PDF Version

May 22, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 22

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome everyone back for this week of the House of Assembly and our

session.

In the

Speaker's gallery today I would also like to welcome board members of the

Georgestown Neighbourhood Association. They will be referenced in a Member's

statement this afternoon.

With us

we have Elizabeth-Anne Malischewski, Griffyn Chezenko and Elizabeth Oliver.

Welcome to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In the public gallery today I

would like to welcome Ms. Kim Keating's grade four class from Holy Trinity

Elementary in Torbay. Ms. Keating will be mentioned in a Member's statement.

AN HON. MEMBER:

They're viewing from home

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

They're viewing from home.

Thank you very much.

Welcome

to you at home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Now in the public gallery I

would like to recognize Ms. Barb Dunphy, Ms. Anne Flynn, Mark Kavanagh and Ms.

Mary Ann Kavanagh. They are associated with a Member's statement this afternoon

and they are with us.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today we will hear from the hon.

Members for the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Harbour Grace - Port de Grave,

Cape St. Francis, Harbour Main and St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, from May 8 to

May 12 the Glacier Arena in Mount Pearl was transformed into a beautiful

theatre. There was professional lighting and sound design, beautifully designed

sets and costumes and a production of spectacular music and choreography.

Etcetera 32

featured over 250 performers from Mount Pearl and Paradise schools, including

the international award-winning Mount Pearl Show Choir. I was fortunate enough

to attend the opening night production and was completely overwhelmed by the

magic and talent of the young performers.

The

show began 32 years ago with Carl Goulding as musical and choral director, with

his wife, Jackie, as production manager. This year, they directed children whose

parents were in the original show. The production has indeed now become a family

affair, as Carl and Jackie are now joined by their son, Justin, as artistic

director, and daughter, Rebecca, as a stage manager. I would also like to thank

them for their dedication over the years.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask those present to join me in congratulating all those involved in

Etcetera 32 on the tremendous success

of this year's production. I would especially like to congratulate all the young

performers and wish them all the

best in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

very proud to congratulate the Bay Roberts Volunteer Fire Department on

celebrating 75 years of service and dedication to the residents of Bay Roberts,

Coley's Point, Shearstown, Butlerville, Country Road, Bareneed, and Port de

Grave.

certainly was an honour to attend their annual firefighter's ball recently,

where some members received awards for 30 and 50 years of service. Mr. Speaker,

it was a full house at the venue, the Shearstown Community Centre, as the

department has outstanding support of all communities.

There

are four volunteer fire departments in the District of Harbour Grace - Port de

Grave, and when help is needed they all come together. This May 24th holiday

weekend a brush fire broke out in the Town of Spaniard's Bay. The volunteer fire

department of Spaniard's Bay-Tilton was quick to respond, but given the size and

location of the blaze, assistance from all four departments, along with a water

bomber and a helicopter, was necessary. Residents in the immediate area of

Seymours Road were also evacuated. Local fire chief Curt Roberts confirmed the

fire was finally contained after five hours without injury or property damage.

The

residents are also very grateful for the dedication of these brave volunteers,

as many believe our volunteer first responders are among the most courageous

volunteers in the world.

Thank

you Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to congratulate Kim Keating on receiving the Prime Minister's Awards for

Teaching Excellence. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Keating is a grade four teacher at Holy

Trinity Elementary school in Torbay. She is well known for her remarkable

achievements in the classroom and in the school community.

Ms.

Keating is a leader in preparing students for the digital-based economy and has

worked very hard to incorporate new technologies and creativity in her classroom

and overall school programming. For example, she has worked on a pilot project

to bring iPads into science classes, encouraged students to write and publish

e-books, developed a program where students raised salmon eggs and released

them. She's also integrated programs such as the Roots of Empathy into the

curriculum to encourage social development in children.

I've

worked with Ms. Keating on many occasions. Her passion for teaching and

improving educational outcomes for the children is tremendous. I've seen

first-hand her positive impact she has had on the school. One of her large

projects was fundraising to install a beautiful new playground on school

property.

I ask

all honourable Members to join with me in congratulating Kim Keating on

receiving the Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching Excellence, and thank her for

all she does for her students and her colleagues at Holy Trinity Elementary.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

pay tribute to a gentle soul, a dedicated member of my community and a man who

helped those during one of the most difficult times in their lives.

Kenneth

Michael Dunphy, alongside his sister Barbara, was the owner and operator of

Dunphy's Funeral Home in Holyrood, a family business that has been in the town

and served neighbouring communities since 1892.

Kenneth

was a music teacher in his spare time; instilling the love and passion of music

in many students throughout the years. He was a one-of-a-kind man who gave his

life to serving others and taking the highest level of professionalism and

dignity into the hour of need. Kenneth touched the lives of many people in his

own special way as he walked with them through their darkest days. He was truly

blessed to have wonderful friends and a lovely family by his side as he fought a

very difficult battle with cancer.

I ask

all Members to join me in paying tribute to the life of Kenneth Dunphy; a man

who I am so proud to say was a friend of mine, and to countless others. Rest in

peace Kenneth, you will be forever missed and forever loved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

not always easy in a city to feel part of a community, but the Georgestown

Neighbourhood Association, formed in 2000 and run by volunteers, has been able

to achieve that for the residents living inside the boundaries of Military Road,

Bonaventure Avenue, Empire Avenue and Monkstown Road in St. John's.

Their

goal is to maintain and improve the social and physical environment of the

neighbourhood, which they do through advocacy, community building events, and

direct involvement with the City of St. John's.

The

Georgestown Neighbourhood Association plays a vital advocacy role in the

neighbourhood, striving to improve and protect urban green space, support local

development that enhances the quality of life for residents, improve snow

clearing and removal and protect built heritage.

The

group also plays an important role in planning with a representative on the

Municipal Planning Area Advisory Committee for Georgestown. They coordinate a

wide range of community building activities, including annual flea markets,

winter skating parties, clean-ups, food drives, barbeques, flower bulk planting

and workshops on community building.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Georgestown Neighbourhood

Association, a model of what urban community building can be like.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to update Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about our

department's plans to increase highway safety for motorists and crews who work

in highway construction zones.

Far too

often, our contractors report instances of motorists who ignore highway traffic

signs, putting the crews' and their own safety in jeopardy.

This

summer, we will be partnering with contractors for the use of highway

enforcement cameras. At construction zones with high traffic volumes and high

speeds, cameras will be installed to detect speeding motorists, and record

information including the vehicle's licence plate, speed and date and time of

the violation.

This

will determine their effectiveness for use as an enforcement tool in the future.

We will

also be increasing our use of attenuators, which are safety barriers designed to

absorb the impact of a collision and help redirect out-of-control vehicles away

from machinery and workers, reducing the likelihood of vehicles striking the

crews.

Mr.

Speaker, motorists will be more informed of our road construction activity

addition, we will continue to collaborate with policing agencies,

municipalities, the Heavy Civil Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Safety Association and other provincial

government departments to address safety concerns.

Mr.

Speaker, as we take these steps to increase safety for everybody, we remind all

motorists travelling this summer to reduce their speeds, pay attention and obey

all traffic signs.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement and for the update on the

road safety plans.

Mr.

Speaker, any measures that will advance the safety of motorists and crews in

construction zones is something we all support. Highway cameras and attenuators

can be useful tools and hopefully they will play an important role in addressing

some of the safety concerns on our highways.

Mr.

Speaker, road safety is the responsibility of everyone and ensuring the

well-being of the travelling public and our highway crews is vital. As we

approach the summer months, I too would like to encourage all those who use our

roadways – drivers, construction crews, pedestrians and cyclists – to stay safe.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The problem of some

motorists showing little or no concern for the safety of highway construction

workers or their own safety is a perennial one and a serious one.

I'm glad

to see government implementing new measures to further enhance safety. I hope

the cameras prove a deterrent and the attenuators at least save lives in the

instances where motorists do not slow down.

suggest to the minister, respectfully, that an assessment of these new

initiatives be done halfway through the season to ensure that they are having an

effect.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, this past

Saturday, the Provincial Historic Sites network opened to the public.

With 11

locations throughout the province, Provincial Historic Sites offer a wide

variety of regular and special programming for all ages that celebrate the

unique culture and heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, to celebrate this unique culture and heritage, youth aged 16 and under

will be granted free admission to Provincial Historic Sites this summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The 2018 programming lineup

includes ongoing events such as Concerts by Candlelight at Commissariat; Voices

on the Wind at the Beothuk

Interpretation Centre; and Lighthouse Dinners at Cape

Bonavista and Point Amour Lighthouse.

Exciting

new programming additions for 2018 include: Under the Sea at Cape Bonavista on

July 7; Long Table Lunch at the Cupids Cove Plantation with Lori McCarthy on

August 3; Party Like it's 1910 in Trinity on August 5; and a Ham Radio

Operator's Demonstration at the Heart's Content Cable Station on September 8.

Mr.

Speaker, there is so much to do and see at the Provincial Historic Sites, and I

encourage all to experience the hands-on activities, guided/self-guided tours,

exhibits and so much more.

In 2017,

the 11 sites saw close to 96,000 visitors, the second best year on record. These

sites help to tell our unique story of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I

encourage all hon. Members to visit them this summer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. This province is blessed with

Provincial Historic Sites which are all diverse in experience they offer to

those who visit. From visiting Cape Bonavista Lighthouse to the Beothuk

Interpretation Centre, these sites offer visitors a chance to learn about our

culture and our history.

The

announcement of free admission for youth aged 16 and under is a positive

announcement. I hope this will encourage more of our province's youth to

discover the vibrant and historic stories of our province.

However,

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out, that according to the department's website

there is no Provincial Historic Site in Western Newfoundland. Perhaps the

department can explore the options for historic sites on the West Coast and

designate a Provincial Historic Site in that region soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. I am pleased that government sees the benefit of a financial

incentive for people to bring their children to historic sites. This kind of

investment will build attendance at this sites, not just this summer but in the

future, as these children and youth are the museum goers of the tomorrow.

It is

also important to invest enough in physical repairs and maintenance and in

programming to ensure we can offer high quality attractions that display our

history and attract tourism dollars.

Congratulations to the staff of all of our historic sites who are offering

creative programming to our people.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Serious

issues regarding wait times within our health care system were highlighted in a

special CBC series.

Can the

minister explain how a Placentia area woman suffering from a debilitating back

injury expects to wait four years before she is able to see a back specialist?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue of wait times has been with us a long time. Our department has several

strategies aimed at addressing this.

One of

the challenges is that I don't think it's realized that a lot of the waiting to

see a specialist is actually a negotiation between the referring health care

provider and the specialist. That is one of the things that we have been

challenged to deal with.

Significant numbers of specialists work in their own offices and we do not have

any access or insight into their waiting times. We are working to remedy that

and I hope to be able to make some announcements in the not too distant future

in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

article tells another story of a lady living with serious health problems who

has been waiting 18 months for an appointment with a specialist and still

doesn't have a date set.

Can the

minister explain how someone in medical need is still waiting after a year and a

half to get an appointment pencilled in?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Really

the answer to this question is very similar to the last one, the issue about

wait times between a health care provider and a specialist is often a matter for

negotiation based on clinical need.

As far

as the RHAs and the clinics are concerned, we can track those. We are working

and have done very well in reducing those wait times. In mental health, for

example, there is now a zero wait time for counselling on Burin. In Corner

Brook, it's gone from 192 people waiting a year ago for mental health services

to 19.

We are

making progress, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't

know health care was to be negotiated. I thought people had readable access to

proper health care in Newfoundland and Labrador but I may be wrong there.

We were

disheartened to hear of a gentleman who has been waiting seven months already to

see an eye specialist. As of last week, he still didn't have an appointment, let

alone a date for surgery. This after the minister rejected a proposal to set up

an eye treatment centre in Corner Book that would undoubtedly help with the

provincial backlog.

What is

the minister's plan to help people desperately waiting months, possibly years,

for vital eye surgery?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Maybe the term negotiation was misunderstood, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

discussion between clinicians. The urgency with which an individual sees a

specialist is down to clinical decisions, not administrative ones.

And just

simply for the record, Mr. Speaker, the CIHI report of April of this year shows

this province has the lowest wait times in Canada for cataract surgery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Well, from my discussions with a number of patients who are on the waiting list,

you need to tell them that the waiting time is much too long for them,

particularly those who are waiting to get the surgery to go back to work.

Most

disturbing of all, perhaps, is the extended wait times for medical care needed

for children. One family tells a story that seems they've been waiting 17 months

just to sit down with a pediatrician, 15 months before the child can begin

speak-language therapy and two years before the child can see a psychologist and

social worker.

How can

the minister explain such widespread deficiencies in our health care system?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, a decision about how long it may or may not be appropriate to wait rests

with the two clinicians concerned. If the clinician who is referring the patient

makes the case on medical grounds, those waits are significantly shorter. Are

they perfect? No.

In terms

of speech-language pathology, for example, we accept in some areas there are

challenges. I actually met with a speech-language pathology association as

recently as last week to discuss some ways in reducing that. In the Central

region, we have done that, Mr. Speaker.

We are

making inroads. We have to do what we can with what we've got, but we are making

progress and we're getting there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

morning Newfoundland Power reported widespread power outages in the province as

a result of loss of supply from Newfoundland Hydro.

I ask

the minister: What was the cause of the loss of power supply?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had

what's called a frequency fluctuation in the province. Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro is doing an investigation; their experts are out there doing an

investigation now, Mr. Speaker.

Security

supply is incredibly important to this province, and you did see an immediate

reaction to that frequency disruption. We'll learn more in the coming days as to

what had occurred. I understand it has nothing to do with generation at all.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

November 2017, the minister, while answering questions about the level of the

water reservoir, said: Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has assured me that they

have adequate thermal generation and there should be no difficulty in supply.

Is low

water availability related to the power outages which occurred this morning

throughout the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. It was a frequency interruption on the line. It has

nothing to do with generation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

heard that the reservoir in Hinds Lake is so low that they cannot produce any

electricity; that is 75 megawatts which is not available.

Can the

minister confirm this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, we have a mix of generation in this province. There has been no

indication to me that there is any concern on the generation side of things.

Water levels do fluctuate. We have had spring runoff. Sometimes they're high;

sometimes they're a little lower. But I can assure the people of this province,

there is adequate supply.

Today's

event, which was only a small event, not that that's acceptable, but there was a

small event that occurred today. It is under investigation because they would

like to understand what caused the frequency fluctuation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

hearing that this is a 40-year low in water reservoirs, which is going to

definitely have an impact down the road. We have also heard that the reservoir

at Cat Arm is down 18 metres.

I ask

the minister: What impact does this have on energy generation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

understand that we have a very adequate supply of generation. That's why we have

a mix within this province. Today's event has nothing to do with generation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given

the low water reserve levels, has hydro used energy from the combustion turbines

to provide energy to consumers in this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

From

time to time, they do use combustion turbines for the very instances that we

were just talking about, the mix of energy within the province. When need

occurs, they do have to use other generation sources, Mr. Speaker, but I

understand it's being kept as low as possible.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A letter

from the federal minister to the former minister of Municipal Affairs expressed

concern that the province was not utilizing the small community's infrastructure

fund. The federal minister's letter stated: We are seeking to ensure that all

the remaining funds under the program is approved as quickly as possible.

Minister, why is there a delay in using this fund for municipalities and other

groups?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

timely question, given that we're getting ready very quickly to move forward

with the unveiling of this money that, again, is a joint project between the

federal government and the provincial government.

What I

can say is that any delay may have been caused, perhaps, by the transition that

we've had in the department, but we'll be ready very quickly to unveil this and

looking forward to making announcements all across the province for the benefits

of municipalities, local service districts and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also

look forward to those announcements.

According to the federal minister's letter in July of 2017, only 64 per cent of

your national and regional project allocation and 29 per cent of your Small

Communities Fund allocation had been approved for projects.

Minister, we have heard your government talk the talk about improving municipal

infrastructure. Why is the federal minister writing you to expedite approvals?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Certainly, we're looking forward to making announcements in the very near future

as it relates to the Small Communities Fund for this province. What's

interesting is this coming from the other side where they left $34 million on

the table. I find that very interesting.

What I

can say is that we do everything in our power to make these announcements, to

work with the federal government to get sign-off and to leverage monies as it

relates to provincial investments.

Again,

we know – and I tell you the reception that I got at Municipalities Newfoundland

and Labrador shows the fact they are very happy with the direction that this

government and this department has taken. I look forward to continuing that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

I need to clarify for the minister, there was no money left on the table when

this administration left when it came to federal infrastructure, particularly

for municipalities. Also, they've been taking credit for a lot of the municipal

infrastructure projects that we had in play before we left, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister encourages this province to ensure that your funding allocations can be

fully utilized. What percentage of this fund has now been used?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and the Environment.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Again,

interesting, there are a lot of things – they get very upset that we take credit

for the great work that they did, but I can guarantee you, there's certainly a

lot more that we want no part to do with the decisions that they made.

What I

can say is that we'll be moving forward very soon as it relates to the

announcements on this again. Our goal is to advance as much money as possible to

municipalities. We work with them to make sure this happens. In some cases, the

money cannot be spent for various reasons that are outside of the provincial

government's control.

And any

other details that the Member wants as it relates to percentages, I can

certainly provide them to this House forthwith.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When

presented with the recommendations of Independent Expert Advisory Committee on

methylmercury at Muskrat Falls, the minister would not commit to implementing

the recommendations and stated multiple times that he needed time to review the

report. Six weeks have now passed and a new minister is responsible.

So I ask

the minister: Have you reviewed the recommendations of this report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Certainly, I have had an opportunity to review the recommendations made by the

IEAC. It's a significant report that also comes with a significant

responsibility and a tremendous cost to multiple individuals and parties.

What I

will say is I'm looking forward in the very near future to meeting with Dr. Ken

Reimer who was the chair of this committee. Our department has been in

correspondence with him to have a discussion on this and we've agreed in

principle with much of what was recommended, but you will remember that the last

recommendation that was made that, in fact, the committee itself had some

disagreement on what we should do.

What I

can say is that we will do what's in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. We take this quite seriously and certainly there's a lot of work

that's gone into this. I look forward to moving on it very soon.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you.

The

report recommended that Nalcor undertake targeted removal of soil and the

capping of wetlands. The minister said he would consult with indigenous groups

to try to gain consensus on the issue.

I ask

the minister: What progress has been made?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

we're still working on that. That's a significant commitment we're talking

about, $700 million in terms of a request. In fact, there is some disagreement

amongst the indigenous groups as to what is the right step forward. We'll

continue to work with them and to consult with them.

What I

would like to know is why wasn't this work done in the beginning when this

project was sanctioned.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given

the Muskrat Falls Project is nearing completion; the government needs to make a

decision on these recommendations quickly.

I ask

the minister: When will you issue a decision on this recommendation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Well, one thing I can

guarantee, Mr. Speaker, is that before we make any decision, we're certainly

going to continue to consult. That's the problem here is that there wasn't the

adequate consultation done when this project was sanctioned. It was forced down

the throats of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

What I

can say is I'll continue to work with the indigenous groups, as well as with the

chair, Dr. Ken Reimer. I look forward to meeting with him very soon to discuss

this. Again, there are significant recommendations, many of which we agree in

principle. But when there's some disagreement amongst the parties that are a

part of the committee, we have to work with them to see if there is a common

ground we can attain.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

federal minister of Fisheries has made such a mess of the surf clam quota that

the ethics commissioner has finally launched an investigation. The winning group

didn't even have the required indigenous (inaudible), didn't have a vote. They

proposed to use a foreign vessel. Even after all that, they revealed that

they're very proud of this decision, both the federal government and the federal

minister.

I ask

our minister: Are you proud of that decision, and why do you continue to make

excuses for your Liberal cousins?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member

takes the opportunity to give voice to the very facts that I have stated on the

floor of this House of Assembly on numerous occasions since September of 2017.

We've been on our feet on this side of the House informing not only the federal

government, but listening to our stakeholders, the Town of Grand Bank and others

that have a direct interest in this, finding out their concerns and relaying

those concerns to the federal government.

We are

not happy with that, and the Member will know that we're not happy with that

because we have stated this on the floor of the House of Assembly on many

occasions. This, however, will be third time since September of 2017 that Member

has spoken about this particular issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon. minister gets his numbers but I've been

up more than three times on this.

Minister, where are the seven MPs on this issue and where is our regional

minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Fisheries and

Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Excellent question, Mr. Speaker, because we have reached out to all seven of our

Members of Parliament, as well to our regional minister and to the federal

minister.

These

are the decision makers in this particular issue. The surf clam allocation was

made by the federal government, by the federal minister. That's why my

interventions, my discussion has been directly with him to inform him that the

provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not satisfied with the

decision. We have voiced and we've given notice of that dissatisfaction on

numerous occasions.

I will

note, since the Member brought it forward, that it wasn't until December, until

the dying hours of the session before Christmas in 2017, that the honourable

Member gave any heed to this particular issue. We have been on this since

September.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The

Conne River band has gone to court to get the decision quashed. At one point,

Minister, you said you were seeking a legal opinion.

Did you

ever bother to pursue that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Fisheries and

Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I think there are several legal issues or legal opinions being

sought and there are matters before that have been brought for review as we

speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So, obviously, he's done nothing.

The

process was flawed. It's bogged down with Liberal links.

Minister, what are you doing to demand the federal minister restart this

process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Fisheries and

Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the federal minister, of course, is exercising his jurisdiction,

his authorities. We have reached out on several occasions to get him to review

those decisions. We anticipate that we'll ask them and we'll ask our federal

Members of Parliament to provide him with that encouragement as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week's announcement outlining new regulations for the taxi industry is being

criticized for not including the criminal background or vulnerable sector

checks.

Why

wasn't this done?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, the amendments announced last week were under the

Highway Traffic Act , under the

legislation that Service NL can adjust and can change; however, we are certainly

open to conversations and consultations with all groups.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, municipalities,

residents, women's groups and the police have all advocated for these checks to

be included. Why were they ignored?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, they were not

ignored. What I had said a few minutes ago was the changes that were made last

week were what we could change under the

Highway Traffic Act .

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, these groups have been lobbying for these checks to be done for

quite a while, many of them openly criticizing you and your government for

making these changes without consulting them.

Why

weren't these groups consulted?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I would not consult these groups when we were adjusting the

Highway Traffic Act and making changes

under what the registrar of motor vehicles could do. I don't know why the Member

opposite does not understand that the role of the

Highway Traffic Act did not include

these vulnerable sector checks last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's says they were never consulted even though

they had been requesting a meeting for this for some time.

Why did

you ignore the city's request for a meeting on this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I did not ignore the city's request for a meeting; in actual fact,

I've met with the RNC.

This is

a very important topic and we will continue to consult on it. As a government,

Mr. Speaker, we will consider it as we move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I was at the announcement and you suggested that you were leaving

this up to the cab companies and municipalities to carry out background checks.

The City of St. John's has stated it can require those checks but have no

authority or ability to enforce these regulations.

Why did

you push this over on municipalities when you know full well they have no

authority to do anything here?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, at the announcement I actually alluded to the fact that the City of

Corner Brook was doing it now. The Member opposite is twisting my words.

The

changes that were made last week were the changes that could be made under the

Highway Traffic Act , under the

registrar of motor vehicles, Mr. Speaker. We are definitely open to continue to

consult with stakeholders regarding this important change that the Member

opposite is putting forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, municipalities have no ability to stop cars or remove unlicensed taxi

drivers from vehicles.

How do

you expect municipalities to enforce these regulations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are open to continued discussion with

stakeholders regarding this topic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

The City of St. John's and others are continuing to ask to be included in

requirements for background checks and vulnerable sector checks in the new

licensing changes.

Will you

reconsider your decisions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, what I will do

is on a go-forward basis consult with the stakeholders and try to find ways to

meet their needs. Under the changes that were made last week it was what we

could do under the Highway Traffic Act .

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

carbon tax will increase the price of everything, a fact that your government

seems willing to ignore.

How much

will the carbon tax cost the Newfoundland and Labrador economy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

waiting for this question again. I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and

talk.

What I

can say is we all know this is a directive that is coming from the federal

government and it's a struggle that each province has. The fact is we do have to

take action as it relates to climate change.

We are

not in the process or not right now able to say what our system is going to look

like. What I can say is that when we are ready we will be putting out our

response. It will be in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier said details of the carbon tax plan would be released this spring. The

former minister said details of your carbon tax plan would be released this

spring. It is nearly June and your government is still refusing to provide any

details.

Why

won't you be open and transparent and inform the people of the province on the

details of your new carbon tax plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Again,

what I would say is there's nothing open and transparent about the Opposition.

What I will say is this: We are not going to be rushed; we are going to take our

time to make sure we do this right. This is a huge step. If we were to move on

this in haste, what I can guarantee you is that the Opposition would have

questions as to why we took a certain action.

We are

going to do what's right for this province; we are going to do what's right for

Newfoundland and Labrador. We will take the time that is necessary. There's

still time left this spring.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

In his Budget Speech, the

Finance Minister linked the new carbon tax plan with the phase-out of the

remainder of the temporary gas tax.

Will the

minister confirm that the four cents remaining on the Liberal gas tax will be

rolled into the Liberal carbon tax plan? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, what we can

confirm is that as the federal government's carbon system is implemented in this

province, the gas tax will be phased out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

In a recent report made

public from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the federal government

clearly states that it has asked all provinces to provide details of their

carbon tax plans by September 2018.

Minister, that is a few short months away. When exactly will you release the

details of your carbon tax plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

By September 2018.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to ask the minister – this is one I've asked several times.

Have

they figured out what a family of four with two children, how much the carbon

tax is going to cost the individual family in this province? Have they broken

down those numbers, because I think the people of the province would like to

know?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

can say is, obviously, we know that this is an important issue. It's one that

people in this province are thinking about. It's one that is being discussed,

but it's not just this province, it's all of Canada. The fact is climate change

is real and every province has to take steps.

We will

keep the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at heart when we make

this decision. We already had to figure out how to spare them from the tax that

was put on them by the PC Party with Muskrat Falls. We'll keep in mind what we

have to do as it relates to climate change and what's best for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After

the government opposite puts over 300 new taxes and fees on the people of this

province, they have the face to get up say that in this House. It's

unbelievable. They must have an estimate of how much it's going to cost the

average family.

They can

talk in circles, Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to know: What is the estimate this

carbon tax is going to cost the families in this province? It's a simple

question. I've asked it over and over again and I think it deserves an answer.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change for a quick response, please.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

find it interesting that they have to talk about budget measures that were taken

two years ago. This was a response that was taken in result of the direct

incompetence of the crowd opposite who blew every dollar that came in here.

What I

can say is when we take action, it will be in the best interest of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: Exactly why wasn't an RFP issued for the supply of cannabis in this

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've

said in the House previously, cannabis is becoming legal. It is a federal

government decision when it comes to making recreational cannabis legal.

Newfoundland and Labrador did not have any licensed supplier. Newfoundland and

Labrador was the only province in Canada without a licensed supplier; therefore,

we had to act to make a decision to decide if we wanted to have industry here in

Newfoundland and Labrador to acquire cannabis production in time to meet the

July target, and that was the case. We took action. We were able to secure

supply here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There

are a number of other producers who are interested in producing here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We'll continue to work with those, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, it's the

province who issues RFPs.

I ask

the Premier: How did he know that the now highly subsidized Canopy Growth deal

was the best deal for the province when no other companies were even asked to

bid?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

– and I don't know where the Member opposite is talking about the tax dollars.

There is no tax exchange of dollars going into Canopy. What they're doing is

they've entered into an agreement for 20 years to operate here, provide 145 jobs

and that's going to lead to growth and development of an industry.

There

are also a number of other companies that are interested in producing here.

There was one that was released from environmental assessment, Argentia Gold.

There were others that have highlighted their interest in being here in the

province.

We have

gone the approach of – for the retail model – issuing an RFP so that process can

be involved for the supply of cannabis at the retail level.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, no RFP for a

huge project with a lot of substantial money from the province. The business

community knows the highly subsidized Canopy Growth deal was a bad deal for the

province. The people of the province know it's a bad deal for the province. It

is a bad deal for the province.

I ask

the Premier: Why would he, a businessperson, sanction such a terrible deal for

the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member opposite keeps referring to one deal, but what I will tell the people who

are listening, and including the Member opposite, is that this province is open

for business. You've seen that with our offshore. You've seen that with our

aquaculture industry, our agricultural industry.

Those

people who are interested in setting up business in his province, Mr. Speaker,

we are always willing to listen to them. If these are cannabis producers,

others, there's a set process that they must be included to get a permit from

the federal government. They are more than willing to come here under the same

scenario that we put in place for the companies that already exist.

Mr.

Speaker, we are working with a number of companies that are interested in

getting into production in this province. I can tell you, the minister here and

his officials are working very closely with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: Why wouldn't government at least ensure the highly subsidized Canopy

Growth facility and its 145 jobs be set up in an area of the province with high

unemployment instead of St. John's with the lowest unemployment rate in the

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, whenever you

attract business or you work with any entity that wants to come and set up

business in Newfoundland and Labrador, they make the decision. You do not

dictate to a business and their model as to determining their success. The

company would be in the best position to do so.

There

are numerous companies outside of St. John's that are looking at setting up

production facilities, whether it be on the Burin Peninsula, whether it be in

Stephenville on the West Coast, whether it be in Bonavista, whether it be in the

Placentia area. There are numerous people, numerous companies. Nobody is

stating, from a production point of view, that there is unfair advantage.

When it

comes to Newfoundland and Labrador we are open for business, and we are not

putting one single tax dollar …

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party for one final quick question, please.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

A $40

million tax remittance break subsidy. Will other cannabis production facilities

be offered the same sweetheart deal as the heavily subsidised Canopy Growth

agreement, including relief on remittances and guaranteed retail outlets?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation for a quick response, please.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, we've said this

that we would use the framework that we have put in place for Canopy for other

cannabis production facilities across Newfoundland and Labrador. We're working

with a number of providers and each deal is certainly depending on what is

eligible cost, what the actual business plan is and we'll continue to work

through that process. One thing we will do is we'll continue to make good

business deals for the people of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Time for

Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker,

under

section 49.

During

Question Period this afternoon, the Member for Conception Bay South insinuated

and is misleading the House of Assembly in his questioning to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment by suggesting that our government brought in

some 300 new taxes. That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker, some 240 of these taxes were

brought in by the PC government.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I don't see this as a point

of order. It's just a disagreement between two hon. Members and their skills at

debating.

Thank

you very much.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador's ban on hand-held electronic devices while driving

took effect in 2003. The maximum fine since has been increased to $400 with four

demerit points against the driver's licence. However, the use of hand-held

electronics while driving has escalated since 2003.

Many

studies have linked use of these devices while driving to the cause of

life-threatening accidents due to driver distraction. Distracted driving takes

you away from the primary task of driving. Driving requires your full attention

at all times. Cellphones are one of the most common distractions for drivers.

Studies

have shown that texting while driving increases the odds of a crash two to eight

times out of non-distracted drivers, while driving and talking on mobile phones

– even hands free – makes an accident four times as likely. Research has shown

that texting while driving slowed a driver's reaction time more so than a

drinking driver or using drugs.

Safety

on our roads and highways must always be a priority.

Therefore, we the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the safety on our provincial roads and

highways by imposing a one-day driving suspension for first-time offenders for

using hand-held electronic devices while driving; a one-week driving suspension

for a second-time offence and an additional week for every offence thereafter.

We thank

you for hearing our petition.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Route 60 is the main highway that runs through the Town of Conception Bay South

and is a vital artery in the provincial road network; and

WHEREAS

Route 60 is one of the most heavily travelled roads in the province; and

WHEREAS

Route 60 has been deteriorating and requires major upgrades;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to allocate funds to upgrade Route 60

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I would not want to count how many times I've done this on Route 60,

this petition, but I say it every time I stand. I think I'd be remiss if I never

said it again. It's a very important issue to the people of CBS; a pure, simple

fact. The road is in bad shape, it needs upgrades. Again, it's the fifth busiest

travelled road in the province.

The

people of the district speak out about this issue more than any other issue. As

elected representatives, we fight for all kinds of improvements in each of our

districts to make our communities better, that's what we all strive to do.

Having a decent road to drive over is not a lot to ask for. I know it's a big

cost, but the people deserve something decent to drive over, Mr. Speaker.

I say

this a lot of times, it's not about me; it's about the people in the community.

They've come forward, and there's never been, in my opinion, a more united issue

in my district than has been this road. It's something I hear about daily and I

don't have any problem standing up, I have many conversations, I have many

disagreements, but, ultimately, we're all united that this road needs upgrades.

I speak to the minister regularly and he's been pretty receptive to my

conversations.

It's

something that I have to keep lobbying for on behalf of the people I represent.

They're the ones who give me these petitions and they're the ones encouraging me

to keep presenting and fighting the issue. I will continue to do that, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Sorry,

the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, when you look at Route 60, it's

interesting when you go back and look at the numbers. In construction season

'13, '14 and '15, the previous administration invested $200,000 into Route 60;

$200,000 over four construction seasons.

That's

when the hon. Member opposite was, I believe, in the Department of

Transportation and Works. He was there. So in that three-year period, Mr.

Speaker, they invested $200,000 into Route 60.

Since

taking government, since we formed government in the 2016 construction season,

in 2016 and '17, we have invested $1.4 million into Route 60. Mr. Speaker, in

two years, this government has invested – excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, in two years, since forming government, we've invested seven times

more in Route 60 than they did. So don't blame us for Route 60. Just think about

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

Three years, $200,000; two years, $1.4 million into Route 60, Mr. Speaker.

Not only

that, Mr. Speaker, he asked about Peacekeepers Way. This year we are going to

invest $2.5 million more into Peacekeepers Way; seven times what they did for

Route 60.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Any

further petitions?

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion

6, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that

pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Tuesday, May 22.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, Motion 4, leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, Bill 18.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Deputy Government House Leader.

I'm

sorry, you moved and seconded.

MS. COADY: I did.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, Bill 18, and that the said bill

be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend The

Corporations Act,” carried. (Bill 18)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Corporations Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, Motion 5, and ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act,

Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act, Bill 19,

and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend

The Energy Corporation Act,” carried. (Bill 19)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Energy Corporation Act. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been a read

a first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

Thank

you.

motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 3,

Committee of the Whole.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 15,

An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises.

A bill,

“An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises.” (Bill 15)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

In April

of last year the previous minister said that Service NL would be doing its own

new review to get more updated information. What happened to that plan,

Minister?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

We did consultations with

groups. We met with Sherwin Flight from the Facebook group, we met with the

Board of Trade and my staff did consult with other groups.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

There were only just a couple

of more additional public consultations that were made? You stated in April last

year that you were going to go right through the whole review. You only made

those two consultations?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

No, we consulted with Stella

Burry also, Mr. Chair. There were a number of groups that the staff consulted

with. There are 61 clauses here in this act and there were issues and concerns

that were had. We had further discussion on them.

I listed

here when I introduced this bill I think it was six or seven different documents

that were available to us since 2012. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation did consultations last year also.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, my point is that you said in April there were going to be public

consultations and I don't believe there were any. In October of last year you

said you wouldn't be introducing an entire new act. What changed there? Today we

see a new act being introduced.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

There are 61 clauses here.

There are numerous changes. We're introducing a change to the act here in the

House today. There were consultations done from 2012 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

We're

having difficulty hearing the hon. speakers. Can I ask for co-operation from the

House, please?

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

There were consultations done

in 2012. It was your own document. We actually used the information that was

provided from the previous administration, updated it and used numerous

documents that were provided to us. Poverty reduction, mental health, Mr. Chair,

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation: there were numerous resources

available and a number of consultations done.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Chair, since 2015 since

the Liberal government came to power, we've had three different Ministers of

Service NL. On different occasions ministers stated they'd be completely

reviewing and revamping the whole thing, but you've gone back to 2012 and used a

lot of stuff since then.

question is: Have stakeholders had the opportunity to review the new proposed

act? Have you gotten any feedback?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, they have had

opportunity; this was posted online last week, Mr. Chair. Also, we've received

some very positive media on this.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You said in your news conference there were a number of

recommendations that weren't included in the new act. Can you give us some

examples?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

think we should probably go through the act. There are 61 clauses here and we

can go through them.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

question is that in the news conference you said there were some examples that

are not in the act. Can you give us some of those examples?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Could you just be a little bit more specific of exactly what type of examples

you're requiring? There are 61 clauses here.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

I'm

just wondering what you were referring to in the news conference when you said

there were recommendations that weren't included in the new act. What were those

recommendations?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How do you intend to inform the public of the changes

so that tenants and landlords are made aware of their rights and obligations?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Chair, there's a lead time that will be in place after the act is debated here

in the House today and put in place. It was posted on the website since last

week. Also, the director of Residential Tenancies is available to answer any

questions, as am I, to the general public.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 through 61 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Clauses 2 to 61 inclusive.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Mr.

Chair, are we going to go clause by clause? I'd prefer to do it clause by clause

rather than go through right to 61 because I have a lot of questions.

I can state the clause when I'm asking my question, if

that's okay. Or will I just continue to ask the questions right through? I just

need to know what direction.

If the minister (inaudible), I'll state the section.

CHAIR:

You

can go and just signify the clause that you're referring to.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Okay, no problem.

Under

section 3 there was also some support for nursing

homes that should be included in the act, but that didn't happen. Was this

considered?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

No, nursing homes are not

considered.

CHAIR:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under

section 3(4)(

j) it

states the act does not apply to a government department or agency that pays

rent on behalf of their tenant.

Does

this mean that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is exempted from the act?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

No, Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation is not exempted from the act.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Can you give me a definition,

because the act states that government departments or agencies that pay rent on

behalf of tenants are not included. What departments and what agencies are not

included?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Under

section 3(4)(f), what

about the residences at MUN? Is there any consideration given to including them

in the act?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Transient accommodations are

not included in the act.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Chair, I'm going to just

go back to the previous question that I did ask.

Minister, I want to know: What government departments and agencies that pay rent

on behalf of tenants are not included in this act?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, you're asking what

government departments are not included in the act.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So what do it (inaudible)?

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under

section 3(4)(

j) it

states that the act does not apply to a government department or agency that

pays rent on behalf of the tenant. My question I asked first: Was it

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? You said no.

What

departments or agencies that pay rent for a tenant are exempted from this bill?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under

section 5, Appointment of director; under the new act, the appointment of

director will be made by the minister rather than the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council. We were told this would reduce red tape.

Can you

explain why this change was made and exactly what difference it will make in how

the director will be appointed?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, there's a

competition process and the director is appointed. It will reduce red tape

because now it won't have to go to Cabinet for that final stamp of approval.

believe that's the question you're asking, correct?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under

section 14, Security

deposit; I just got a question here. In some cases this is very good for the

tenant but I know the landlords had some questions.

Some

landlords have been looking for an increase to security deposit from

three-quarters of a month rent to a full month's rent. Was this considered?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Chair, there was an

analysis done on that, and we decided we would remain at the three-quarters

amount after going through jurisdictional analysis and looking at the cost to

government as a landlord also.

The cost

to government and the taxpayer would increase if we increased the security

deposits. So we decided at the end, with the jurisdictional analysis and the

analysis here in the province, that we would stay at the three-quarter.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under

section 16, and this is

Rental increase; there's no reference to rent control or caps on how much rent

can be increased.

Is this

something you considered, and what was the analysis? Can you show us what

analysis you did?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Chair, there was a

significant amount of jurisdictional analysis done on this. There were several

disadvantages to having rent control policies. We did increase the notice period

that one would have to go, from three months to six months, Mr. Chair. So that

was the change we made here.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under

section 19, Notice

where failure to pay rent. Mr. Chair, again, just a question of how you got to

this issue.

Can you

give us an explanation of how and when you decided to drop it from 15 days to

five days before a 10-day notice to evict was done?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, we're reducing the

time required before notice can be issued; however, that does not take just five

days to evict a tenant who has not paid rent. Once a notice is served, a tenant

would have 10 days to pay rent outstanding, which means a minimum of two weeks

to pay the rent from the date the rent was due.

Most

other jurisdictions allow the landlords to take action and terminate the tenancy

one day after rent is not paid, and in some provinces three days.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section

23, 24, Notice where landlord or tenant contravenes peaceful enjoyment and

reasonable privacy. I know people wanted to see peaceful enjoyment more clearly

defined, and I imagine they will now want a clear definition of reasonable

privacy. Was that considered?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Chair, in actual

fact, we do have a peaceful enjoyment policy here. It's quite lengthy. I can

read it out but it's long. Peaceful enjoyment is clear in the policy. I can

table this document, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section

25 to 27: Application for certificate; Notice where tenant is victim of family

violence; Confidentiality. These sections are new to the act and outline issues

where tenants are victims of family violence. One of the key provisions allows

for early termination of fixed-term rental agreements without penalty by

providing 30 days' notice in situations of family violence.

This was

proposed by the Federation of Labour and it also emerged from a jurisdictional

scan done by the department. The

section on confidentiality and protection of

information was closely informed by the practice in Ontario. This is a welcome

addition to the act.

Can you

clarify how allegations of family violence be substantiated for purposes of this

act?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, a certificate from

a designated authority confirming that the tenant or child has been the victim

of family violence would be required to end a tenancy. An example of such would

be: law enforcement, health care provider, a social worker, a doctor, a nurse.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Under

section 31, Abandonment of residential premises

by tenant; changes have clarified that the tenant is considered to have

abandoned the premises. Under 31(2)(

c) it states the premise is considered

abandoned when rent is overdue.

What time frames are you talking about here?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Chair, the landlord, once he determines – or he believes that it's been vacant

or abandoned, he has to give 24 hours' notice before he can enter the premises.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

question is, under that

section it states a premise is considered abandoned with

overdue rent. Is there a time frame you're talking about here? That's the

question.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

No, it's any time frame. The

landlord has to have reasonable consideration to believe the premises have been

abandoned.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under

section 32, Abandoned

personal property. The changes here reduce the time that landlords can store

abandoned personal property from 60 days to 30 days. The new act will also allow

landlords to securely store the personal property in or on a rental property

without requiring it in writing.

I ask,

what practices in here have you done with other provinces, any jurisdictional

scanning done?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, this was one of

the things that actually came in the What

We Heard document from 2012, and a jurisdictional scan was done. This will

save landlords considerable costs. They will no longer have to rent a U-Haul or

a place to put the stuff that is left over by the tenant. This is a cost-saving

measure for the landlord and was very evident in the 2012

What We Heard document.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sections

36 to 39: Inspectors; Power of inspectors; Order of inspector; Contravention of

Act suspected. There seems to be a lot of change from the current act to the new

proposed act regarding investigations and inspectors.

Could

you provide some detail on the explanation of these changes?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, now the inspector

is the director of residential tenancies and residential tenancies officers are

inspectors. We can engage the fire commissioner, the City of St. John's or

health inspectors as required and as deemed necessary.

I'm sure

the Member opposite can remember a number of situations that have been in the

media of recent that would require this change and would allow the director of

residential tenancies now to have some control over this matter, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I ask

the minister: Who's the most likely to benefit from these changes?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, if you go through

the 61 clauses you will note that both tenants and landlords will benefit, and

the province as a whole. This is all about good tenants and good landlords, Mr.

Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I say to the minister, good

landlords and good tenants really don't need this act. It's about bad tenants

and bad landlords.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Chair,

section 46, a question. One of the things included in the less

substantial changes in your briefing on the act was shift notification of

applications and hearing requirements from the director to the applicant.

Can you

provide some clarification on this?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

What are the time frames for

hearings now? If I asked for a hearing today, how long would it take to be

heard?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, hearings are held

pretty frequently, and there's not a huge wait-list or wait-time period for

hearings. If the Member opposite knows different, I would certainly like for him

to bring it to my attention.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Section 48 is also Order

without hearing, and this

section expands the director's authority to make an

order without attempting to mediate or hold a hearing in a situation where the

landlord's property is significantly at risk. An example of significant risk was

provided in the briefing where tenants set off fireworks inside the unit. This

hopefully assists landlords in reducing additional damage to their properties.

question is – I understand this is defined in policy – can you tell us when the

policies will be developed?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, just to a previous

question, there were 538 hearings last year.

Policies

are being developed.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section

51 under Offence, this

section increases penalties for contravening the

legislation from a maximum of $400 to a maximum of $10,000 for corporations, and

$3,000 for individual.

understand that we had the lowest fine amounts in Canada, and fines were

expected to increase. How did you determine these fine amounts?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, I can say through

jurisdictional scans these fine amounts were determined. But also from what

we've heard, fines of $400 were benefiting neither the tenant nor the landlord.

So these numbers that we arrived at were done through jurisdictional scans.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What

particular fines are associated with particular offences? For example, what

would be the fine for smoking in an apartment? What would be the fine for having

a pet in an apartment?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, I think I would

need the individual case before me or before the director of tenancies to be

able to give you an answer specific to that. Each case is individual.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think

that's a pretty straightforward question. If someone is someone in an apartment

and they're not supposed to, there should be criteria for a fine associated with

the offence. I mean, to me, that's a pretty straightforward question. I don't

know if the minister wanted to elaborate more.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Fines are determined by the

court system, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Where are the fines and

criteria outlined and will it be made publicly available?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Section 51 indicates the fine

of $3,000 for individuals and $10,000 for corporations. Other fines are

determined by court decisions.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Are the fines in addition to

any property damage?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, it's pretty clear

here: “(

a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $3,000, and in

default of payment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 months; and (

b) in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding $10,000. The fines are for

contravening the act, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

What process do you have in place to collect the fines and where is it outlined?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Chair, the court system presently collects the fines.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Mr.

Chair, we see what successes in the court procedures in collecting fines when we

hear – there are a lot of success, but there's a lot of non-success also.

What do you expect the likelihood of being able to

actually collect these fines?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Very likely, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

hope you're right.

Section 61, states that the new

Residential Tenancies Act for the province will come into force on

January 1 – why was this date selected?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Chair, January 1, 2019 gives us time to bring the act in and to educate the

public and to develop the policies.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 through 61 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 61 carried.

CLERK:

it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative

session convened, as follows:

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act Respecting Tenancies

Of Residential Premises.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Chair, I move that the

Committee rise and report Bill 15.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 15.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER

(Trimper): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, Chair of the

Committee of the Whole.

MR. WARR: Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred

and have directed me to report Bill 15 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The

Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered

the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 15 without

amendment.

When shall the report be received? Now?

MS. COADY: Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a

third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS. COADY: Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 5, second reading of Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

In this case, Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for clarifying the title first of all.

Certainly I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House today to

talk about the important amendment that's being proposed to the

Schools Act, 1997 .

MR. SPEAKER:

Excuse me, Mr. Minister.

MR. HAWKINS:

I need to move and second, don't I?

MR. SPEAKER:

We require a mover and a

seconder before we commence.

MR. HAWKINS:

All right, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Transportation and Works – sorry.

Are we

good?

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 10 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.” (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

start again.

I'm

pleased to rise in this hon. House today to talk about the important amendment

being proposed to the Schools Act, 1997 .

Ensuring all students have a positive, safe and caring learning environment is a

key priority for our government, Mr. Speaker.

All

students between ages five and 21 have the right to attend school. There are

limited circumstances under the Schools

Act, 1997 to enable school districts to remove a student from school in

direct correlation to the safety and well-being of students and staff. We need

to change this. We are committed to reviewing legislation and making amendments

to support students and teachers, ensuring their safety. This brings us to the

debate we are engaging today in the House.

The

amendment being brought forward will address the provision of alternate

instruction where someone's presence would be or could be detrimental to the

safety and well-being of others.

Department officials consulted with various staff members as well as Departments

of Justice and Public Safety; Children, Seniors and Social Development and the

Women's Policy Office. In addition, department officials consulted with the

Association, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Public

Legal Information Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Child and

Youth Advocate's Office. Consultations concluded with an agreement to the

proposed amendment.

This

bill, Mr. Speaker, will amend the Schools Act to provide both school districts,

directors of education and the CEO with the legal authority to refuse school

admission to a student where the director is of the opinion that the presence of

the student in the school is detrimental to the physical or the mental

well-being of other students and staff.

Such

decisions, Mr. Speaker, will never be taken lightly and will be made through a

thorough investigation and understanding of a specific situation and in broad

consultation with school administrators, teachers and other people to the

specific situation.

Mr.

Speaker, I now focus my remarks on the key considerations for this amendment.

Exercising this authority, the director will be required to notify the student

and the student's parents of the refusal and the reasons for refusal; notify the

student and the student's parents of the appeal provision in the act which is

section 22 of the act; provide alternate delivery of education program for the

student and review the decision within 15 days and at least every 15 days

thereafter.

Mr.

Speaker, authority to refuse to admit a student will rest with the head of the

districts will be responsible for developing the necessary policies and bylaws

in the time proposed, September 1, 2018 implementation. Criteria will be

established to inform the director's decision and will be reviewed and approved

by the elected board of trustees. It will also be reviewed by department

officials.

Mr.

Speaker, this amendment is intended to ensure safety and well-being of students

and staff. It is not, and I repeat, it is not a punitive measure nor is it

associated with suspension, expulsion provisions within the act. Further, it is

not intended in any way to replace or supersede existing policies and

programming for the students with exceptionalities.

We do

not anticipate that this provision will be extensively used and the respective

director and CEOs will have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds

for the refusal.

Upon a

decision to refuse the student into their school, the student or parent guardian

has the right to appeal the director's decision under

section 22, Appeal of the

ct. The primary purpose is the safety and well-being of all students and staff.

The provision still provides for educational programming for the student, but it

will happen in an alternate setting. It is also important to note, in cases

where a student is suspended or expelled from school, there is no requirement

for alternate educational instruction.

Mr.

Speaker, let me just make a comment or two about the difference between what

we're legislating today, or proposing, and what already exists within the

purview of the school, the physical plant and the school grounds.

Right

now, the principal can make a determination of expulsion or suspension on an

incident, which could be punitive in nature that actually happens within the

school or on the school grounds, and he has every right to do that, but because

it's an expulsion or a suspension, they are not required to provide alternate

programming.

The

piece of legislation that we are proposing today, Mr. Speaker, addresses

situations that can happen outside of the school or school grounds. They are

non-punitive and as a result of that, this piece of legislation will give the

school district the authority to make a determination on whether a student

returns to school or not. It also gives the right to every student to an

education. When there is an enactment under this piece of legislation or if

there is an enforcement under this piece of legislation, then, obviously, what

has to happen is that the school district must provide alternate programming to

that student while the investigation is taking place.

Mr.

Speaker, some possible options for alternate delivery of the educational program

may include, but are not limited to, a distant education, or CDLI courses, if

the student is in high school. If in reasonable proximity, the student may have

the option to transfer to another school if deemed safe to do so. Also, Mr.

Speaker, the provisions under this legislation would enable the student to avail

of home tutoring. We continue to listen to the concerns that are raised by

students and school communities throughout the province, and are taking steps to

work with stakeholders to review the Schools Act to ensure that it is up to

date.

We are

aware of the importance of a safe learning environment in our schools. We do not

anticipate that this provision will be extensively used. The respective

directors and CEOs will have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds

for refusal. We are undertaking every effort to protect student safety, protect

the learning environment and ensure public confidence in our schools. We are

committed to continue to work with stakeholders to improve and to strengthen the

policies that address issues around any incidents that are detrimental to the

physical or mental well-being of students or staff.

Mr.

Speaker, we are confident the changes to this legislation, and the amendment

that is being proposed, will provide the opportunity for CEOs to make a decision

that is in the best interests of the students and staff that are in the schools.

We believe this amendment to this new legislation will provide safety for both

students and staff and protect all that will be involved in the situation,

including the student that is being refused to come back to school.

Part of

that, we have to also think about that person and the situation, Mr. Speaker,

when it arises. The legislation will provide for us now and direct the school

districts to make sure that the proper programming is in place to enable that

student to take advantage of the opportunity to complete their schooling.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm counting on all of my colleagues to accept this amendment as being

progressive in nature to ensure that our schools do have, in fact, a safe

environment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour to speak to the amendment to the Schools Act, aimed at ensuring

a safe learning environment. As the acting minister had noted, this indeed is

about safety and access to learning.

We know

it's as a result of events that happened on the West Coast earlier this year. It

sort of caught everybody off guard by how do you deal with a particular

situation when there's been an investigation or, in some cases, charges may have

been laid that include two students in the same environment. No doubt it has an

impact on safety within the school system; it has an impact on the ability to

learn in the proper environment.

I give

credit to the department and the school district for swiftly identifying that

there was an issue with the Schools Act, particularly that part. For anybody who

knows, the Schools Act is a very encompassing and very large document. It has a

multitude of different clauses that deal with every component of our education

system. As such, no doubt, every so often we update it and try to anticipate

particular issues.

In this

case, this was a unique situation that had never been dealt with in the same

circumstance in the past and, as a result, actions had to be taken. I know there

were some challenges about what actions were taken or weren't taken. That was

based on

interpretation or the limitations in the act itself.

To see

that we're moving this forward is a positive. To see that the driving force

behind it and the philosophy here is about safety in schools as primary and then

still learning access for all who may be involved here. It's not only about the

proposed victim here, but it's also about the accused in ensuring they have

access to proper education.

I do

like the fact – and I'll start off on an extremely positive note here – that

there was dialogue. We've talked about that a number of times in this House

here, about making decisions haphazardly without really including all the key

stakeholders. Because this had gotten so much media attention, everybody who

would have a stake in this, everybody who felt they had something that could add

to it – or particularly in this case, particular groups and that who could

outline potential issues to think about down the road in changing the piece of

legislation here in this part of the act itself – had a chance to weigh in.

That was

positive. Some weighed in through the media itself. Some had weighed in through,

I know, their contact with the department in the school district. Some had

weighed in through their contact with the school council in that particular

school area. There was an opportunity that did open up the lines of dialogue

that, I think, gave us an opportunity to actually put together what would be

responsive here. I was at the briefing. I do acknowledge staff who have looked

at other jurisdictions, because this was new, on how we were going to do it. It

meant we were going to have to change a piece of our legislation.

They

looked around the country because it's not in our best interests just to grab

what happens in some other province and make that part of our legislation. We've

evolved beyond that. There may be nuances in each one or there may be components

that are relevant here, but we have our own unique set-up here, our own unique

culture, our own unique geography and our own unique needs in how we offer our

programs and services, particularly around education. Any piece of legislation

or any resolution has to be in the best interests of the people that we're

serving.

In this

case it's the students who may be affected. All students are affected. If

there's an issue within a school system, that has an impact on everybody in that

school. It has an impact on the administration and the teachers there on how

they deal with the particular issues. It has an impact, in some cases, on the

communities themselves because students then have another role they play in

their respective communities. So to have that proper dialogue, to ensure that

we're also trying to think five, six, eight, 10 steps down the road as to what

may be the impact on an individual if we do this, this, and this.

I do

like the point that there was an awareness and a responsibility to ensure the

quality of education is offered for the individual who's accused also, and in

conjunction with their caregiver, their parents, to exactly what is the

situation within the school system, why they don't fit the criteria to be able

to stay in the school system in the normal process. But the alternatives, after

being noted of what the allegation is, here's how you can still access

education, and noting the various types of levels of education that I'll have a

discussion about a little bit further down in my remarks.

I know

there was some dialogue and we asked questions about the existing process. The

existing process – it's unfortunate that it is people trying to interpret if

it's an administrator in the school, if it's the school board themselves, if

it's the district supervisors. Who has the decision-making process? We found

that really nobody had that ability. You're opened up for legal action if you

didn't take the right one. From an operational and a moral point of view, you

have to ensure somewhere along the way that you try to provide education in a

proper manner, but also respecting the safety and the particular challenges that

may be in the school system when there are an accused and a victim.

In this

situation they did scan and look around to see what was operational. Obviously,

it was impossible to put anything in play for this school year, but as we are

here in the House now it's an opportune time for us to have this piece of

legislation put in play, have it enacted after the dialogue, also give it a bit

of a time lapse to understand how it will be implemented for September 1, which

is important here. We're going to start a new school year now. It's good for

everybody to know exactly, if there are situations like this that air itself

again in the future, that we have a clean policy, so everybody involved would

know exactly step one is here's where we move to, step two is what we do as part

of that.

The

fortunate thing here is that we've got an opportunity to deal with this before

this becomes widespread and that we disrupt multitudes of students who should

have access to proper education.

I do

want to note now that the CEO, by giving the responsibility to the CEO of the

school district, that the director obviously puts it in a point where it's at a

level where they know all the components of the Schools Act, they know all the

components of the operations in every school district. They would know – in most

cases, if not all, I would think – the physical layouts of the communities and

the schools they are dealing with. They obviously would be aware if there's any

pertinent information prior to this allegation to particular students in a

particular area. So that gives them that.

It also

removes the personal contact. Sometimes we talk about in education, one of the

philosophies that we promote is personal contact that administrators, teachers

and counsellors would have an understanding of the particular differences in

students, or the particular nuances, or particular challenges they may have and

that will work in their favour to be able to address certain issues.

In this

case, I think you need to be arm's-length because there's a scope here. There

has to be a lens put on this that you look at it from the outside saying how do

we ensure that the safety in the school system is ensured, and the integrity

around what that's meant to be, but also the rights of the individual who may be

accused of a particular situation because they are entitled to a proper

education. Our first philosophy in our act is to provide an open, inclusive

process for our education system that everybody has access to.

restricting that because we're not ready, or we totally only offer supports to

the victim at the time, or the proposed victim at the time, also taking into

account that we have to take avenues to ensure there are appropriate supports

for the accused as part of that.

Noting

that, but starting it off on a fresh notice that there are notifications to the

parents that they will be refused to be able to attend that particular school,

and then also the reasons for the refusal. Because parents would need to know

exactly what it is that their son or daughter is being accused of, and what

impact that will have on their education, particularly for that period of time.

It could be for a long period of time, depending on the situation itself.

There is

an appeal provision and that's under the act,

section 22. We have that in most

of our legislation when there's a decision being made, there's an appeal

process. Obviously, we need to ensure that this is enacted quickly because if a

student loses any instruction time, particularly any length of instruction time,

it will have an impact, no doubt, on the potential outcomes. So we need to be

able to move that as quickly as possible, and that's there. So they're notified

immediately of what the recourse is there under the appeals provision.

Provide

alternate delivery of educational programs for the students – there'll be a

discussion there with the parents and, no doubt, the administration of that

particular school about what is the best approach to use. Because there could be

some restrictions on that particular individual; it could be from a learning

point of view; it could be from a physical point of view. So you'd look at what

options are available, what resources are available that could best meet the

needs of ensuring that person still has access to an appropriate education

without it in any way, shape or form interfering with the victim themselves or

having an impact on the allegations that are being made.

Again,

the 15-day review of the decision, I think that's timely. Beyond that, I think

it could be detrimental to all involved. Prior to that, I don't think you could

do justice if you just said it was going to be four or five days, guaranteed.

There has to be a bit of time to find out what are, particularly, the needs of

that individual and what are the resources we have available. Is it that they

have to travel a certain distance that's not workable? Is it that it will have a

negative impact in another area? Is it that there's a connection between other

people? You need a bit of time to investigate that and then come up with a

solution that works.

It's

always alarming when we don't have things right away when it comes to the

criteria. You know the cliché the devil is in the details – in this case, I'll

forego that because everybody involved in this is doing it for the right reason.

The right reason is to improve our education system, particularly around this

area here, to ensure that we continue to have safe schools that also have

appropriate processes for everybody to have access to education, even when there

are investigations or charges being laid in certain circumstances.

The

criteria will be developed. Meeting with the staff and knowing the stakeholders

who've been involved and knowing the school district, they're going want to be

able to get this in play as quick as possible; have a clean, neat set of

criteria that are easily interpreted and can be enacted fairly quickly. So I'm

looking forward to those, only because if down the road I run into that with a

constituent situation, I'll be able to know exactly what advice to give as to

what their rights and their privileges would be around that.

Also

that the CEO or the director will be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds

for the refusal; departmental officials suggest that the provision will not be

extensively over-encompassing. Because, at the end of the day, you want

something that's clean and neat and easily understandable, and can quickly be

defined as here are the rational reasons why we're going to have to take an

alternate approach to educating your son or daughter and here are the

alternatives that we have.

I was

supportive of that when we had the briefing, after we had asked them some

questions, and I do understand that's the way it should be. I am looking forward

to what they are, but I do have confidence that they'll come out to be in the

best interests of all involved. It's not a punitive measure. And we know that

because, at the end of the day, the process itself will be to ensure all

involved still have access to education and in a safe manner.

Not

intended to replace supervision expulsion procedures for dealing with student

misconduct – and that's the clarification, and we had that clarified. Once it's

neatly and tidily outlined, the criteria, there won't be an

interpretation by

administration or by parents or by school councils or by students about exactly

the difference between expulsion for not following procedures or rules and

regulations, or suspensions for not adhering to the rules and regulations that

are outlined, not only in our Schools Act, but don't forget schools,

administrators and the school district have other sets of criteria within their

own region which is acceptable for behaviour in our school system and their own

base operations.

So I

like the fact that this will be clarified. There are two separate entities

there. There's one that deals with the situations that we ran into in the

Stephenville area, and that will forever and a day until we make changes down

the road address those issues and ensure that both parties are taken care of.

There is possible alternative delivery of educational programs. It was noted

here by the ministers we have a multitude of ones that we do now as

alternatives. Not because in any way, shape or form we've had to remove people,

but because there is just not access in some regions to particular course

studies.

The CDLI

is one possible way of being able to ensure that the student still has access to

all the courses that they're now enrolled in. And that can easily be

transferrable to most, if not, all communities in our province now so that the

student doesn't have to fall behind or would be restricted to only getting X

number of the courses that they're already enrolled in.

Reasonable proximity transfer to another school – so there are issues here about

is it in the best interests if you move to a school where it's anonymous, nobody

knows the situation, you can be integrated fairly easy and you feel comfortable

to be able to do that. Those are the discussions that would take place. Again,

we talked about the proximity. We've constantly argued about what's an

appropriate distance for someone to travel to get to a school, if it's by bus or

by their own means of transportation. So that has to be taken into account when

you look at if you're going to transfer somebody to another school for a

particular region, or if you're going to use distance education and what access

do they have to the equipment and the technology that's necessary.

Home-tutoring and -schooling is another avenue. We talked about how many hours

would be provided and what levels, if that's seen to be the most workable

process to use. I know these are part of the criteria that will be worked out,

but the fact there are three or four different options here tells me that if the

situation rears itself again, we do have alternatives there to ensure that that

individual or group of individuals have access to continuing their education at

the levels they had before, but just changing perhaps the method we offer the

process for them, for their education.

We do

realize at the end of the day that the consultation here was important. As we

talk about the education system we also have to talk about the social issues

that are relevant to it. In some cases it's going to be identified when we run

into situations like this that there's a systemic issue here. It might be a

culture in some cases, it might be an attitude, it might be a behavioural issue

in some cases that stemmed or caused, particularly, the issues between two

students or groups of students. There are other agencies outside that we may

need supports from. We may need counselling services from. We may need more

advice on other policies or the criteria itself.

The

process that was used around consultation and that, I think was effective enough

to be able to get us to a point where we're ready now to bring in the piece of

legislation that will strengthen the existing act and fill the gap. What we've

had there was, unfortunately, a gap that was left to

interpretation by school

administrators, school districts, without having a clear-cut regulation that

protects everybody involved and doesn't open up the school district or the

administration for legal action depending on the actions they had taken.

So, as

we look at this, I look forward to some questions when we get to Committee. With

that being said, I think it's a piece of legislation that's long overdue, and I

understand why. It's one of those things, particularly, as I mentioned earlier –

the Schools Act has so many nuances and so many components to it that until you

run into a situation you don't know exactly what it is you need to put in place

to address that, and address it in the most appropriate manner.

What's

being proposed here, I think it's workable. It's a living entity. We'll find

other challenges as things transpire, but because of the proper dialogue,

because of the fact we haven't rushed it since the situation came to light, and

have all the key people involved here, I think we can come up with a piece of

legislation that addresses the particular issue here about access to education

and safe environment habits.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll get an opportunity in Committee to ask a few questions for

clarification.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's certainly a privilege to rise and speak to Bill

10,

An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997. I'm just going to take a few moments,

Mr. Speaker, understanding that the Minister of Education has already kind of

highlighted I guess the main keys to this amendment today. I certainly

appreciate the input from the leader of the Opposition as well.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes as no surprise to most of

us here in the Legislature, this amendment is in part due to an allegation that

was made regarding a student in the Stephenville area.

Mr. Speaker, I have great and tremendous respect for

our students, our staff and our educators all across this province. I've

actually had the great fortune of spending a significant amount of time at

Stephenville High while, in addition to being a student some 17 years ago, also

in a volunteer capacity as well, having coached the Stephenville High senior

boys' basketball team, as well as their touch football team, as well as helping

with the soccer team; a lot of sports at the Stephenville High School that I was

involved with. It put me in touch with a lot of parents and a lot of our

educators. I spoke with parents, I spoke with the administration, I've spoken

this situation unfolded just a few short months ago.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have an obligation to

ensure that the safety of all of our citizens is paramount, but of particular

importance is that we ensure the safety of all of the children in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there are some 70,000 students in

approximately some 270 schools in this province. All of our students between the

ages of five and 21 have the right to attend school. They have the right to an

education. What this change was bringing about, there was a situation that arose

in the sense while we were trying to understand a way that balances all of our

students having a right to an education, we also have to work with the

Department of Justice and Public Safety in understanding how things work in our

justice system in a sense that individuals who may have been accused or alleged

to have done some harm are also innocent until proven guilty. Weighing those two

situations essentially prompted this particular amendment today.

As the minister mentioned in his remarks, there was

some significant consultation work that was done. I certainly wish to thank the

Minister of Education and his staff. I'd be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not

mention and thank the former m inister of Education that held that portfolio as well.

Consultations were held with the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the

Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development, the Women's Policy

Conseil scolaire francophone provincial, the francophone school district, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association was also consulted on this

amendment, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Public

Legal Information Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Child

and Youth Advocate.

Mr.

Speaker, some significant consultations to ensure that we could have an

amendment within this legislation that achieves what we're looking for. What

we're looking for, again, the primary purpose is to ensure safety and well-being

of all students and all staff across this province.

The

proposed amendment, it's going to provide – as the Member alluded to, and as the

minister alluded to – the director of Education and CEO with legal authority to

refuse school admission to a student where we're of the opinion that the

presence of the student in the school is detrimental to the physical or mental

well-being of other students and/or staff. This measure is not replacing any

suspensions, not replacing any expulsion of any particular student; rather, it's

something to ensure general safety of all students and staff.

The

director or the CEO would have to notify the student and the parents. Then once

this decision is made it would be reviewed within 15 days. I guess of key

importance is we review every 15 days thereafter to ensure that as things change

or as any other information may arise that our director and/or CEO is in the

best possible position to ensure the safety of all students and staff.

Mr.

Speaker, we all understand, I guess, in this hon. House the importance of a safe

learning environment for our schools, and we all wish for the best for all of

our children as they continue with their education. This change, while very, I

guess, minimal in terms of length of the bill, in terms of length of any direct

clauses in the actual piece of legislation, it is a tremendous piece of

legislation that we take very seriously and that we all look to see that our

students can be safe in our schools.

With

that, I certainly won't take much more time. I just want to say a huge thank you

to the minister, the staff and all those who provided input during the

consultation phase of this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I certainly look

forward to support from all sides of the House as we move forward.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 10, which is an amendment to

the Schools Act. The minister, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island

and my colleague who's just spoken, have all given a good explanation of why the

bill is before us. I really don't need to repeat all that.

We know

that we had a problem back some months ago when the incident occurred in

Stephenville and when the district school board, as well as the school itself of

course, had to deal with a situation which was a new situation for them, and a

situation which was uncovered in the Schools Act as it is. I understand the need

for trying to deal with that situation, but I have some concerns about how it is

being dealt with and I want to raise those concerns.

It is

extremely important, as everybody has said, that our schools are safe places for

everybody. We have to make sure that nothing is done in an amendment that could

make it unsafe for some students in the school. That's the concern I'm going to

be raising and I will be spea