer of health to be able to assess what's happening when

people are on income support and don't have enough money to eat properly. What

happens when people who are on income support and have diabetes and can't afford

their strips or can't afford good food, or someone with heart disease who can't

afford – we know that the amount of money that people are expected to live on

income support is way below the poverty level.

Then let's look at also our seniors. We have the

highest percentage of seniors in receipt of OHS and GIS, also living right at

the poverty line, in some cases below the poverty line. What does that mean when

they can't afford their over-the-counter drugs? What does that mean when they

can't afford good food? What does that mean when they cannot afford dental care?

What does that mean when they can't get dentures and, therefore, are limited to

the types of food that they can eat? What does loneliness mean and isolation

when they can't get around?

Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping that this legislation will be

far reaching and, again, reach into a number of departments who are responsible

for issues such as this. I believe that the intent is to ensure that we have the

healthiest possible population. We have a lot of work to do. If this is to be

truly modernized and to be a gold standard in the province, I'm hoping as well

that the minister will do further consultation. I'll be asking him about some of

the information about what he has done in consultation in preparation for this

legislation.

I see my time is running out.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services speaks now, he will close the debate.

Sorry – the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for

St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I hadn't planned on speaking but there's a point I want

to strengthen, from what the Member for St. John's Centre has mentioned. Because

I think it's important for the public to understand what the breadth of it means

and that has to do with the social determinants of health.

While the bill says it and while it says that this has

to be part of all policies within government and departments have to look at it,

there's no direction on what that might mean. I just want to speak to it for a

minute because it is so important.

As my colleague mentioned, both she and I have talked

about this in the House, but also as somebody who has been involved over decades

with the women's movement, for example. It really was the women's movement that

first started using this language of the social determinants of health. It has

such an important depth of meaning.

For example, one of the big ones is poverty. Poverty is

one of the most serious social determinants of health. There is so much research

that shows the poorer people are, the sicker they are in our society. The people

who have a longer lifespan and healthier lives are people who have more

resources to be able to eat correctly, to be able to exercise, to be able to

have people who even help them with their exercise. Research shows that. So one

of the most serious issues is poverty.

A direction of this government has to be looking at

that and how that relates to housing. Poverty and housing go together. That,

too, is a social determinant of health. How people live, the circumstances under

which they live is a social determinant of health. My colleague made reference

to some practical things. For example, which is not housing, but it is the

accessing needs that people have, like, for example, teeth. If you do not have

good teeth, if you can't chew your food, if you can't really help that food

digest well, then that affects your health. Then the food that you're eating is

determined by whether or not you can buy good food. So this is why this is so

important in the bill, and I'm sure the minister knows that; that's why it's

here. But I also think it needs to be really spelled out and really determined.

Do we have a real focus on this in all the policy making?

Gender is a social determinant of health. That, too,

has to be in there. Also, a person's status in society. So, for example, one

group that I'm aware of, trans persons. By nature of their being trans, by

nature of where they are in our society, that also is a determinant of their

health. How does the health care system, for example, relate to groups with

special needs, who have special needs because of their status in society?

So it's excellent that the words are in the bill. It is

excellent that they're there, but there is so much work that will need to be

done in government to make sure that it's just not on paper, that this has to

flow through all aspects of government, because it is so wide and it is so

important, that we have to look at all of these things to understand what is

necessary to bring good health promotion.

On Saturday, I was at one of the flu shot clinics, and

I have to say it was a wonderful experience. It was here in St. John's, of

course, and it was almost like a social event that was going on. I was really

quite pleased. There were so many families there, so many children getting the

flu shot, and I have to say Eastern Health did a great job. There were resources

– what's the word I want – things for people, coffee, tea, juices, water. People

were speaking with each other. Everybody was talking about it, look at the

turnout, isn't it wonderful? So that spirit we have to also get at.

We also have to make sure that people who have fewer

resources can access that, for example, and that's part of the determinant of

health, because when I looked around there were people who could drive to get

there, who were there. Because it was at the Hampton Inn & Suites on Stavanger

Drive, so you don't get there by walking.

I know it's only one of the clinics that happened in

the city, and Eastern Health did do a good job of having the clinics spread out

throughout the city at different times, but most of them, for people who do not

have transportation, could they get there? Could low-income people who couldn't

use a bus pass to get there, could they get there to get their flu shot for

example? So it's so broad.

It's like when we talk about using a gender lens in

doing policy work. It's the same thing. If we're going to use the lens of social

determinants of health, then we have to have a tremendous amount of work done on

helping all departments understand what that means.

So that's all I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker. As I was

listening and doing more thinking, I thought I just wanted to add my voice to

that point.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, he will close

the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's been an interesting and informative

discussion around second reading on this bill. What I've taken from it is

essentially fulsome support from all sides of the House for what I still

maintain is a landmark piece of legislation.

I did have a little concern when the Leader of the

Third Party talking about attempting to address, but her subsequent comments

really I think are very supportive of this bill. At least I took them that way.

A couple of things I would comment on before we move

into the Committee stage, really in general, this bill doesn't actually

prescribe more in the way of authorities for medical officers of health. The

bulk of the bill, the expansion of the bill, has actually been around those

balancing rights that did not exist in the previous legislation. To be fair to

the drafters, simply because that framework was not there in the 1970s.

Really and honestly, the bulk of the expansion around

orders has been around balancing of the orders against the rights of the

individual. Indeed, some authorities that existed under the old legislation

were, quite frankly, not constitutionally sound and have been removed. They've

been taken out.

In terms of comments from the Members of the Third

Party and one of the independent MHAs around the issue of resources;

fundamentally, what is happening in the health care system in this province is

nothing less than a C-Change, a shift. What we are doing is we're moving away

from the historical institution-based, provider-centric approach of the first

iteration of Medicare to very much a patient-centred approach with services

delivered in the home where possible, in the community ideally, and only further

afield if there are reasons of safety or quality that drive that imperative.

Essentially, we are changing the face of health care in

this province. This bill is a fundamental part of that shift, and, yes,

resources will move. Resources will move out into public health. They will move

out over the course of time into the community, and we've seen that through

threads from Towards Recovery . We've

seen that through initiatives in the Home First philosophy. We've seen that in

primary health care teams and a lot of the other initiatives that have come

through Health.

This bill, however, puts what we have now in a logical

and sensible framework, and it does it in a way that recognizes the fiscal

challenges the province has at the moment.

I would take issue and really reiterate some of the

comments my colleague, the Government House Leader, made last night around the

process. This bill is 50 pages, and, essentially, four days of study should be

adequate to deal with what is a self-contained, internally coherent, cohesive

bill that stands alone, and when read carefully, will stand by itself.

Quite frankly, I think those issues around process have

been addressed. And out of deference to the Third Party, we are completing

second reading today, rather than yesterday, at their request. So I think there

has been some give and take, and I wouldn't like

Hansard to reflect a slightly one-sided view of this.

I did try and avoid reading some of the comments around

specific services from a partisan point of view, but there are some myths that

keep on getting repeated around over-the-counter medications, for example. Those

are available to people with limited income should their prescriber feel that

that is necessary. We have had very few requests through the prescribers for

those kind of medications.

The last time I looked, we covered around 130,000

individuals through the Provincial Drug Plan. The last time I checked for

over-the-counter prescriptions, we had been asked to approve just shy of 600

requests. That, to me, means the percentage of those individuals who medically

need those medications is small, and it is available for those people who need

it.

On that note, I'm not going to take any more time. I

think the interesting piece, from my point of view, will be the Committee of the

Whole stage for this bill. I thank all the Members for their clear expression of

support for this bill, and I'll take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 37 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

bill,

An Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of Public Health. (Bill 37)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole?

MS.

COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection

And Promotion Of Public Health,” read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 37)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the hour, I move that we recess until 2

p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER:

It's been moved that this House now stands in recess until 2 p.m.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Trimper): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I would like to bring all Members' attention today to

some very special guests in our public gallery. Joining us today from Mothers

Against Drunk Drivers Canada, some very good friends of all of ours, Ms.

Patricia Hynes-Coates, Terry Coates, Amanda Hynes, Christine Care, Michelle

Martin, Wayne Power and Matthew Byrne.

Also joining us are Frankie Ralph and Sara Pittman.

And, with the organization S.T.A.N.D for Hannah Foundation, we're pleased to

also introduce you to Gail Thorne, Linda Vincent and Pam Vincent.

A great welcome to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

They will, of course, be joining us for a Ministerial Statement today.

I'm also pleased to advise the House that earlier

today, in fact just an hour or so ago, I was very pleased to meet with Members

of the Press Gallery Association to formally adopt their newly developed

constitution.

The Press Gallery Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador was founded in 1969, when its first constitution was formally adopted.

Various changes occurred over the years to the constitution and how they

operated, leading to a more informal arrangement from the mid-1990s onward.

Following consultation between House officials and the

president of the Press Gallery Association in recent months, a draft

constitution was proposed which formalizes criteria for membership, as well as

expected conduct of press gallery members.

The House of Assembly recognizes the important role of

the press in the proper functioning of our democratic system, and we are pleased

to welcome them to cover proceedings of the Legislature. It was an honour today

for me to formally adopt the Press Gallery Association's new constitution with

the president and other members. I look forward to continuing our positive

relationship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

For

Member's statements today, we will hear from the Members for the Districts of

Lewisporte - Twillingate, St. Georges - Humber, Mount Pearl North, Placentia

West - Bellevue and Windsor Lake.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thousands of people across this great province dedicate

an immense amount of time and skill to their community through volunteering.

There's also a population of volunteers who go above and beyond their call of

duty for professional volunteerism. One such individual is Rev. Arthur Elliott.

His career has consisted of providing spiritual

guidance at St. Matthew's United Church in Lewisporte. In addition to that, Rev.

Art also volunteers for a significant number of causes. For years, he has been

actively involved in the Calypso Foundation, the Lewisporte Area Chamber of

Commerce and the Gander Airport Authority, just to name a few.

One of Rev. Art's greatest passions is advocating for

improved health care services for Lewisporte and region. He has spent

considerable time with the Concerned Citizens Committee in Lewisporte to ensure

this reality.

While he is not one to seek accolades, he has certainly

been one to receive these. In 2011, he received the Seniors of Distinction

Award; 2014, Queen's Diamond Jubilee Award; and, most recently, Senator Ravalia

presented him with the Senate 150 Anniversary Medal.

Please join me in recognizing Rev. Arthur Elliott for

his dedication through volunteering – which strengthens our community, making it

a better place to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. George's -

Humber.

MR.

REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to Mothers Against Drunk

Driving, the organizers of the Red Ribbon Campaign. The red ribbon symbolizes

the innocent victims of impaired driving and reminds us to always drive sober.

MADD's Red Ribbon Campaign has been raising public

awareness about the risks and consequences of impaired driving for 31 years.

Over these years, it has grown from a single event to a nation-wide campaign,

distributing millions of red ribbons.

This weekend the Bay St. George

chapter of MADD

launched their local campaign with a parade down Main Street in Stephenville and

a public information booth at the Stephenville shopping centre.

While great strides have been made over the years to

reduce impaired driving, it continues to be a deadly problem on the roads of

this province and this country. Continued awareness efforts are vital, and the

message is especially important in the holiday season when parties and

celebrations are plentiful and the risk of impaired driving is especially high.

I ask all Members to join me in wishing Mothers Against

Drunk Driving success in their important Red Ribbon Campaign.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the community of Mount Pearl, and most

particularly the hockey community of Mount Pearl.

This past weekend, Mount Pearl hosted Rogers Hometown

Hockey festival. The festival is a celebration of local talent both on and off

the ice. It also brings with it the opportunity to spotlight local NHL players

and grassroots stories of community hockey heroes. In addition to an extensive

slate of local hockey tournaments, there was an appearance by NHL alumni and, of

course, the one and only Ron MacLean.

Mr. Speaker, while this weekend of hockey and community

was of celebration, the hockey community and the Hendry family in particular

were also mourning the tragic death of Keith Hendry – a devoted husband, father,

hockey coach and community volunteer who passed away due to a vehicle accident

in Central Newfoundland. Keith's wife Tammy did a ceremonial puck drop at the

opening game of Rogers Hometown Hockey weekend. And she can be quoted as saying

“without the support of her hockey family, it would have been very difficult to

get through this tragedy.”

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to rise, not only to

celebrate Rogers Hometown Hockey weekend in Mount Pearl, but to celebrate the

spirit of community, family and Keith Hendry, a Mount Pearl hockey hero.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR.

BROWNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador is a premier

scholarship program for young women aged 13 to 18, and gives young women in our

province the opportunity of a lifetime.

The program is aimed for participants to challenge

themselves to be the best they can be – driving determination and leadership,

with the ultimate goal of developing well-rounded leaders and individuals who

will guide our province in the future.

This past Sunday, 30 participants gathered at Holy

Heart Theatre, showcasing their academic abilities, their physical strengths and

their personalities which make them shine as leaders in their respective

communities. Two of these young women hail from Placentia West - Bellevue,

Taylor Reid of Chapel Arm and Theresa Caul of Southern Harbour. Both Taylor and

Theresa have been leaders in their schools and communities, and are deserving of

much recognition. And I extend additional congratulations to Theresa on winning

the Academy Canada Future Leader Award.

I congratulate both these young women on stepping

forward. I was particularly pleased to visit with them prior to the event, along

with the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

saluting these two young women and wish them the very best. Young people, and

young women in particular, are not the leaders of tomorrow, but rather the

leaders of today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Windsor Lake.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise to offer congratulations for the academic excellence achieved by

some very bright students in my district, who were awarded Electoral District

Scholarships this month from the Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development.

Recipients from Gonzaga Regional High School were

Benjamin Wall and Neil Rajan; while at Holy Heart of Mary High School, it went

to Zachary Smith.

Additionally, some students in my district were also

recipients of the Centenary for Responsible Government Scholarships.

Congratulations to Abdullah El Nass and Katrina Picco of Holy Heart of Mary

High, and Oishi Hawlader, Samantha Johnson, Tristan Hamlyn and Julia Hill of

Gonzaga Regional High on their success. I also offer my congratulations to their

teachers, friends and families whose support was surely appreciated and

essential.

With fine young adults like these, Mr. Speaker, we can

have no fears about the capability of the next generation of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, today I rise in this hon. House to observe National Day of Remembrance

for Road Crash Victims.

Annually, more than 2,300 people are senselessly killed

in road crashes in Canada and more than 160,000 are injured.

Mr. Speaker, within seconds lives can change forever

because of a crash on our roadways. It also only takes a moment to make the

decision to drive safely.

We can save lives by eliminating distractions, driving

defensively and never driving impaired. We each have a responsibility to

consider ways in which we can be safer and more responsible drivers.

Mr. Speaker, we frequently revise the

Highway Traffic Act to improve road

safety in the province. In fact, just this morning we proposed changes to

improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and taxi drivers and to adopt

accessible parking signage standards.

I commend our highway enforcement officers, the

RCMP and RNC for the valuable work they do to raise awareness and enforce the

act. I also thank safety advocates, as well as victims' families, who provide

valuable input as we continually seek ways to make our roads and highways safer.

It was an honour for me to meet many of them just a short while ago for a

remembrance c