Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements — 28 April 2008 (46th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVI No. 17)
2008-04-28
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April
28, 2008
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 17
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
On Thursday, April 24, the hon. the Government House Leader raised a point of
order concerning the relevance of the comments of the hon. Opposition House
Leader during the debate on Bill 21,
An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act,
It seems to the Chair that the hon. the minister was rising to point out to
the House that the debate was too wide ranging on the bill in question rather
than formally raising a point of order, as the comments having been complained
of had concluded. So there was no question of there being disorder at that
point.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader agreed that he had been straying from
the subject matter at hand, and in the opinion of the Chair there was certainly
no point of order. However, this might be a good time to say a few words about
the often repeated comment that debate on a money bill can be wide ranging. This
has, indeed, been the practice in this House. However, it is important to remind
hon. members that not every bill which can be said to be remotely related to
money is a money bill. Practically everything government does requires money,
but not every bill that government introduces is a money bill. I think it is
fair to say that bills which have their sole objective, the appropriation of
money such as supply bills and the raising of money through taxation and loan
bills, are money bills.
There is a comprehensive definition in Erskine May, the twenty-second edition
on pages 806 and 807, which quotes the Parliament Act, 1911 of the United
Kingdom as follows: "a money bill' as a public bill which in the
opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only previsions dealing
with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal,
remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment
of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund or the
National Loans Fund, or on money provided by Parliament or the variation or
repeal of such charges; Supply: the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or
audit of accounts of public money, the raising or guarantee of any loan or
repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of
them."
While the definition may not be the last word for us in this Chamber, it
seems to the Chair that it is instructive and it is useful. Mr. Speaker, Hodder,
ruled on December 12, 2006, that bills relating to supply and the budget admit
to wide-ranging debate. A broader statement of what is contained in the
definition that I have just quoted.
Today, the Chair would like to recognize an employee of the House of Assembly
who will be retiring this week, Mrs. Madonna O'Connell.
Mrs. O'Connell has worked with government since 1984, and with Hansard
since 1998.
I know that all hon. members will join with me in wishing Mrs. O'Connell,
Madonna to her friends and co-workers, a healthy and happy retirement, and I
thank her for her faithful and diligent service over the years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I am always amazed that the people in Hansard can take what
we say here and make it sound so sensible when we read it.
The following members' statements will be heard today: the hon. the Member
for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the Member for the
District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl
North; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the
hon. Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the
District of Kilbride.
The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of
Whitbourne for participating in the Municipal Wetlands Stewardship Program. This
program was the result of the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, which was formed in
1989, as the body tasked with forwarding the goals and objectives of the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Whitbourne is one of the seventeen communities across the Province which has
demonstrated an appreciation for this unique habitat and is committed to taking
responsibility for this initiative.
The town is participating in the nest box for the common goldeneye project,
whereby nest boxes will be installed and monitored by community workers enabling
increased breeding of the common goldeneye, also known as the white winged
diver.
The population of the goldeneye has decreased in the Whitbourne area, and it
is hoped that this project will lead to increased numbers due to the
availability of extra nesting sites.
The monitoring of this project and the local support by the community of
Whitbourne is a great example of the interest and stewardship of the residents
of this noteworthy environmental initiative.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Town of
Whitbourne and all the other communities across the Province, for their
initiative in this program.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Luanne Dominix was recently recognized for winning the first place in the
Royal Canadian Legion Provincial Senior Poster Colouring Remembrance Day
Contest.
The Grade 11 student at Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts received a
certificate and approximately $200 in cash.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 2008, Luanne will travel with Legion
members to Beaumont Hamel, France, to visit war memorials honouring the fallen
soldiers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Kearsty Ryan, a Grade 9 student at Amalgamated Academy, placed second in the
International Poem Contest.
Mr. Speaker, Kearsty's poem honoured her late uncle, Corporal Jamie Murphy,
who was killed while serving with the Armed Forces in Afghanistan. Kearsty
received a certificate and $100.
Luanne's poster and Kearsty's poem have been sent to the Royal Canadian
Legion Dominion Command to be judged on the national level.
I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to Luanne and
Kearsty and Branch 32 of the Royal Canadian Legion, Bay Roberts.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the participants and winners
from Sport Newfoundland and Labrador who recently attended the Toronto Air Gun
Grand Prix Shooting Competition.
I would like to congratulate our Mount Pearl residents, and medal winners; in
particular, Jason Harnum, who won a bronze medal in the sub junior rifle
competition, and Samantha Marsh, who received bronze medal recognition in the
sub junior rifle competition. I would also like to recognize Megan Harris from
Mount Pearl and Richard Power from St. Catherine's.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important to encourage all people to participate in
sport, but especially our youth. I commend these young athletes for their
participation and achievements in this recent shooting competition. They have
all represented our Province well.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the
participants and winners from Sport Newfoundland and Labrador who performed
brilliantly at the Toronto Air Gun Grand Prix Shooting Competition.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the House today to recognize Dr. Selma Barkham's thirtieth
anniversary of discovering the sixteenth century Basque whaling site in Red Bay,
Labrador.
This anniversary was celebrated in the community with ceremonies organized by
Parks Canada and the Town of Red Bay, and were attended by Dr. Barkham and her
two children, Michael and Serena.
In 1977, Dr. Selma Barkham travelled to Red Bay and linked roofing tiles and
whale bone she discovered there to the Basque whaling industry of the sixteenth
century.
Mr. Speaker, it was through her painstaking investigating of documents in the
Basque archives that established the early presence of the Basque in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, it was also Dr. Barkham's work that led to Red Bay receiving
worldwide recognition and being named as a national historic site. Red Bay has
gone from a small quiet community with few visitors to a place where people from
all over the world come to see the history that has been revealed there.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have come to embrace this site that has
provided many missing links in our Canadian history.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House today to join me in paying
tribute to Dr. Selma Barkham who, thirty years ago, was responsible for the
discovery of the Basque whaling site in Red Bay, in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in this hon. House
today and pay tribute to the volunteer fire departments in my district. This is
volunteer week, and the theme "Volunteers! You're Part of the
Picture," speaks to the fact that volunteer fire departments play a major
part in contributing to fire and emergency services in their community.
Since being elected in October, I have had the pleasure of visiting several
fire departments in my district. The fire departments I visited included the
communities of Pasadena, Deer Lake, Reidville, Howley and Jackson's Arm.
I have been very impressed by the efforts of these volunteers. The fire
departments in all communities have averaged over twenty volunteers, and appear
to be strong, vibrant departments.
In the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador there are approximately 6,500
firefighters, of which 6,000 are volunteers, in approximately 300 different
communities in our Province.
In my district, a volunteer fire department worthy of special note is the
fire department in my hometown of Howley, a community with only 240 residents,
which has a volunteer fire department with twenty-three members. I am not sure
if this is a provincial record, with 10 per cent of a local community being a
volunteer firefighter, but it is certainly an accomplishment worthy of special
recognition in this hon. House.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all citizens to support their volunteer fire
departments, especially in their fundraising efforts, and I ask all members of
this House to join me in congratulating these outstanding individuals for the
work they do on behalf of their communities.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commend the
Goulds Winter Carnival Committee and the many volunteers for the outstanding job
they did this past winter in organizing and running all the events of the
Twenty-second Goulds Winter Carnival. The Winter Carnival is a very successful
annual ten day event in Goulds.
The Goulds Winter Carnival incorporates most of the service groups and
organizations in the community. The two parishes, the three schools, the Goulds
Kickers Soccer Association, the Goulds Seniors' Club, the Goulds Lions Club,
the Goulds Leo Club, the Goulds Recreation Committee, the Goulds Scouting
movement, the Goulds Girl Guides, the Goulds Hoopsters, the City of St. John's,
the Goulds Library Board, the Kilbride and Ferryland Family Resource Coalition
and the Goulds Arena Board, all took
part in this year's Winter Carnival.
This year, we tried a few new events as part of the Goulds Winter Carnival
program, along with the usual events. These new events turned out to be very
successful. We had the first ever Amazing Challenge, sponsored by the Goulds
Recreation Committee. The local Leo Club hosted a St. Kevin's Idol Contest. We
had about a dozen contestants, and about 200 spectators showed up for this
event.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating all the volunteer groups, the individuals and corporate sponsors,
who made this year's Goulds Winter Carnival such a great success.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize
today, April 28, as the National Day of Mourning. In 1984, the Canadian Labour
National Day of Mourning.
It is now observed in over seventy countries around the world, and serves as
a point of remembrance for workers who have been killed or injured on the job.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, we join together to remember colleagues,
friends and relatives who have been killed or injured at work. Last year, there
were twenty-three fatalities reported in this Province, with seven due to
incidents in the workplace and sixteen as a result of occupational disease. In
Canada, deaths from workplace injuries average nearly 1,000 each year.
Mr. Speaker, making our workplaces safer must be a daily effort. On this day,
I commend the efforts of workers and employers and call on them to renew their
commitment to improve health and safety in the workplace.
On this day, I would also like to acknowledge the important role that the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission and the Occupational Health
and Safety Branch of the Department of Government Services serve in ensuring
that our workplaces are safe and healthy.
By educating and engaging both workers and employers in the area of
occupational health and safety prevention, we can and will reduce the number of
work related injuries and illnesses. Together, we must strive to ensure that the
workers of Newfoundland and Labrador are safe in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, I now ask all hon. members of this House to observe a moment of
silence in remembrance of workers who have been killed or injured on the job.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask all members to rise.
[A moment of silence is observed.]
MR. SPEAKER: I ask all members to be seated.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an honour for us today to certainly join with government and with the
minister in recognizing the National Day of Mourning.
Just earlier today I had the opportunity to take
part in a ceremony that was
held in the main foyer of Confederation Building to honour the injured workers,
those who have been killed on the job, and to certainly pay tribute to them,
their families and their co-workers.
Mr. Speaker, not only was it an opportunity to recognize these workers and
the tragedies that had certainly happened within their lives, but it was also an
opportunity for all of us to be more cognizant of safety factors in the
workplace.
I think that safety in the workplace is certainly paramount in a Province
where we have highly industrial activity that is ongoing. We have seen more and
more lately, I guess, people in our Province working in very risky professions,
and I guess every time we hear of one of these injuries it is always a reminder
to us of the tremendous risk that many people put themselves in each day.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remember, I guess, the safety practices in our
work environment and, in doing so, reflect upon some of the accidents that we
have seen throughout Newfoundland and Labrador: explosions at Come By Chance, a
recent explosion with an oil tanker, a number of helicopter crashes we have seen
in the Province over the last number of years, and, in addition, the fishing
vessels that have sunk in our Province as a result of tragedy on the ocean. I
think all of these things cause us to be more cognizant of policies that we make
here to ensure that there is safety in the workplace and that those practices
are put to use for the betterment of those employees and for their families.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Assembly to provide the results of a
review of our Provincial Parks Campsite Reservation Service conducted by my
department.
In 2007, the Parks and Natural Areas Division introduced a new Provincial
Parks Campsite Reservation System in response to public demand for a better
system of booking and guaranteeing campsites in our provincial parks.
Government committed to improving amenities and services within our parks in
recognition that the parks system is a key part of developing an internationally
competitive outdoor nature tourism product for the Province.
Mr. Speaker, the report addressed the following concerns: During the 2007
camping season there was a cancellation fee of $8 plus GST if bookings were
cancelled. Mr. Speaker, this fee was dropped in July 2007 and this will remain
in effect again this year.
Mr. Speaker, at start-up in 2007, persons who wanted to extend their stay
while at a site would have to make another reservation on line or by phone and,
as a result, pay another reservation fee. Also, people who preferred a site
different than the one reserved had to contact the reservation service to change
their site and incur another reservation change fee.
This season, campers who are occupying a site for up to seven days can extend
their stay, depending upon site availability, one day at a time, for up to seven
extra days at the park checkpoint, rather than having to contact the reservation
system. The reservation fee for staying additional nights will no longer apply.
Also, upon arriving at the park, a camper wishing to change their site,
depending upon site availability, can do so at the park checkpoint. Again, the
reservation change fee will no longer apply.
Mr. Speaker, the original reservation system had a twenty-four-hour delay,
meaning campers could not make same-day reservations. I am pleased to report
that, this season, same-day reservations are now available.
Another issue raised by campers was that, when travelling across the
Province, they would make reservations at multiple parks; however, they were
charged a fee for each park reservation. This season, patrons involved in trip
planning can make reservations at multiple parks and only have to pay one
reservation fee.
Mr. Speaker, last season, the latest park check-in time was set at 6:00 p.m.
with a check-out time of 1:00 p.m. Campers felt that the check-in time did not
allow enough time to get to the park of their choice, especially after work on a
Friday evening; and, check-out time at 1:00 p.m. interfered with their noon
meal.
This camping season, we have changed the check-in and check-out times to make
it more convenient for people arriving and departing the park. Latest check-in
time will be 8:00 p.m. and check-out time will now be 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, many people who live next to a provincial park thought that they
had to contact the reservation system to stay at the neighbouring park and pay
the reservation fee.
Local people can drop in to their local park and get a campsite without
having to make a reservation and incur the reservation fee. Drop-in sites are
set aside in each park for such purposes; however, I do recommend reservations
at our busier parks, especially during long holiday weekends.
Mr. Speaker, there are forty seasonal campsites available at Butterpot
Provincial Park. Demand for seasonal sites in Butterpot is very high.
Twenty-five of these sites were set aside for some patrons; however, on a
go-forward basis, government will no longer set aside these sites. All forty
seasonal sites will be available through the reservation system.
Mr. Speaker, our provincial parks are a public resource and everyone should
have equal opportunity to access seasonal sites, and that is the reason for this
change.
Mr. Speaker, overall, the Provincial Parks Reservation System is operating
very well. The system has seen several innovations and changes in the past
couple of years with increased services and amenities. Previously, Parks and
Natural Areas could only handle 2,000 reservations per season. In 2007,
reservations increased to almost 8,000. Sixty-one per cent of reservations were
made on-line and 39 per cent were made through the 1-877 telephone service.
The telephone and on-line reservation service will be available May 1 for
Notre Dame, Blow Me Down, Frenchman's Cove and Pinware River Park
reservations. On May 3, reservation service will be available for Barachois
Pond, La Manche, Lockston Path, J.T. Cheeseman and Sir Richard Squires Memorial
Provincial Park. The reservation system for Butter Pot, Dildo Run, Pistolet Bay
and Sandbanks Park will be available May 5.
Mr. Speaker, for more information or to make a reservation, the public can
contact the Provincial Parks Reservation Service at 1-877-214-CAMP
(2267) between 7:00 a.m. and 11:30 p.m. or on-line twenty-four hours a day at
www.nlcamping.ca.
I trust these changes will significantly enhance the upcoming camping season
for all visitors to our provincial parks.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and to say
that this is, no doubt, for our campers throughout our Province and those who
visit our Province, a good news story.
Let me assure you, I know last year we used to ask questions with regard to
the on-line reservations and so on, but it is good to see that the cancellation
fees, the reservation fees, the one-night stays, and things like that have
changed, and have changed for the better, Mr. Speaker.
The only thing, I guess, I would mention to the minister is the one - and
being an avid camper myself and travelling throughout the summer - I know the
check-in time before was 6:00 p.m. and now it is 8:00 p.m. Lots of times, for
people travelling to our Province, not knowing what location they are in, it
might be a bit later than 8:00 p.m. when they get to the parks, so hopefully
there will be some leeway for those people when they come in there.
I have to say that, with those changes, hopefully our local residents alone
will use our provincial parks more than in the past, because those are wonderful
changes, no doubt.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge April 27 through
May 3 as National Volunteer Week.
Volunteer Week is an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the great work
that volunteers do in every neighbourhood and community right across our
Province. Volunteers make a significant contribution economically, socially, and
culturally to the way of life we cherish so much in this Province.
There are approximately, Mr. Speaker, 187,000 volunteers who contribute
thirty-five million hours of valuable unpaid time to their communities and
community organizations. Furthermore, currently in Newfoundland and Labrador,
there are over 23,000 people employed by volunteer and non-profit organizations
in a concerted effort to make our Province stronger.
Mr. Speaker, this year's theme, "Volunteers! You're Part of the
Picture", encourages us all, young and old alike, to get involved in the
community and volunteer. Not only do volunteers help people in the community
lead happier, healthier and more productive lives, but the volunteers themselves
benefit in the same way.
Our government has made a commitment to the voluntary and non-profit sector.
We are continuing to strengthen the relationship between government and the
voluntary and non-profit sector to make the best use of all our skills and
resources. We want to support the sector as it strives to improve its capacity
and address the challenges shared by so many of us in a quickly changing
society. Government has much to do to address its own policies to support
volunteerism, encourage partnership and get the best value for public resources.
Mr. Speaker, I have had tremendous opportunities to engage with groups and
individuals from Labrador West and Goose Bay, down the West Coast, Central
Newfoundland, the Burin and Avalon Peninsulas, and I plan on continuing these
meetings into the future. I have had the chance to listen to the challenges and
concerns they face, but I have also heard innovative ideas, discussed exciting
plans and heard wonderful success stories. I know the important and integral
role these individuals and organizations play in our community. I know they do
make a difference.
As hon. members go about their business this week, Mr. Speaker, I ask that
they encourage their constituents to take some time to join with their community
celebrations and honour the valuable work that the voluntary and non-profit
sector contributes to our great Province. I am encouraging the people of the
Province to volunteer; a few minutes a day, a few hours a week or a few days a
month can make a tremendous difference. Volunteer and become part of the
picture.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the minister providing me with an advanced copy of his release.
We recognize and acknowledge and pay tribute to a lot of things in this
House, and of course this is probably one of the most honourable things to do,
pay tribute to the volunteers in our Province. I was, quite frankly, amazed when
I heard the figure of 187,000 volunteers in our Province, of somewhere around
500,000. It is just amazing that number, and the number of hours, 35 million
hours a year that these volunteers contribute. Of course, they range from all
groups. You have your fire departments, your youth groups, your Meals on Wheels,
literacy trainers, fundraisers, such as the Cancer Society and Daffodil Place,
sports groups, church groups, women's centres and shelters. It makes our
communities complete. If we did not have these volunteers, God knows where we
would be. That is the whole word itself, volunteers without pay.
I have a soft spot in particular, although I have a lot of respect and
admiration for all of these groups, fire departments in particular stand out to
me because even though all of us as volunteers contribute to the economic and
the social and the cultural fabric of our communities, I have always said, quite
often, at fire department functions, that they make the ultimate sacrifice if
required. They go above and beyond even that again. So, I always sort of put
them on the top shelf.
I certainly agree with the minister, we need and ought to pay thanks and pay
tribute to all of the volunteers in our Province. I, likewise, would encourage
these groups, everybody in this Province to get out and get involved if you
already have not.
I also appreciate, and I have had a lengthy conversation with the minister in
the recent past about what his new division of his department intends to do. I
look forward, as well, to him visiting the South Coast with me this coming
summer, hopefully, so that we can convey that message of the new division to
some of the seniors groups in that particular area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
We know that Bill 7 is before the House of Assembly right now and it deals
with privacy of personal health information. We also know that Eastern Health
has recently circulated the new confidentiality agreement to its staff.
Can the minister confirm that this new confidentiality agreement was
formulated in response to what is being introduced in the new legislation in the
House currently?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The policy statement that she is referring to with Eastern Health, as I
understand it, is growing from a part of the process of consolidations. There
have been many questions in this House in the recent past about transition and
what takes place in transition. One of the things that happen is a consolidation
of administrative policies and practices.
As I understand it, Eastern Health has just finally concluded some pieces of
their administrative manuals where they are consolidating them. Each of the
former seven or eight boards that existed had policies similar to this. In fact,
each of the fourteen boards throughout Newfoundland and Labrador had policies
similar to this and each of the four authorities now are in the process of
consolidating that. So, what we saw in recent days announced by Eastern Health
was a consolidation of their current administrative practices, not necessarily
growing from any bill that we would have introduced in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, there may be some clarification required. Our
inquiries with Eastern Health told us that they were being asked to comply with
confidentiality agreements under the personal health information bill.
We did, Mr. Speaker, obtain the contents of the confidentiality agreement
within Eastern Health. It goes way beyond what the legislation is, that is in
our House right now. In fact, what it does is it asks Eastern Health employees
to sign agreements that would prohibit them from speaking publicly on any issues
within our health care system.
I ask the minister if he is aware of that, and if he has concerns about it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Just prior to coming to the House, actually, I received a
copy of the new proposed agreements that Eastern Health are asking their staff
to sign. I understand it has been a consistent practice in the past, to have
them sign a confidentiality agreement. I understand the wording of this one is
new, as I just described. It has been amended as a result of the consolidation
of health authorities. I have not had a chance to personally review it in any
level of detail, other than the fact that it is now in my office and I will get
an opportunity in the coming days to review it to make sure that it is
consistent with what would be normal and reasonable practice.
Also, if there is any legislation that it must comply with, it obviously must
comply with that piece of legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Doctors in the Province certainly have indicated their concerns with the
legislation. Mr. Speaker, they feel it will stifle them in discussing issues
publicly around health care in the Province. In absence of any whistle-blower
legislation being passed in Newfoundland and Labrador, we share that concern and
believe that it may be the case.
I ask the minister: What assurances will he give to the 12,000 employees
within Eastern Health that this will not be the case and that there will be no
penalties for speaking out on issues regarding our health care sector?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I just shared with the member opposite, I just recently received a copy of
the agreement, prior to coming to the House. What I can assure the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the people who are employed with Eastern Health, I
will have my office and I will personally review the policy that is now being
drafted by Eastern Health and ensure that it does comply with existing
legislation, but that it also reflects current best practices in human resource
management with respect to protecting the confidential information that may be
held within the organization.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My next questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Over the weekend, both the fire services association and the school councils'
federation called on government to provide more funding to the fire commissioner's
office to allow for a more detailed inspection process.
I ask the minister: Will government be providing this funding, which will
allow the fire commissioner to conduct full and detailed inspections of all
public buildings within the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said time and time again, after the report came in on the facility, the
report of the ten facilities that the fire commissioner went out to inspect, and
came back with his report, I made recommendations to the fire commissioner's
office and to the FES that we would look at all of the protocols that are in
place. That is the sum of the things. Once we get all of the stakeholders in
place, get a meeting, get recommendations, come back to government, to my
office, then we will comment on that further.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am unsure, from the minister's comments, if
there will be additional resources provided to the fire commissioner's office
and if it will include all public buildings in this review of protocols and
procedures, meaning schools as well as hospitals and other public buildings.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, again, the Opposition Leader is saying: Is there
money going to be given to the FES?
Until we do the protocol review of this, I cannot tell you what is going to
happen. I am going to wait and see what procedures are going to be put in place.
Then I will be able to say this is what we are going to do.
When that review is completed, whatever time it takes to do it - it is not
going to be done overnight, but when that happens - then we will do it and we
will include whatever facilities are there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know that oftentimes reviews can be a lengthy process. In the meantime, I
guess, it would be the volunteer fire departments around the Province that will
still be expected to conduct these inspections.
I ask the minister: Will government provide full funding to ensure there is
proper training in these volunteer fire departments right throughout the
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing training programs offered by
FES over the year, and the fire commissioner's office, his officials, will be
conducting seminars over this year to help with the problem of people to inspect
these facilities.
Are we stopping and just putting something on the shelf? No. We are moving
forward on some of the suggestions as we speak, now. He is also in the process
of setting up seminars for people in health care facilities to come in and look
at fire and life safety issues, evacuation procedures, et cetera. That stuff is
being moved ahead as we speak.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We also know, from talking to many of these fire brigades, or volunteer fire
departments throughout the Province, that they do not all have the training. We
have also learned that many communities do not have active volunteer fire
brigades; nor do they have the basic standard equipment to be able to respond to
certain emergencies in their community.
In light of that, and the fact that these people are being responsible to
enforce government policy and regulation, I ask the minister: Is he prepared to
look at 100 per cent funding for volunteer fire departments in this Province to
meet the basic standard equipment that they require, such as pumps, hoses,
breathing apparatus and so on?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Opposition Leader for that question;
because, if she was paying attention on Friday, she would have heard the new
cost-share ratios that this government put in, and that includes volunteer
firefighters.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for that clarification, because I read into it that it
applied to water and sewer infrastructure and other projects, but I am pleased
to see it does apply to volunteer fire departments as well.
Mr. Speaker, my next questions are for the Minister of Finance.
I guess we are on the eve of the Budget. It is almost like Christmas Eve in
Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess the minister is Santa Claus come tomorrow
morning. I am so excited, I don't know if I can sleep tonight, because I have
never seen such a huge surplus budget being laid out in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, like every excited kid on Christmas Eve, it is
always nice to
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose her question.
MS JONES: Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker.
It is always nice to try and guess what you might be getting in the morning.
I ask the minister: Can we expect a break on the price of gas at the pumps
for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador tomorrow, Sir, when you bring down
your Budget?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, all good things come to those who wait.
Tomorrow, when I present the Budget, I am sure that there will be initiatives
that will be very pleasing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, that didn't give me the scoop I was looking for.
It gave me the response but as of right now I don't feel like I'm going to
save any money at the pumps tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the growing price of gasoline in our Province is no doubt
contributing to a number of factors. Just recently we heard a story from a
volunteer group, Meals on Wheels, who may have to change the way they have been
serving the public in the Province because of the high price at the pumps.
Again I just want to ask the minister if strong consideration could be given
to reducing the price, bringing it more in line with what the rate is across the
country and providing some savings for consumers tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I said in response to a
question from the Opposition House Leader some time ago, the Williams government
certainly recognizes the problems that high energy costs have for the people of
this Province. We are aware of it and we take it very seriously. That is why
last year, for example, we introduced a number of measures to put more money in
people's pockets, such as tax cuts, the biggest tax cut in history, help for
seniors, low income tax benefits, and this year the Premier has already
announced an additional $94 million, $75 million annually that will help people
pay for the rising cost of food and the rising cost of energy. We will continue
over time to take more initiatives that will put money back into people's
pockets to help them deal with those rising costs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just have to wait until tomorrow, I guess.
Let me ask a question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs about a funding I
know they do have. That is the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust. It was
announced by the federal government well over a year ago, yet we haven't seen
any of this $8 million flowing into aboriginal communities in Labrador to deal
with the housing needs.
Can I ask the minister why the program has been delayed so long?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that within the last couple of weeks my
department has met with all aboriginal groups. They are fully aware of how
things are unfolding. A press release is hopefully going to be out in the very
near future. Let me tell you that they are extremely satisfied with how things
are progressing. Just keep tuned and hopefully we will have that announced
shortly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It doesn't answer my question, why we have seen a delay of almost two years
in the program, and only last week I am aware of the fact that they are trying
to put regulations around it.
Maybe the minister can tell me what the funding breakdown will be for each
aboriginal group in Labrador and when the applications will be in the hands of
people in Labrador who need this money.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All Aboriginal groups have been contacted. They have been kept up to date as
to how this is progressing. They have been involved and they know that it is
coming down shortly. They know what the break down is going to be, and as soon
as the press release comes out, so will everyone else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe I will ask the minister this. Of the 150 applications that are
currently on the wait-list for housing programs now in Labrador: How many of
these will automatically be transferred into the Aboriginal program or will they
have to reapply, because some of them have been on the list now for two years?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All Aboriginal groups know the process. They know there is an application
form; they know they are still eligible for other programs that Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing offers. They are kept attuned as to how this program is going
to be delivered, and they are satisfied. They are happy with how things are
progressing. It will be announced in the very, very near future and they are
aware of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our office recently requested a meeting with health officials to discuss
ambulance services in the Province. A meeting was being arranged but was then
cancelled after the minister's executive assistance was advised of our
request. Instead, we were asked to provide a detailed agenda with questions, and
our request will be considered. As indicated to the minister's political
staff, the purpose of the meeting was exactly that, to find out what the
ambulance services are like in this Province. That is why we could not give the
questions and answers in advance.
I ask the minister: Does your executive assistant decide what information is
allowed to be provided publicly by your department, and how does that process
live up to openness and accountability?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is because we want to be open and
transparent that we go through that kind of process.
My department gets a number of requests from individuals looking for
information, and we want to make sure that when the Opposition or any other
group would like to meet with officials in the department, to determine some
issue or to understand an issue better, we want to make sure we understand what
it is they really want to know so we can assign the most appropriate person to
attend that meeting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: It would be difficult if I were to assign someone, or
someone in my office were to assign someone who really was not up to speed on
the file and the information would be - probably not complete and then we would
have another form of complaint. So, better understanding what the information
the Opposition would want to have helps us better assign someone. Last week, we
had a -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week we had a briefing on the new legislation on privacy and personal
health information. We knew they were doing that, we assigned someone who was
very familiar with the file, and I understand it was a great briefing session.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That answer was almost as clear and as transparent as the answer we received
from the executive assistant.
I want to carry on with the issues relating to so-called openness and
accountability. Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago we managed to pry a few reports and
other documents out of various departments with our questioning. We are still
waiting for some ministers to deliver on their commitments. Mr. Speaker, under
the Access to Information Act, we requested briefing notes related to the Mealey
Mountain National Park through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Here is
what we received, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Aboriginal
Affairs is: What is so top secret that we received two entirely blacked out
pages from the minister? Is this (inaudible)?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose his question.
MR. PARSONS: That is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, please.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
For the information of the Opposition House Leader; as he is well aware, when
a request is made for Access to Information, the process is that it is vetted by
department officials. The information is looked at and it is determined what
information can be provided. If the Opposition House Leader is not satisfied
with the information, there is a process that he can follow and I would suggest
that he do the same.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess that is why the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs could not answer for
herself, because all she got was the blacked out paper, too.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will interrupt. The hon. member knows full well that props are not
admitted here in the House and I would ask him if he would refrain from doing
so.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Justice likes to be on his feet, I will
ask you minister. On April 16, I asked the Minister of Justice about a report
which was prepared and forwarded to the minister in late January of this year.
This report is supposed to the result of a tour to Nova Scotia, BC and
Saskatchewan, conducted by a delegation of prison management and union
officials. Almost three months after receiving it, and two weeks after I asked
the question in this House, again we are still waiting for the report.
I am wondering if the minister can advise us when he is likely to release the
report that was done concerning this tour of these provinces?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated to the Opposition House Leader when that question was first
asked, it was asked in the context of whether or not there was going to be a new
prison built in this Province. At that point I indicated, and I reiterate, that
there can be no further decisions made on anything until the federal government
determines and outlines its position.
In relation to that report, I have to indicate that I am not aware of any
such report. There are two aspects of this. There was, I understand, a visit to
prisons by various people, not that I am aware of any report having been
provided. Secondly, Transportation and Works, as is the norm in preparing for
the report on prison sites, costs, et cetera, provided a - what I have seen so
far is a draft consultation report. I think there must be some confusion there.
If the Opposition House Leader can point me in -
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.
MR. KENNEDY: If he can be more specific I can try to find out what he is
talking about, but I have not seen any such report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would refer the minister to a copy of The Independent - and I am not
showing any props here. It is the February 8 to 14 edition of The Independent
on page four, column five, which references that exact report I just talked
about, and it references it as being given to Justice Minister Jerome Kennedy.
That is what I am quoting from and that is where I got the information.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
I ask the hon. member if he would abide by the rules of the House. He knows
full well that members should not be repeating member's names here, or refer
to them either by reading of a transcript or by saying it directly.
I ask the hon. member to ask questions referring to members by the district they
represent or by the executive position they hold.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the point of order, because I understand it is
proper to do a point of order on that point after Question Period is over. So, I
will come back to that issue you just raised.
My next question is for the minister responsible for the Workplace Health,
Safety and Compensation Commission. Two weeks ago I asked the minister about a
report, which government commissioned, into the issue of client services.
Apparently, this report was received by government in May of 2007. There was one
released on Friday, but that was a 2006 statutory review.
When I asked the minister two weeks ago he said he would take it under
advisement, ascertain the content -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to pose his question.
MR. PARSONS: My question of the minister is: When are we going to see
that report?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, after receiving the question here in the House
from the member opposite I did check into the situation. There was no report
commissioned by government. There was no report presented to government about
the client service. He is referring to a report that the board of directors at
the commission prepared and, as I understand it, are dealing with as a board of
directors, but it was not commissioned nor presented to government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
A major issue for Labrador is the state of the Trans-Labrador Highway. My
question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.
It was reported in The Labradorian on May 29, 2007, that the Town
Council in Happy Valley-Goose Bay was told that a government report on various
grades of chip seal on the Trans-Labrador Highway would be released to them on
April 1 that is April 1, 2006 - three transportation ministers ago.
My question for the minister is: Why has this report not been published or
placed on the government Web site, and when might we expect this to be tabled in
this House?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
We are indeed working with Labrador, in investments we have made in Labrador.
We are doing, this year alone, a $45 million cost-shared investment in Labrador,
surfacing and widening of our Phase 1 during the construction season. We are
indeed using chip seal in a part of that road in Labrador, the Trans-Labrador
Highway.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Again, for clarification, can the minister confirm that the report will be
released, and when?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, all reports that we do are released in due time.
That report will be released when it is due to be released.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My final question is for the Premier.
Premier, contrary to what the minister just said, your government is on
record as releasing reports within thirty days. We are three years, almost, into
this one that I am talking about here. Saying you are going to release it when
you are ready is not keeping the commitment to release it in thirty days.
Premier, you, yourself, said back on March 3 that you would scour the
government coffers and departments and see what reports are hanging around and
they would be released. They are still not released and we are here some sixty
days later.
I am just wondering, has anybody given anyone instructions to do that, and
can we look forward to seeing these reports actually being made public sooner
rather than later?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: No instructions have been given; and, yes, we can.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last week we asked the Minister of Municipal
Affairs about the amount of money that has been spent to date on the government's
waste management strategy, and if estimates have been made on the long-term cost
that will be incurred by municipalities trucking garbage to the three mega-dumps
that government has proposed.
I ask the minister: Has this government done a cost study into a more
decentralized system of regional engineering landfills for the Province where
such long-term fuel and equipment costs could be measured against short-term
capital expenditures?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DENINE: I am not sure what he is asking, but I will try to attempt to
answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, there is significant money being invested into the waste
management strategy. To date, over $41 million has been committed right now and
there is more to be committed in the future not too long into the future.
What happens, Mr. Speaker, is when the studies are done in each of the areas
that will take in all the factors that the member across the way is saying: your
gas, transportation, where they are going to be located. That will be done in
the study. Until that is done, I cannot comment on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated that the first 100
kilometres travelled by garbage trucks to the mega-dumps are the responsibility
of the municipalities. We know that the New Harbour regional landfill is
approximately 100 kilometres from the city. This extremely contaminated site was
scheduled to close in 2007; however, it still remains open.
I ask the minister: Are you aware of the difficulties eight communities that
use the New Harbour landfill are having in tendering to pick up the garbage for
Robin Hood Bay? Have you been in touch with them, and have any discussions been
held with those eight communities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DENINE: I am really trying to find the question here.
The thing here that I would like to say is, first of all, you are right. The
responsibility for different municipalities to get it is the first 100. Then,
the extra cost is going to be spread out over all the municipalities
participating.
Mr. Speaker, everyone will be consulted on where the facility is going to be
located, if it is going to be located in the Bay, and how to get the garbage
there.
I also want to correct one thing. They are not gigantic dumps, mega-dumps.
There is more to this. In the modern age of environment, these are called
engineered landfills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: They are not called dumps. I heard the Opposition Leader say
that, I heard the member
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I will make it clearer for the minister.
With regard to the New Harbour landfill, there are eight communities at the
present time which use that site and it is scheduled to be closed this year. All
I am saying to you, Sir, is that those eight communities are finding it
difficult to come up with the funds to transport their garbage to the site here
in St. John's.
I was wondering: Have you been in touch with those eight communities, and
what procedures are in place to assist them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The committee for the Avalon Waste Management Committee is now completed and
it is appointed. The first meeting will be early in May. I cannot give you the
exact date because it has not been nailed down yet.
Those concerns that the member across the floor has asked me, those are the
concerns that will be addressed to that committee and they will address those
issues. So, as far as transporting the waste to an engineered landfill, they
will look after that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we know that Winterton has been approached by
the Trinity Bay Waste Management Committee to take their waste on an interim
basis. I ask the Minister of Environment - apparently they were supposed to do a
cost feasibility study.
I ask the minister: Has the report been completed, and are you prepared to
subsidize Winterton for the extra administration cost that would be involved?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Again, Mr. Speaker, any studies to be done will be cost
shared by the committee that is there, and they will be whatever studies are
needed to be done to help facilitate the movement of the garbage to an
engineered landfill.
When we start consolidating, there is going to have to be a study to do that,
to find out where they are going to put it, and that will be done. As the
Opposition says - is it a mega dump? No, it is an engineered landfill, a mega
one.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the
Summary Report of the Activities and Costs in respect of the Consumer Advocate
in relation to Insurance Matters for the 2007-2008 fiscal year .
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
Section 10 of the Transparency and Accountability Act, I am
tabling today a document regarding the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Centre
which was established as a Crown Corporation on April 3, 2008.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.
Notices of motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee
of the Whole on Supply to consider A Resolution For The Granting Of Supply To
Her Majesty. (Bill 25)
Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will move the following motion: that
this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government - the
Budget Speech.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will move, seconded by the hon. Member for Fortune
Bay-Cape la Hune, the following motion:
WHEREAS approximately 187,000 people in our Province volunteer, contributing
a total of 35 million hours of valuable unpaid time to their communities and
community organizations, in a concerted effort to make our Province stronger;
and
WHEREAS the voluntary sector is facing increasing challenges of recruitment,
retention, governance and capacity just at a time when their services and
expertise are needed most; and
WHEREAS the relationship between the civil society and government is very
important, and has improved substantially in the past few years, and there
remains so much each can do with the help of the other, and to help the other
for the long-term benefit of our people and our communities;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House recognize and congratulate the
thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who give their time and skills to
the benefit of our communities and our Province, and encourage others to do the
same; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House encourage the government to continue
its commitment to support the voluntary sector for the benefit of the entire
Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to stand, and hopefully this is the last time I will have to stand on
this particular petition with regards to a long-term care facility for
Conception Bay North, because I am looking forward with great interest tomorrow
in the Budget. Hopefully, government will say at least we are going to do
another reassessment of the situation out there, because Conception Bay North
was high on the priority list a few years ago for a long-term care facility.
Plans were in place for a 240-bed facility. The infrastructure that is there now
- like the Harbour Lodge and the Interfaith, they have served their purpose.
They are still doing wonderful work there, the people who work in them on behalf
of the residents, but the time has come, I believe, when that area - where it
was high on the priority list, it is time for it to be reconsidered again.
I call upon my hon. colleagues in the neighbouring districts - there is still
a bit of time to get in touch with the Minister of Health and the Minister of
Finance to put the final touches on it, and hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will hear
some announcement tomorrow.
On behalf of the residents of the area I want to thank you for the
opportunity to bring forward this petition again.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Petitions.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to call Order 7, second reading of Bill 23,
An Act To Amend The
Labour Relations Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23,
An Act To Amend The
Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations
Act." (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to stand here today in this House to introduce amendments to the
Labour Relations Act. Bill 23 represents government's continued commitment to
working in partnership with our labour community and our employer organizations
to improve the Province's labour relations framework.
Mr. Speaker, the arbitration of disputes that occur during the life of a
collective agreement is a critical component of a modern and effective labour
relation system. Indeed, this dispute resolution mechanism is an important
process that helps parties to resolve disputes or differences that they have or
may encounter during the life of a collective agreement.
Our Province, Mr. Speaker, has a long history of stakeholders working
together to ensure they have access to a pool of well qualified arbitrators to
support the resolution of disputes. Indeed, for over thirty years we had a
committee called the Labour Management Cooperation Committee, comprised of
employer and labour stakeholders working in partnership to ensure the strength
of our arbitration framework. The LMCC's management of the arbitration process
operated well for many years and, indeed, became a model emulated by other
provinces.
The LMCC has not been operational for a couple of years now and the
stakeholders undertook a review to identify ways that the system could be
enhanced to ensure the continued effectiveness of the Province's arbitration
system.
This review is now completed, and as a result of this review, the members of
the LMCC approached government and requested that a legislative framework be
developed to formalize and legitimize the functions that were once the purview
of this committee. This proposal was brought by employer and labour stakeholders
to the strategic partnership initiative during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, where
government, employer and labour stakeholders worked together to refine the
proposal for legislative change.
Bill 23, Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, is a result of the
excellent collaboration between government, labour and employer organizations
that occurred through the Strategic Partnership Initiative. It is a testament to
the kind of change we can make when we work in partnership with a sense of
common purpose.
I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank the Newfoundland
and Labrador Federation of Labor, the Business Coalition and the arbitrators for
the effort they have put into describing their goals and helping us translate
them into the legislation that we now have before us.
If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a brief overview of some of
the key elements of Bill 23. The amendments contained within the bill will allow
for the establishment of a committee to be known as the Labour Management
Arbitration Committee, the LMAC, who will promote the establishment and
maintenance of a high quality and effective arbitration process for those
arbitrations carried out under the Act.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Business Coalition,
the arbitrators and government will be represented on the committee with the
respective groups selecting and appointing their own representatives. There will
be nine members on the committee with three from labour, three from the employer
community, two from the arbitrators and one ex officio from government, and the
committee shall be co-chaired by both labour and employers. The members shall
serve for a term of three years and can serve up to two terms.
The LMAC's powers and duties reflect their focus on supporting a high
quality arbitration system. For example, Mr. Speaker, they will establish
educational and experience standards for the arbitrators. They will oversee the
qualification and training processes for arbitrators. They will establish and
maintain a roster of persons who are qualified to conduct arbitrations under the
Labour Relations Act and collective agreements. Finally, they will provide a
copy of this roster to the minister for those occasions when the minister must
appoint the arbitrator when parties cannot agree on an appointment. We are also
extending good faith action protection to the LMAC.
Mr. Speaker, these are the essential components of Bill 23. I look forward to
the debate that is going to occur and the successful implementation of these
important changes that will enhance the process of arbitrating disputes that
occur under the legislation or under collective agreements.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make a few
comments with regard to Bill 23,
An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.
As the minister has stated in the Explanatory Notes, this is "to
establish the Labour Management Arbitration Committee."
As he outlined in the bill, we don't see anything major outstanding there
that is controversial; however, we do want to know that it is explained fairly
well, the makeup of the board and the time frames and so on, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting to note that once this is put in place there will be a time
available for various educational and experience standards for the members of
that board, and it outlines the duties they are to perform.
As the minister stated, I think there was a labour corporation enforced for
approximately thirty years or so. I guess this is similar to what they were
doing but there is more now changing in the legislation.
A couple of things I wanted to put forward to the minister, and I am sure he
can respond later on in his closing remarks, is with regard to the arbitrators
in the past versus this present time if there is a fee structure. I notice there
is nothing mentioned in the bill, if there is a fee structure, what it was in
the past, or how it will be set up at this particular time. It is not mentioned
in the Explanatory Notes or in the main body of the bill.
The other item I want to bring forward, I was just wondering, this piece of
legislation, does this also apply to the public sector? I know that is not
mentioned in the Explanatory Notes or in the bill itself.
With those couple of comments, Mr. Speaker, those are the only two items I
had to bring forward on this particular bill. Like I said, I don't see any
major upheaval with regard to the bill.
Hopefully, the minister will respond to those couple of questions that I did
put forward, when we have a few more comments to say on Bill 23.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, speaks
now he will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, I do want to just have a couple of comments to make about
this bill.
There has been extensive consultation done with the arbitrator community that
exists already in the Province, with the labour groups and also with the
employer community.
The fee structure, Mr. Speaker, is something that I will check into for the
member. I will come back with some comments on that. The labour and management
committee that existed for the thirty years, Mr. Speaker, now basically what we
have done is put together a more formalized process. We have also, because of
the legislative provisions that we have here, afforded them some protection
under the act in terms of liability protection and so on. That was something
that was sorely lacking and something that was felt by the arbitrators as
something they needed to have.
We have been able to bring that here in the legislation so that we can afford
them the peace of mind while they are doing the work that they are doing
relative to liability issues that they would have.
At that point, Mr. Speaker, I would close debate.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 23,
An Act To
Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now?
Tomorrow?
MR. RIDEOUT: Now.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act," read
a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to call Order 8, second reading of Bill 24,
An Act To Amend The
Mental Health Care And Treatment Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24,
An Act To Amend The
Mental Health Care And Treatment Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of bill, "An Act To Amend The Mental Health Care
And Treatment Act." (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 24, as the title would suggest, is
An Act To Amend The Mental Health
Care And Treatment Act.
You may recall, back in 2006, our government introduced a new mental health
care act. That was back in December 2006 and the act was proclaimed in October
There have been a couple of things that have surfaced since then, and what
are trying to do is to make a couple of amendments to this bill to make a couple
of corrections.
I will get to the specifics if there are any questions, but fundamentally
what we want to do is to make a couple of amendments here to strengthen the
legislation that is already on the books. We want to be able to deal with those
individuals who are readmitted to hospital, who have been the subject of
community treatment orders, and to strengthen what rights they have available to
them and access to treatment that they have. Secondly, the bill would want to
broaden the number of people to be appointed to the Treatment Review Board.
When the legislation was introduced, we had envisaged a fixed number of
individuals to be appointed to that board. Even though we have not yet had
anyone who has had to go to the board, we recognize that, given the composition
of the boards and the mandatory requirement for a set composition for each
review that would occur, we do not want to get caught in a spot where we may
find ourselves not having individuals available to sit on the review or to hear
a review that may, in fact, as a result of that, not provide the review in an
appropriate timeline.
Given that we were about to make some changes to the legislation, we wanted
to amend that particular piece to provide us with an ability, as a government,
to appoint additional individuals to the review board.
That is fundamentally what the thrust of the bill, this Bill 24, does. It
intends to make two minor amendments. One is to add to the number of people who
can be appointed to the review board. Secondly, it intends to strengthen -
strengthen, I say, Mr Speaker - strengthen the legislation and the language in
the legislation to make changes to provide more protection for those individuals
who may be the subject of community treatment orders.
That is the sum and substance of the amendments to the legislation. As we
move through it, if there are some very specific questions that anyone might
have around any aspects of this, as we move into third reading, I will be only
too glad to answer any questions that might exist with respect to it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly wanted to have a few words on Bill 24 because I think mental
health services in our Province are very important, and certainly important to
many individuals and many families that suffer from mental illness.
Mr. Speaker, I know that this bill looks at some minor amendments, but I
think it is important to take the opportunity to point out the critical need for
mental health services in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are 20 per cent of the people in this Province who will experience a
mental illness in his or her lifetime; and, Mr. Speaker, a number of these
people suffer from very severe illnesses of mental health, things like
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and oftentimes have to be involuntarily
committed within our hospital facilities for the kind of help that they need.
Mr. Speaker, we have all, I am sure, in our lifetime, dealt with and been
around and experienced the tremendous amount of pressure and strain that comes
within a family when you have people who suffer from mental illness and
disorders, such as depression and phobias and other things. They are real
diseases and they need to have real treatment within our system. Unfortunately,
not all of these mental health diseases can be treated in the way that we want
to be able to treat them, but there are medicines out there, there are therapies
out there, that can be provided to help improve the quality of life for many
people who suffer from mental illness. It is our responsibility, as legislators,
to ensure that we make way for those services and those treatments to be
provided to people.
Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the new Mental Health Care and Treatment Act
was welcomed by all the people in the Province that I am aware of, who work
within the mental health community. The act is modern in its spirit and it takes
a rights-based approach to those who involuntarily commit themselves under the
new act and gives them some very basic, fundamental rights.
In our Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think most people know that
when you are involuntarily committed into a mental health facility - in our
case, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is mostly at the Waterford Hospital.
That is where people usually go to seek the kind of treatment they need.
Oftentimes, that is very complex and comprehensive therapies. These people are
there because they are very ill and are suffering tremendously from this illness
and they are there to seek out those treatments.
Mr. Speaker, I was really disturbed of late when we found out that the public
health institution, the Waterford Hospital, was, no doubt, a building that was
in disarray and required a tremendous amount of investment and repairs. I think
in the assessment report that was done in February, it showed that the Waterford
Hospital had all kinds of leakage within its windows. It had damage to its
support structure. There was asbestos throughout the building. They had floor
tiles that had outlived its life expectancy altogether. Anyway, the cost to do
all of these repairs to the building alone was around $45 million. The critical
and the potentially critical pieces to the hospital still were going to cost
about $30 million.
Mr. Speaker, realizing that when people suffer from mental illness, not only
are they suffering from a disease of depression and phobias, but often in cases
the kind of therapies and medicines that they require need to be spiritually
enhancing and uplifting to these individuals. When they are being hospitalized
in buildings that, in essence, have outlived its life expectancy, that require
up towards $30 million in critical upgrades just to maintain the physical
structure and appearances of the place, it cannot be very uplifting to a
patient, nor can the fact be that once these people are hospitalized they have
very little privacy. Most of them are hospitalized and admitted into wards that
are very cramped. In fact, there are cases at the Waterford Hospital where there
are up to six patients housed in the one ward getting mental health treatment
and services. That does not afford any kind of privacy, or privacy for therapy,
or for people to be able to reflect on reasons and treatments for themselves. I
think that is not an ideal concept in my mind. In fact, I think there is a much
better way we can do this. It is unacceptable. If you look at new standards that
are being, I guess, implemented right across the country now, this would be a
very old, archaic standard of hospitalizing and treating mental health patients,
and one that is certainly not acceptable in today's society.
Mr. Speaker, there is a sentiment out there that maybe we should not even be
investing the $45 million in work that needs to be done at the Waterford
Hospital but rather we should be investing into a new facility and that the
Waterford Hospital should be closed. Now, I have no assessments or reviews that
have been done on that particular suggestion, but I can certainly say from the
limited experience that I have, is that it might be the most feasible option for
government in the long term because if you look at this facility now requiring
$30 million to $45 million in work and you weigh it out against the cost of a
new facility that could, in essence, provide service for another forty to fifty
years, I think in the long run it would make a lot more sense to look at a new
mental health facility.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people out there who would support that. They
would also like to see it replaced with, not only a more modern structure, but
probably a smaller structure in terms of being able to treat the particular
needs of patients. For example - and I know we cannot compare to the numbers of
mental health patients, for example, that they are seeing in larger provinces
like in Ontario or in British Columbia and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I did actually do some research into mental health facilities in
Ontario, in Toronto in particular. In Toronto right now they are actually the
first province in Canada - Ontario is - to amalgamate its mental health services
and addiction services under the one particular board and administrative
structure. From what I have been able to learn and understand about it
AN HON. MEMBER: It is the same as here, isn't it?
MS JONES: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: It is the same as here, isn't it?
MS JONES: Let me just explain, Minister, just for a second, in terms of
how they do it differently than what we do.
Ours is, I guess, under the one board structure in terms of the entire health
board authority in the region. What they have done there, is they have
specifically carved out the mental health and addiction services.
In addition to that, they not only provide for the hospitalization of mental
health patients but they also provide for the hospitalization of people who
suffer from addictions who require proper treatments in proper facilities. In
lots of cases, obviously, addictions are connected to mental health, we all know
that, and a lot of it is connected to depression and things of this nature. I
guess there are concurrent problems, there is no doubt, between mental health
and addiction services; but, in addition to that, we have been lacking in terms
of the programs that we provide for long-term stays of addictions, people who
suffer from addictions in our Province.
I think we need to look at, any new facility that we will implement, we need
to take into consideration that addictions is a growing problem, and oftentimes
it is a disease that is suffered through concurrently with mental health
illness. Therefore, there is opportunity to bring both of these together under
an appropriate facility for service delivery and hospitalization. That would be
things that we would like to see government look at and consider if they were to
move forward in a new process.
Mr. Speaker, I know now that in the Waterford Hospital there are different
floors, there are different areas that are designated for different types of
mental illness. I think we need to move away as well from this institutional
kind of asylum kind of health care when it comes to mental health services,
realizing as well that I know you have to have confinements for people who
suffer from schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, people who are there for
forensic investigation or observation, who are being placed there by our courts
and so on, but a concept that would be a smaller, more appropriate concept that
affords for more identification of people with certain diseases, so we are into
a compound of small buildings, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to a large institution
and a large asylum-type atmosphere. It does not mean it cannot all be comprised
within the one ground that provides an opportunity to be able to migrate from
one building to the other building within that compounded ground.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the facility itself, when you deal with mental
health patients in this Province, and you talk about mental illness, it is one
thing to talk about the services being provided but we also have to look at: in
what infrastructure these services are housed, and in what infrastructure these
patients are expected to live while they are taking those treatments and those
therapies. I think that we do have a lot of work to do around that.
We also know that there is an extreme amount of work required on this
building. I certainly hope that we will see some information in the Budget on it
in the next few days, in terms of what is going to be provided to these health
care facilities in terms of the critical upgrades that they require; because, as
we know, the amount of money that government has already announced is going to
be far short of what is required to do this amount of work.
I just talked about the Waterford Hospital, and what the critical needs are
on that building. If you want to look at the other buildings within the St. John's
area that also require a tremendous amount of infrastructure work, we are
looking at a bill that could rise to $100 million just in terms of doing the
critical upgrade and the work that needs to be done there. So, we will be
looking to see, in the Budget, what kinds of monies will be required.
Mr. Speaker, in our Province, we have done a fair amount of work around the
mental health piece. In fact, I talked about the new act, and these are just
some minor changes, but all of that came out of an inquiry that was done. It was
called the Reid-Power inquiry. Mr. Speaker, it was through that inquiry that we
were able to identify where governments needed to go in terms of legislation
around mental health in this Province.
I think the bill, in essence, did reflect a large portion of that. While it
does reflect a large portion of that, I guess there is no way we can ever
guarantee that there will not be incidents like we have seen in Piccadilly in
the last few days, prior to this weekend, incidents where there have been crimes
committed and certainly, Mr. Speaker, some allegations that lean towards
histories of mental illness of people involved. That was the purpose of the
Reid-Power inquiry. It talked about two individuals in our Province who had
suffered from mental illness and, Mr. Speaker, found themselves in very
difficult positions because they were not receiving the kind of treatment or the
kind of therapy that they required for the kind of mental illness they suffered
from. Therefore, serious crimes were committed.
Mr. Speaker, over time, I guess, we have all tried to learn from those
experiences and to be able to implement legislation that would do a better job.
In implementing the legislation you also have to provide the support services in
order to carry it out. This is a concern that I have had for quite some time.
That is, that when we talk about mental health services they are more readily
available, of course, in the metropolitan areas, in the St. John's region.
For example, Mr. Speaker, we know that there are clinical operations that
exist outside of the hospitals. If you were ever going down to the Terrance
Clinic, you know that you could go in there and see psychiatrist or a
psychologist, but, Mr. Speaker, we also know that there is a wait list to see
those people. There is up to a two-year wait list from what I can understand
right now for mental physiological services at that particular clinic alone.
That is a long wait list, even in the city where you would think you can get
those services on a much easier basis and a more timely basis we are learning
that there are huge wait lists.
Mr. Speaker, what happens when you get outside of the city? We know that even
through clinical operations here there is a two-year wait list for physiological
services, so what happens when you get outside of the city? When you start
living in the outport regions what kind of services are being provided in those
regions?
We have seen incidents this year in the Summerford area, for example, in
which the media alluded to the fact that there may be some connections to mental
illness around that crime being committed. In Piccadilly we had another case
where that may have been the case. We had the Reid - Power case back some years
ago in the Bonavista Area. Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder if the services are
getting into those regions, the mental health services that people require.
I think that needs a good, long looking at by government and by the health
corporations because I am not convinced that mental health services are being
provided to the degree that they need to be in all the regions of the Province.
I know for certain it is not in the district that I represent, and I would know
that because I am more intimately connected with my own riding. I deal with
incidences all the time concerning mental health and mental illness, and I know
the services do not exist there.
When you only have a travelling psychologist or you have to fly patients out
to see a psychologist or to see a psychiatrist, you know that it is not readily
available and it is not a routine schedule. So it is not like I am going to get
to see a psychiatrist every six weeks or every six months. That is not how it
works. It is based on the availability. It is based on how severe they think you
are or whatever the case may be, and in a lot of cases it is none of those
things. It is just a case that there is no one there, a professional there to
fill the position, or the people who are filling the positions are so overrun
with work that they are not able to be able to
schedule individuals.
I know for a fact there are gaps in that area. We have been able to recruit
some mental health nurses but not enough. More needs to done around recruiting
mental health nurses for regions in this Province. For example, are there mental
health nurses who service the area in the Summerford region? Are there offices
there that are set up so that people can go in and look for mental health
services? Does it exist on the Northern Peninsula? Does it exist on the Port au
Port Peninsula? What do people do on the Connaigre Peninsula that are suffering
from mental illnesses who need to see psychologists and mental health nurses and
psychiatrists and those people?
I think that while we may have a good act right now, under the Mental Health
Act, and while it did invoke a lot of the recommended legislation that was asked
for in the Power-Reid Inquiry, I do not know if the actual human resources have
been placed in the Province to be able to respond and react to what out
intentions were. Maybe the minister can tell me if there have been any reviews
done on the mental health services? I know right now that the Canadian Mental
Health Association is doing a review of the services they provide in
Newfoundland and Labrador, but they provide their services at a different level
than what government does. Government is responsible for the clinical servicing
of people who suffer from this particular disease.
So, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see more done in terms of the outreach
piece to it, in terms of ensuring that we have mental health personnel available
in different areas of the Province and that they are able to carry out the
responsibilities and to meet the needs of the people in those particular
regions.
Mr. Speaker, I am about to clue up. In conclusion, I just want to impress
upon the minister a couple of points. One is that there needs to be a direction
given to seriously look at the mental health facilities and the services that we
are providing in the Province today. I think the timing to do it is quite
adequate because it is coming on the heels of a report which that the current
mental health hospital, the Waterford hospital, is in a state of disrepair and
requires millions and millions of dollars in capital infrastructure costs alone
just to bring it up to an acceptable level of service. We also know that in
today's society of mental illness you need to have privacy in the treatment of
these people. You cannot continue - I mean it is not adequate by today's
standards to have up to six mental health patients in one hospital room any
longer to try and provide for proper therapies and rehabilitation and so on for
these people.
I think it has come a time where we need to look at how we are delivering our
services to mental health patients in the Province and how it can be provided
for and delivered under a better structure in terms of infrastructure but also
how we can provide better outreach services to other parts of the Province. I
know none of these things are going to come free to anyone but I think when you
live in a Province where 20 per cent of the population, at some point or another
in our history, will come into contact with mental illness, I think it is an
important factor that needs to be considered in delivering those kinds of health
services to people.
Mr. Speaker, that will conclude my comments on this bill. I certainly look
forward to the minister's reaction to those actions and what the department
may be undertaking to deal with some of these critical pieces that exist in
mental health today in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will
close the debate on second reading.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
I appreciate the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly
as she commended government for the introduction of this very progressive piece
of legislation.
As you might recall, when the bill was introduced in the House of Assembly
back in October, or rather December of 2006, it was at that time that our
government indicated very clearly that this was viewed not only by ourselves as
a government, but throughout the Province. Key stakeholders were very much apart
of the consultation process. It was endorsing what government was doing at that
time in bringing in a progressive piece of legislation, an update to the mental
health legislation of this Province, an update that had not occurred for some
thirty-odd years, I say, Mr. Speaker.
What our government did in 2006 was establish a solid foundation, a solid
legislative and regulatory framework to deal with mental health issues in this
Province. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, to speak to some of the points the
member opposite raised with respect to access to service, with respect to the
kind of resources we have committed, each budget year that has followed the
introduction of that legislation we have made significant investments in mental
health and addiction services in this Province. We have a network of offices
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador where we have counsellors available. I
think there are some twenty-six mental health addiction counselling services
around the Province, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
The member opposite raises the issue of the Waterford Hospital and its state
of repair and the nature of that physical facility. That building is quite old,
as the member opposite points out, but one of the things that we want to make
sure we do not lose sight of here, as we discuss mental health and addiction
services in this Province, we do not reduce the conversation to talking about
facilities, talking about bricks and mortar, but we look more importantly, I
say, Mr. Speaker, at the individuals who need supports, who are living in the
community, who need the support of councillors, need the support of physicians,
psychiatrists, physiologists, social workers and many others in the community
who are able to support individuals living with mental illness.
The thrust, I say, Mr. Speaker, of this particular bill being introduced and
being debated in the House today deals with some amendments to the already
existing legislation that we talked about, some amendments that strengthen it. I
want to point out just one more time, Mr. Speaker, the thrust of this particular
bill. It provides for - even though it was fully intended in the original
legislation, and as you read through it it is probably in there, embedded in the
legislation, but this amendment makes it abundantly clear that those individuals
who are living in a community today, who have a community treatment order, when
they get readmitted to a hospital that they have the same rights and benefits
and privileges afforded to them as do members who are admitted to one of those
institutions who are not the subject of a community treatment order.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her comments. I can assure her,
as I will assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that our government,
through this legislation and our investments in recent budget years, truly have,
I guess, signalled very strongly to the people of this Province that we are
committed to strengthening our mental health services in this Province, and this
piece of legislation introduced last year is a solid reflection of that kind of
commitment.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments with respect to this bill at this
period of reading.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said Bill, Bill
number 24,
an Act to Amend the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act be now read
a second time?
All those in favour aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act to Amend the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act,
Bill 24.
MR. SPEAKER: This Bill has now been read a second time. When shall this
Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?
MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mental Health Care And Treatment
Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills .
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee
of the Whole to consider certain bills and that I do now leave the chair.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to continue with Committee consideration of Bill 22,
an Act To
Amend The Law Society Act, 1999, which is presently before the Committee.
CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 22,
An Act To Amend The Law Society Act,
The hon. the minister of Justice.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, during our debate of last week, the Opposition House Leader raised
an issue in subsection 42 of the Law Society Act, which we went through in great
detail. The Opposition House Leader pointed out that persons appointed to the
disciplinary panel, as outlined in
section 42(4), did not have a set term of
appointment. I thank the Opposition House Leader for his incisive analysis. I
will state for he record - and he is not listening now, so I will state it
before he hears it, that in fact he was right and that there does need to be an
amendment to that Act. What we propose is that we would now add
section 42,
subsection (4.1), which would state, "Persons appointed to the disciplinary
panel shall be appointed for a term of 3 years."
Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank the Opposition House Leader for his
analysis of the bill because it is a very important point, that we do not want
members of a panel appointed for life terms. The three-year term we are
suggesting, I am hoping, we will meet with the recommendation and will allow for
the recommendation of the Opposition House Leader also.
While, as a result of that flaw having been pointed out by the Opposition
House Leader, we then engaged in a more comprehensive analysis of the bill and
there was a second point that came out when we went to
section 49 and
section 50
of the act. As pointed out last week when I was reviewing this, a complaint
committee that goes to the adjudication panel can be dealt with in a number of
ways. One is that there can be a guilty plea, which is outlined in
section 49.
Secondly, the disciplinary panel can make a finding of guilt under
section 50(
3). Also, under
section 50(2) an adjudication panel can find an individual not
guilty and dismiss the complaint.
Unfortunately, when we go then to the filing of the publication of the
decision, as outlined in
section 51 of the Act, there is no power for the panel
to publish the acquittal or the finding of not guilty. Our suggestion, Mr.
Chair, is that
section 51 also be amended so that it would now read: An
adjudication tribunal shall file a decision or order made under subsection
49(2), which is still as it is, that is the guilty plea, 50(3) which is finding
of guilt and 50(2) would be added in there, and that would be where there is a
not guilty verdict.
Obviously, Mr. Chair, the finding of not guilty it is important that
there be filing of a decision because an individual who is found to be not
guilty is also entitled that that decision be filed and reasons be outlined
therein. We have gone to great strides in this Act to ensure that individuals
who are found guilty, who plead guilty, can be subject to sanction, they can
have their names published in local papers, and that there be a decision filed.
Just as importantly, Mr. Chair, especially having to accord to the Principles
of Natural Justice and the overriding presumption of innocence, if an individual
is found not guilty of a complaint there should be reasons filed. This simple
amendment to
section 51 will allow for that.
This amendment, under the proposed sections 51(1) and (2), would then provide
for the filing of a decision of an adjudication panel in the event of an
acquittal as well as a finding of guilt, and in the case of subsection (2),
clarify the nature of the information that is required to be made available to a
person who applies to see it.
Those would be the comments that arise, Mr. Chair, from the Opposition House
Leader's analysis last week. Again, I must say that I am impressed with the
fact that this was picked up on, that this is an example of very good work
coming out of the debate, and that the point that was made is certainly one that
not only was taken into consideration, but one that I will readily admit is a
necessary amendment.
Thank you to the Opposition House Leader for that, and despite the fact of
many disagreements that we will have over the next period of time, that is an
example of how we can agree.
Mr. Chair, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, the amendment of
Clause 10, Bill 22.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate an opportunity just to make a few comments. I must say, right
off the top, I am glad we have Hansard and I am glad we have televised
proceedings. I have it on record and on tape and it will be in black and white
tomorrow, that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of this Province
actually said that I was right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. PARSONS: I say, Mr Chairman, there was absolutely no qualification to
that comment. He said: He is absolutely right.
I shall retrieve a copy of Hansard and the video for posterity. I might need
it, some time in the future, to say that I was right at least once.
Mr. Chairman, in seriousness, it does go to show that is the whole purpose of
the House: Government has a responsibility to bring in the laws, government has
a responsibility to make amendments, to keep those laws up to date and proper so
that we reflect the changing values of society and the changing circumstances of
society, and whenever we get an opportunity - we do not have to wait a month, a
day, ten years, to find out that something does not work. If we are here as
legislators and part of our obligation is to review the legislation and see if
it works, if we find out as we are doing this that something is missing - and
obviously in this particular case that we are dealing with here it was not a
case of the government did not want to put it in. This was a case of somebody
who drafted the piece of legislation - there happened to be a little oversight.
What we are talking about here, actually, is we are going to set up this
committee. I had pointed out last week that it is fine and dandy we have a
committee but there was no termination date on the committee members. So, my
question was: Are they appointed for life, or is there going to be a termination
date? The minister, again, took it under advisement, consulted, and said: Yes,
obviously that is an amendment that is required.
We didn't wait. We did it now, here. Before this amendment becomes law,
Bill 22, we will put in the proper recording so that it is done right; and, as
he says, he picked up on
section 51 as a result of a more comprehensive review.
It became obvious that we needed another tweaking in
section 51, so that is good
to see. That is how the system is supposed to work.
I have said from day one - this member, at least we may be harsh to
government sometimes, if we disagree, and we may be firm in what we say to
government when we disagree with government, but I hopefully try always to be
constructive in suggestions.
Now, that will depend on any given issue, any piece of legislation, or what
the issue is, obviously, but it goes to show that we are not always at odds.
Just because we are the Opposition does not mean we oppose for the sake of
opposing. This is a case where your Opposition should be constructive
suggestion, and that is exactly what we had here.
Quite frankly, in this House, since I have been here, nine or ten years, I
have seen a lot of that when it comes to different pieces of legislation. In
fact, when I was minister myself, the current Government House Leader - and I
remember one particular incident where the Member for St. John's East, who is
not a member any more - he is now the Chairman of Hydro - there were several
occasions when we brought in legislation and, after having our second reading on
it and debating it, we would get together and he would say: What about this?
What about that? What about something else? - and, yes, it led to amendments.
That is the whole purpose of the process. Why let something go through here
and out the door if you spot it before it goes out? That is one of the important
roles that we play as legislators, and I encourage anybody you don't have
to be, as the minister says, a lawyer or a rocket scientist. These are laws that
are going to apply to everybody. If any member of this Chamber reads any piece
of legislation and sees anything that is an obvious missing piece, a missing
link, by all means, bring it to someone's attention, or bring it up yourself,
so that we can get the appropriate amendments done.
I appreciate the minister's indulgence of my suggestion, and the fact that
he brought this change about. As I said from day one, we have no problem with
Bill 22. We will be speaking and voting in favour of it, and we look forward now
to these two necessary amendments being incorporated as part of the package.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CLERK: Clauses 2 to 9.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 9 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 9 carried.
CLERK: Clause 10.
CHAIR: Shall clause 10 carry?
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, "Clause 10 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after
the proposed subsection 42(4) the following:
"
(4.1) Persons appointed to the disciplinary panel shall be appointed
for a term of 3 years.
"
(2) Clause 10 of the Bill is further amended by deleting the proposed
subsection 51(1) and (2) and substituting the following:
"51.
(1) An adjudication tribunal shall file a decision or order made
under subsection 49(2), 50(2) or 50(3) with the society and provide a copy to
the complainant, the respondent and the respondent's partners and employers,
as designated in the rules, and the minister.
"
(2) The society shall maintain a copy of a decision or order filed
under subsection (1) for a period of 5 years, or the longer period the society
may set, after the day the decision is filed and shall upon receiving a request
to view the disciplinary records in relation to a member permit a person to view
those records."
Moved by the Minister of Justice and seconded by the Government House Leader.
CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Justice that clause 10 be amended
as read.
The amendment has been ruled by the Table Clerks to be in order.
Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 10?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR: Shall clause 10 carry, as amended?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 10 as amended carried.
CLERK: Clauses 11 and 12 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 11 and 12 inclusive carry?
All those in favor, 'aye'.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 11 and 12 inclusive carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in House of Assembly in
Legislative Session Convened as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favor, 'aye'.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favor, 'aye'.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report the bill with amendment?
All those in favor, 'aye'.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move Committee consideration of Bill 23,
An Act To Amend The Labour
Relations Act.
CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 23,
An Act To Amend The Labour Relations
Act.
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favor, 'aye'.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK: Clause 2.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much.
I wanted to, if I could, just comment upon a couple of the questions that
came up during second reading that were asked by the member opposite.
In terms of the application of this to the public sector, this particular
bill will apply to the public sector. We have representation on the committee,
we as government, government being a significant employer in the Province. These
arbitrators could potentially do work on arbitration matters that would be
brought before them relative to government.
We are also, for the information of the member opposite, as a part of the
Strategic Partnership Initiative, which is a joint group as he would know
between the labour and employer groups, we are doing a broader review of all of
the collective bargaining legislation in the Province with the Strategic
Partnership Initiative and may be bringing some other amendments forward or some
other changes to legislation forward in the future.
Relative to the arbitrators themselves and the fee structure that was asked
about, as has been rightly pointed out the bill itself doesn't reference the
fee structure. That has been left to the purview of the Labour Management
Arbitration Committee to decide if, in fact, they want to implement fees, what
the fees would be and so on.
Again, given that this was a group that willingly came forward, unions,
employers and arbitrators who currently exist in the Province, we felt they
could best manage that affair themselves. We have left it to them to decide
whether or not they wish to do that, and that is basically what they have asked
us to do.
The third point, Mr. Chair, just for a point of clarification, because I want
to make sure I did not provide any information incorrectly to the House. Earlier
when I referred to the fact that the Labour Management Arbitration Committee was
going to be basically given - what is the term used? - good faith. The good
faith process that is being applied here is being applied to the members of the
LMAC. I did not mean to imply that it was being applied to all of the
arbitrators who may be on the list. Actually, the committee who oversee are the
committee that the good faith application will be applied to.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
MR. CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just for clarification purposes, minister. We reviewed this piece of
legislation, of course. We had it on short notice. Obviously, some of these
questions, we have not had an opportunity probably to drill down into some of
the details as we might normally get a chance to do.
It has been brought to our attention, for example, on the fee thing - and I
believe that is why my colleague, the Member for Port de Grave, raised the
question. From our understanding, and we have talked to people in the industry
who get involved in this, that one of the problems was exactly the fee schedule.
You had a group that, albeit they sort of self-administer themselves, that one
of the issues became and still currently is today, that there is no set
schedule
of fees. If you get a certain arbitrator chosen, for example - and it is my
understanding that if they could not agree amongst themselves the minister would
appoint the person from a list that they have been using for whatever, twenty or
thirty years.
What would happen is, if the parties could not come to an agreement the
minister would say: Okay, you are going to get Mr. So-and-So or Ms So-and-So to
be your arbitrator. That person -all the arbitrators could charge different
fees. That became an issue because the arbitrator you might choose as a
minister, for example, to do a certain arbitration, if his fee was $2,500 a day,
parties were stuck with it;
whereas if you had chosen arbitrator B, the fee
might have been $2,000 a day. My understanding was that that was why both of
these parties wanted some clarity brought to the issue, particularly on the
fees. That is why we were a bit concerned that there was no reference here to a
fee schedule. If that is the case, and again, we stand to be corrected, but if
that is the case and the information we have, we have not gone to where they
need to go. The whole point was to have a level playing field so that no matter
who you picked off the list, that person was going to charge the same fees.
A specific example that was referred to us concerned Memorial University. It
had been told to us that if the dispute, for example, involved something out of
Memorial University, they have a standing practice apparently of picking an
arbitrator from outside the Province. They do not even want the list.
Apparently, they have always had their own suggestions from someone outside the
Province, and that again adds to the cost and the fee issue.
I am just wondering, rather than saying that what we have here - and we do
not disagree with what is here. If that is one of the major stumbling blocks, I
am just wondering, is there anything we can do or whatever to make sure that we
are going to have a fee
schedule because we are no further ahead if we pass what
it is? All we have done here, as I understand it, is take the existing practice
and we are now going to codify in legislation what has been an existing practice
for many, many years in this Province. In so doing, we have missed the boat on
the fee piece, and that is, I understand, one of the root causes of
disagreements.
For example, we dealt recently with appointments by the board of management
committee of this House to the Audit Committee of the board of management. Under
that Audit Committee the chief justice of the Province picks two outside
accountants. The Member for Topsail and myself sat on the Audit Committee, the
first thing we had to deal with when we got together was: What do you pay those
members on the board? There is a fee
schedule that exists in government,
depending upon the nature of the services and the duties to be provided by the
person who sits on the board, whether it is a quasi judicial board and so on.
There is a different fee
schedule that applies, but here we do not have that.
I just raised the issue that we are not going to be going to where I
understand we need to go if we have left that big issue still up in the air and
we still have our board of certified arbitrators, which the mi