Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 14 November 2017 (48th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLVIII No. 33)
2017-11-14
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
PDF Version
November 14, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 33
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Today in
the Speaker's gallery I recognize Chief Justice Derek Green, who will be the
subject of a Ministerial Statement. He is joined by Mrs. Trudy Green, Mrs. Susan
Green and Mrs. Gillian Lye.
A very
big round of welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the public gallery I'd
like to welcome Mr. Kirk Smith, school principal for Octagon Pond Elementary,
who will be referred to in a Ministerial Statement today.
Also in
the public gallery, I'd like to welcome three students visiting from the College
of the North Atlantic in Qatar, who are here with faculty members today. They
will be competing in the College of the North Atlantic's Newfoundland and
Labrador Business Case Competition at the Grand Falls-Windsor campus from
November 16-18, 2017. They are Maryam Al-Bader, Ghanem Al-Kaabi and Ruqaia
Zarea.
Shukran.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we'll hear statements
from the hon. Members for the Districts of Harbour Grace – Port de Grave,
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, Conception Bay South, St. George's – Humber, St.
John's Centre and Torngat Mountains.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
proud to recognize the Trinity-Conception-Placentia family support group, a
local
chapter of the Autism Society of the Newfoundland and Labrador network. As
we know, there has been an increase in the number of children diagnosed with
autism across our province in recent years. We also know that autism simply
isn't about an individual but, rather, an entire family.
Well,
the TCP support group considers itself to be just that: a large family which
comes together with a goal of helping and empowering its members. This
organization is comprised of volunteers providing resources to families,
including hands-on workshops and programs pertaining to various autism topics
such as transitions, social thinking, adult leisure, social clubs and
community-based therapeutic recreation.
The team
is a completely family-directed group, meaning its moms, dads, grandparents and
siblings who roll up their sleeves fundraise and orchestrate all activity. The
Trinity-Conception-Placentia team is growing each year. There are members as
young as 18 months to members who are in their 30s.
This
local organization certainly is an asset to those living with autism and their
loved ones. Please join me in recognizing them on their dedication and success.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to pay tribute to Miawpukek First Nation for the successful
ratification vote on the Miawpukek First Nation Land Code, which took place on
September 29, 2017. With this historical vote, community residents decisively
chose that authority over land governance be restored to Miawpukek First Nation.
I offer
congratulations to band council and Chief Misel Joe for your tremendous
commitment to self-sufficiency. I am honoured to quote Chief Joe's words to sum
up the significance of this momentous accomplishment and let Miawpukek members
know how much we share in your great pride for this milestone in your history.
“Land
governance will now reflect the unique needs and traditions of the community,
provide sound and environmental protection for our reserve, and accelerate
progress in generating sustainable economic development opportunities. We are a
progressive and proud people, striving for self-sufficiency through education,
economic development, social development and participation in the regional
economy while protecting our reserve lands and resources.”
I ask
that all hon. Members join me in congratulating Miawpukek First Nation for the
extraordinary strides they have made in establishing their community as an
amazingly credible, vibrant, culturally diverse gem on our South Coast.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, on October 11, my colleague the MHA for Topsail – Paradise and I
attended the Canada 150 Leadership Award ceremony acknowledging the significant
contribution of the Conception Bay South Monument of Honour Committee.
During
this event, the unveiling of a commemorative book dedicated to the Monument of
Honour was showcased and released. The Honourable Frank F. Fagan presented
copies to students and representatives from our local schools. Wayne Miller, who
spearheaded this initiative, hopes to keep the memory of all veterans and first
responders alive and to educate our youth on the sacrifices made by local
residents for the freedom we enjoy every day.
I would
like to acknowledge the members of the Monument of Honour Committee: Wayne
Miller, Jim Power, Gerry Kelly, Paul Dawe, Woody French, Jerry Farrell, Adrian
Power, Art Dawe, Daphne Dawe, Jennifer Hutchings, JoAnne Stone, Sandra Baggs,
Greg Coates, Richard Murphy, Todd Brophy, Jim Hapgood and Harry Pride.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in commending the Monument of Honour
Committee for their great work and dedication to the Monument of Honour project.
Congratulations on receiving the Canada 150 Leadership Award. I want to thank
them all for their commitment to our community.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's – Humber.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, recently, the
Canadian political science community and Memorial University lost one of
Canada's foremost scholars.
Dr.
Christopher Dunn's career at Memorial spanned nearly three decades. He developed
a reputation for quality research and scholarship. His publications about
Cabinets, deputy ministers, federalism and government have been widely read
across Canada.
One of
his significant contributions to public policy in this province and to this
House of Assembly was as a political advisor for the Review Commission on
Constituency Allowances and Related Matters – or the Green Report as it's
commonly known – in 2007.
taught many students over the years and had a significant impact on many young
people's lives. He will be remembered by many as a kind and caring man.
Dr. Dunn
was an esteemed scholar. He had written and edited several books, numerous
journal articles and conference presentations on politics and public policy over
the years.
I ask
all Members to join with me in recognizing the tremendous contribution of Dr.
Dunn and also in extending condolences to his wife, Hilda, and his sons,
Christopher and James.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I continue, I would
like to recognize Jessica, Jane and Susan Rendell from Heavenly Creatures.
They're also in the gallery here for a Member's statement which is about to be
read.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sixteen
years ago, three passionate animal lovers founded Heavenly Creatures, the
province's first no-kill, foster-based animal rescue organization. Jessica
Rendell, Elaine Johnson and Thomas Ozon had a dream that together they could
build an organization dedicated to the rescue, rehabilitation and finding homes
for unwanted and abandoned animals in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Heavenly
Creatures has grown steadily since then. They discovered there's a home out
there for just about every animal, even if the animal is old or has a medical
condition. Their foster program allows them to keep animals for months if
necessary, caring for them and rehabilitating them, readying them for permanent
homes.
Today,
Heavenly Creatures has over 100 animals in foster care; it runs Heavenly
Bargains, a thrift store on the corner of Cashin and Mundy Pond Extension, and a
pet food bank to help people who have a tough time feeding their animals. This
is especially true for seniors whose pets provide companionship.
None of
this work would be possible without the many incredible volunteers and the
vision and dedication of their director, Jessica Rendell.
Congratulations and thank you to the good people of
Heavenly Creatures for their ongoing work in our community.
Bravo, Mr. Speaker!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
addition to my hon. colleague for Topsail – Paradise, I, too, wish to
congratulate athletes who represented the province at the World Dwarf Games held
in Guelph, Ontario in August. In particular, I would like to recognize
10-year-old Brooklyn Woolfrey of Rigolet on her accomplishments. Brooklyn
actually preformed her ancestral Inuit drum dance at the opening ceremonies of
these prestigious international games.
Brooklyn
competed in many events and, at times, played against males in her own age
group. She also played doubles badminton with young Nicolas O'Quinn from
Paradise. They placed fourth in this competition.
Brooklyn
won gold medals in swimming and floor hockey. She also placed fourth in track
and field, missing out on a medal by tenths of a second, which is quite an
accomplishment considering she only ran track once in her life prior to the
games.
Brooklyn
totally enjoyed the experience and had so much fun representing her culture and
our province. Hopefully, she will consider competing in the next World Dwarf
Games in 2021 at a location to be determined.
Brooklyn, you did your community proud and your province.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Brooklyn Woolfrey on her
accomplishments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize the career and contributions of the hon. J. Derek
Green, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of
Appeal. With 17 years as Chief Justice and over 43 years of experience,
dedication and commitment to the justice system of this province, Chief Justice
Green has had a tremendous impact on the provincial legal system.
Chief Justice Green is a great legal mind and jurist. His
extensive legal career included private practice, chairing the Newfoundland Law
Reform Commission and acting as counsel to two commissions of inquiry in the
1980s. He was appointed as a Justice in 1992 and was then appointed Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, Trial Division, in 2000. In 2009, he was appointed
Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal.
Mr. Speaker, very notably, in 2007, Chief Justice Green
served as sole commissioner of a public inquiry into constituency allowances and
spending practices relating to Members of the provincial legislative assembly.
The recommendations from his report are what guide us in the Legislature today.
Throughout his time in the justice system in this province, Chief Justice Green
has been involved in advancing the courts and making them more open and
accessible. He has been a champion for access to justice and has even spoken on
aspects of reform of judicial discipline procedures and court reform at events
around the world.
Mr.
Speaker, these will be enormous shoes to fill. I ask all hon. Members to join me
in thanking Chief Justice Green for his many years of service. The justice
system in this province has been strengthened due to his contributions and his
commitment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Order, please!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. We join with the
minister in welcoming our special guest to the House today and congratulating
him on a stellar career for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, 17 years of service as chief justice and 43 years in a career of
contributions to our province's justice system is certainly worth and deserving
of his recognition here today.
As a
parliamentarian, I'd also like to join with other MHAs in recognizing how Chief
Justice Green and his work around House management and also expectations and
conduct that's expected of Members of the House of Assembly and how that was
transformed.
His
impact not only here in our Legislature and governance, but also on our province
is to be commended. I thank him personally for his dedication and commitment,
and we wish him and his family all the very best.
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 for an advance copy of his statement. Among all of Chief Justice
Green's many, many accomplishments stands his work to rebuild the confidence in
this House of Assembly. His report,
Rebuilding Confidence , and his legislation, the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act , has had incredible influence on our House;
its effects can be felt daily.
His
incredible work in modernizing our justice system and insisting it be accessible
to all people is a lasting legacy.
Chief
Justice Derek Green, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador thank you. You are
a justice superhero.
Bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KIRBY:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to the late Sergeant
Donald Lucas, member of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, who was
killed during active duty in Afghanistan in 2007.
Last week, I had the honour of participating in a
Remembrance Day assembly and special dedication ceremony held at Octagon Pond
Elementary School. Following the assembly, invited guests, family and friends
gathered to witness the official naming of the school's library, now known as
the Sergeant Donald Lucas Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the Sergeant Donald Lucas Commons is a
welcoming space that builds community. It is a meeting place for students and a
portal to the preservation of knowledge, creativity and discovery.
Sergeant Lucas was known to many as a dedicated
soldier, a devoted family man and a committed member of the community. His
service and commitment to our country will forever be remembered.
Mr. Speaker, the dedication of the library was
initiated by Octagon Pond Elementary School Principal Kirk Smith. Mr. Smith has
a distinguished career as a teacher and administrator, and also serves as a
Lieutenant Colonel with the Canadian Forces Army Reserves as Deputy Commander of
37 Brigade and Commanding Officer of 37 Signal Regiment.
Mr. Speaker, the newly mounted poster in the Sergeant
Donald Lucas Commons reads:
They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them.
Nor years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Mr. Speaker, I invite my fellow hon. Members to join
with me in acknowledging the family of Sergeant Lucas and in thanking our
courageous men and women in uniform – both home and abroad – who put their lives
in harm's way every day in service of our province and our country.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of this
statement today as well. I had the honour of being invited to attend last week's
ceremony and assembly. I thank Principal Kirk Smith for the invitation.
I've gotten to know Principal Smith or Lieutenant
Colonel Smith since the new school opened. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, he's
becoming very well recognized, not only in the school, but in the community at
large for the great work that he does with the students and children of the
area.
This dedication last week, dedication and recognition
of Sergeant Donald Lucas, was very sincere and moving; truly a moving day for me
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. His wife, Natasha, his son, Matthew, his daughter,
Mackenzie, as well as family and friends were also in attendance, and also to
recognize that Octagon Pond school is actually located on Sgt. Donald Lucas
Drive. So not only is the school located on Sgt. Donald Lucas Drive, but to have
the Commons named in recognition of Sergeant Donald Lucas
I know was truly important for those in attendance.
I thank
the minister for recognizing this today. I thank Principal Smith for the work
that he's done as well. Mr. Speaker, we will remember him.
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, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Congratulations to the
Octagon Pond Elementary community on the dedication of their new library. Those
who put their lives in harm's way do so to protect and preserve our rights and
freedoms, which include the pursuit of knowledge.
What a
better way to commemorate Sergeant Lucas's memory. I hope the new library will
be a source of inspiration, peace and knowledge to all who use it.
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. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
question today is for the Premier – my first question. Mr. Speaker, according to
the fiscal update this morning, the Liberal's so-called fiscal plan is failing.
Today's fiscal update encased the projected deficit has risen from $788 million
to $852 million, while taxes and fees continue to strangle the economy.
I ask
the Premier: What is your plan to reduce the deficit moving forward, which is
continuing to grow under the Liberal watch?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I have a chance
to stand in this House of Assembly today and to say that
The Way Forward is indeed working.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I'm not so sure when the
Leader of the Opposition got a 99 per cent grade in matching targets, but I can
assure you it wasn't in 2015 when he refused to even do a mid-year update.
This is
the very person that's standing up today and questioning the Minister of Finance
on the delivery of a mid-year update that the person opposite forgot about –
deliberately forgot about it, did not give it to the people of our province just
a few days before the election. For some reason, I just find it astounding today
that the Member would get up and say that a 99 per cent meeting target is not a
good number. In my view, it is a good number.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, as
I said, the deficit continues to grow beyond what they had projected. Housing
starts are lower than what they had projected. Unemployment rates are higher
than what they projected – very significant to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Premier,
my question was very simple: What's your plan to reduce the deficit, which is
growing under your watch? It's a simple question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2015,
when we came into government, the deficit was forecast to be – which the Leader
of the Opposition deliberately forgot to tell the people of the province –
again, $2.7 billion.
Why does
this individual stand in this House today and question this government when in
2015, just less than 24 months ago, this person deliberately hid information
from the people of this province that would have led to a $2.7 billion deficit?
Mr.
Speaker, in the forecast today, that is significantly reduced, working with the
people of our province, some just $852 million deficit. It is a significant
deficit, Mr. Speaker. The Way Forward
outlines much of this. Our plan is working. Any time you meet 99 per cent of
your target, that plan is working.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
twice asked the Premier what his plan is and apparently he doesn't have one
because he's failed to comment or tell us what the plan is.
So I'll
ask the Minister of Finance, because he stated this morning on VOCM that we're
out of crisis, is what he said this morning on VOCM; yet, the provincial deficit
grows and all the indicators, as I just mentioned, are going in the wrong
direction. They haven't met the target, those very important targets that impact
people, Mr. Speaker.
The
former minister of Finance in April stated that we're still in a fiscal crisis.
While they haven't met their targets, the minister says we're out of the fiscal
crisis.
I ask
the minister: What is it? Are we in a fiscal crisis or are we not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL :
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Minister of Finance will have ample opportunity to
answer some more questions for the Member opposite.
When he
talked about The Way Forward , Mr.
Speaker, which, just a year ago The Way
Forward vision was announced, presented to the people of the province, which
is for growth and sustainability. We have already announced our industry sector
work plan with agriculture, with aquaculture. The technology sector is coming,
Mr. Speaker. People on the Burin Peninsula with CFI are currently working. The
White Rose extension is providing some 5,000 jobs to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. We've been able to secure those just in this one year, Mr.
Speaker, so that's considerable improvement.
Mr.
Speaker, if you go back to the PC government, go back to what they outlined, one
of the challenges that we faced is with Nalcor. That is a legacy of the –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Three
questions and three answers with blame game, which we know that the Members
opposite are very well known for. Instead of laying out what their plan is,
instead of talking about answering questions about who is correct, because we
know they don't like to provide information over there, Mr. Speaker. We know
they don't like to answer questions and provide information.
The
minister in April said the province was in a fiscal crisis. They haven't met
their targets, things have gotten worse. The minister this morning says we're no
longer in crisis. I know people are in crisis.
I ask
the minister: Is there a crisis or is there not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, one more time
I'm going to get up again and then we'll let the Minister of Finance do his job.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite just talked about blame game. Mr. Speaker, this is
not a blame game. This is a reality check. The Leader of the Opposition fails to
recognize and accept the responsibility of his government, which is laying the
burden of the financial situation of this province. It is clearly on the feet of
the Leader of the Opposition and the PC Party that had $25 billion to secure the
future of this province. They failed to do it. This is not a blame game, Mr.
Speaker; this is a reality check. Accept your responsibility.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind all hon. Members
that I only want to hear from the Member that I've addressed.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
They're
getting heated over there today. They are getting very defensive is what's
happening over there today, very defensive, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, even
while the Premier continues to chirp at me while I'm asking his next question.
It was
2015 when they finally rolled out their plan, just days before the election
campaign. It was referred to as gibberish, magical, pixie dust, is what people
looked at it and said. That's what it is, Mr. Speaker. They promised a 10,000
per cent return on diversification and it was called gibberish, Mr. Speaker. The
Premier had the road ahead. He promised a stronger tomorrow and
The Way Forward.
Well,
Premier, your way forward has brought us in the wrong direction. How are you
going to turn it around?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of
saying that I'm using the blame game, our fiscal target here, our royalties were
off by 1 per cent. Their deficit projection of $1.1 billion when the reality was
$2.7 billion is almost three times, almost 300 per cent, almost, that they were
off. I'll tell you that our plan is working because government's expenses are
$22 million less than what we projected.
We don't
control the price of a barrel of oil. We were off, Mr. Speaker, on oil revenues
by $147 million. Our deficit projection was only $75 million. I think we're
doing pretty –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister thinks they're doing a good job. He should talk to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians that are leaving this province and moving away like we haven't seen
in years, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
He should talk to people who
are paying taxes and fees like never before. Even the previous minister
acknowledged tax fatigue in April and they can't meet their tax revenue targets.
I ask
the minister: What's your plan on a go-forward basis? How are you to fix this
mess that you've created over the last year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to try
not to laugh because I need to answer the question. How are we going to fix the
mess we created? We didn't leave the province with a $2.7 billion deficit. We
didn't leave the province, Mr. Speaker, with borrowing on average to meet that
projected deficit, a projected $4.38 million a day just to meet the deficit. Mr.
Speaker, I think he needs to have a good look in the mirror.
What I
will say, as the Member knows, your projections in 2014-15 called for job
reductions in this province because you knew that three major projects were
going to wind down. That's why there are not as many people working.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
coming from a former Health minister that I think, while under his watch, had a
10 per cent increase in health spending in one year, Mr. Speaker. He talks about
what we've done.
Mr.
Speaker, the Finance Minister makes a good point in pointing out what we said
back in '14 because we were reducing the cost to government in 2013, 2014 and
2015. We campaigned on reducing the cost to government and not putting the
economy in a tailspin, which is exactly the mess I'm talking about because
that's what they did with their 300 tax increases and fees. They might not be in
crisis, but people are in crisis, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
I ask the Premier: What are
you going to do about the crisis that people are facing in our province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I tell you what a crisis
would have been. When the bond-rating agencies found out that the actual deficit
was $2.7 billion and the very real risk of a significant downgrade in our
ratings, that would have been a crisis.
A crisis
is when our lending agencies find out that even though he went through the
campaign continuing to promise more and more spending and refused to tell the
people of the province that the deficit was almost three times what he was
telling them it was – the lending agencies not lending money to the province,
that would have been a crisis.
What
would we have to shut down if we didn't take quick and decisive action to get
the province headed back in the right direction? I'll ask you that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
know how to tell the Minister of Finance this, but only to tell him that his job
is about the people of our province. People are in crisis, Mr. Speaker. They
can't afford to live in our province anymore. They can't afford to pay the taxes
and fees that that crowd over there imposed on them. They can't do it.
They're
only dealing with half the balance sheet. They promised a stronger tomorrow.
They promised a way forward. They promised a road ahead. They promised the world
to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and they failed to deliver.
I've
asked the Premier four or five times – he lets the Finance Minister answer, but
I'll ask him again: What is your plan to reduce the deficit, the growing deficit
you talked about this morning, the deficit that's growing under a Liberal watch?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, again, this is a
tale of two stories because the Member opposite says you shouldn't have
increased taxes. Well, to tackle a $2.7 billion deficit – the gift you left the
province – to tackle that, I ask: What services do you suggest we should have
cut?
We have
focused on people in this province. We haven't had major layoffs and we haven't
had major public service cuts in this province, I say to the Member opposite.
But we did have to take quick and decisive action to ensure that our bond
ratings didn't decrease and to ensure that our lending continued, so that we
could continue to provide those services to the people that need them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, over the past 18 months I've asked the Minister of Natural Resources on
the creation, approval and release of new royalty regulations, but I've been
told they were not available.
Can we
finally have an update from the minister on exactly what's happening?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member opposite is indeed correct; he has asked me in this House of Assembly.
I'll remind him that throughout the past year, I was saying the regulations were
under development. As late as August, Mr. Speaker, I reminded him that those
regulations would be in place this fall.
The
regulations are now in place to support a previously announced generic oil
royalty regime, Mr. Speaker. Industry was well aware of this as we were
developing those regulations. They were apprised all the way through this.
They
were paying attention, Mr. Speaker. They understood that they were released. I
do have copies of letters to show that we had indicated to the industry that was
so.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the last time I asked the question was August 8 here in the House. I
asked the minister at that time where the generic oil regime was and when could
we expect it. Her response was: “It is important to the people of this province
to understand where we are with the generic oil royalty regime.”
Minister, why did you not tell the House of Assembly that Cabinet had approved
the royalty regime in May? Why the secrecy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I will say to
the Member opposite, as I said in August, those regulations were under
development. I went on to talk about, throughout the last year, how important it
was to our competitiveness and how other work is ongoing. I'll say again it's
continuing. We're working with industry on our competitiveness.
Those
regulations are now in place for the generic oil royalty regime that was
announced, and to great fanfare, I would say, in November of 2015. Those
regulations are now announced.
We're
going to continue to work with industry and stakeholders, Mr. Speaker, to ensure
the competitiveness of our oil and gas industry. It's very important to the
people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in November of 2015, our administration announced a new royalty regime
following consultation with industry. Now we've found out that the Liberal
government announced a new royalty regime in a May 2017 Cabinet deal.
I ask
the minister: Were there any differences in the announcement we made in November
2015 by our government and what you secretly just recently let out that you had
approved it by Cabinet in May. Was there any difference between the two of them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite keeps using the word “secretive,” which is incorrect completely.
Perhaps
he wasn't paying attention. All throughout the last year I've been saying these
regulations were under development. All throughout the last year I've been
telling him about the competitiveness review that we're undertaking that looks
at the entire ball of value. All throughout the last year, including as late as
August, I told him it was going to be ready this November.
Mr.
Speaker, the industry has been very engaged in this process. We'll continue to
ensure our competitiveness. The generic oil royalty is exactly the same as was
released in November of 2015. The regulations are now around that regime.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
minister just said the regulation regime was the same, yet we've had two years
that have elapsed. She indicated that in the House here she was doing
consultation and we find out that in May the actual regulations were approved by
Cabinet.
If they
were the same and they were approved by Cabinet in May, why didn't you announce
them? Why didn't you let the House of Assembly know and the people of the
province know when you were asked?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps
I need to be a little bit slower in my delivery. Allow me to say to the Member
opposite as I've said repeatedly: what's really important to our industry is our
competitiveness globally.
As he
will recognize, as will everybody in this House and everyone in Newfoundland and
Labrador, industry has changed significantly over the last number of years
because of a decline in price. We wanted to make sure we did our due diligence.
We met
again with the company that helped to deliver the generic oil royalty regime. We
asked them to review in light of the new circumstances in the oil and gas
industry. We met repeatedly with our partners and stakeholders in the industry
to make sure that what we were doing was correct.
That's
why, Mr. Speaker, we're doing the entire review.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister has acknowledged that the regulatory regime announced in
November 2015 is the same one that was just consented recently.
I'll ask
the minister: How much money did you spend on consultants reviewing your regime
that already was approved two years ago? What was the cost of that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I'm going to remind the
Member opposite it's not the regulations that he announced in 2015, but the
regime. This government put the regulations, the backfilling of all of what's
required to ensure that regime was put in place.
We've
done that now, Mr. Speaker. It was done and approved and put out there on the
1st of November in a very public process, the public gazetting. The industry was
all aware.
Mr.
Speaker, we did have a small consultation project with Wood Mackenzie, the
company that did do the initial work. I'll find out how much it cost, but it was
very small dollars.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I just remind the minister,
she's the one that indicated that the 2015 royalty regime that was announced was
the same one that was just gazetted recently.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll ask the Premier: Do you think it is okay to waste almost two
years, hide decisions that were made by your Cabinet, which you lead, and spend
money into a royalty regime already approved in 2015?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, we did say,
during the last year in this House, it was important for the competitiveness of
the oil and gas industry to do a full review. The regime that was put in place
in November of 2015 was the same regime that industry was using during the last
two licence rounds.
clearly indicated that to the industry. They were fully apprised; they were
fully aware, Mr. Speaker. We did our due diligence.
Mr.
Speaker, the generic oil royalty regime is for future development of production.
We are not in negotiations with anyone at this point, but this new generic oil
royalty regime gives clarity and certainty to the industry.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the latest land bids for the offshore are a fraction of what they were
in prior years. In 2015 I think they were up over $1.2 billion; this year
they're about $15 million. Industry flees from uncertainty.
The
climate of uncertainty you've created is taking a toll on opportunities and
investment in jobs. Will you acknowledge that you may have compromised one of
the most important industries and thousands who depend on it by creating a
climate of uncertainty, unpredictability and mistrust that can chase investors
away?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, that is
unbelievable. For him to equate what this government has done in supporting and
developing the oil and gas industry, to having it uncertain, is clearly wrong.
We have
attracted seven new entrants into our oil and gas industry, $3 billion of
exploration. Mr. Speaker, we've had the largest 3-D seismic program in the world
happening off our coast.
I'll
remind the Member opposite that the generic oil royalty regime is for future
production. Now he's referring to the amount that was available under the land
tenure and I'll be happy to answer that question at the next opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the hon. minister it was our seismic project that we invested millions of
dollars, that we've seen the benefits in land sales over the past number of
years. That's a fact. That's reality.
I'll ask
the minister, finally, for a question that she hasn't been able to answer. The
royalty regime was the same two years past. In May it was passed by Cabinet. She
didn't tell us. We asked here in the House and it wasn't until it was gazetted a
few days ago that we found out about it.
Why is
it, Minister, once and for all, you didn't notify Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians about the new royalty regime? It's very simple.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Let me answer the question
that the Member opposite asked about the difference in the land tenure from this
year to last year, and why there was a significant difference in dollar value.
Mr.
Speaker, this year we offered expansion lands in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. We were
very pleased to have two proponents come forward to say they wanted to do extra
expansionary work and exploratory work in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin.
wasn't frontier lands that were available. They will be available in 2018, Mr.
Speaker. We're hoping to go back to some of those incredible bids that we've had
over the last number of years in exploration.
I will
say to the Member opposite, I advised in August that these regulations were
coming this fall. They're here for the generic oil royalty regime. We're going
to continue to make sure we're the most competitive jurisdiction.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, in another email chain concerning a constituency school busing issue
with the Member for Placentia West – Bellevue you stated: If elected trustees
cannot stand by the decision of the school district and properly explain them,
then they are probably better suited to do other volunteer opportunities.
Minister, is this an appropriate way to treat volunteers in the school district?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat
one more time: It was our party in Opposition that stood against that government
when they decided to get rid of all of our school boards. It was our party in
Opposition that stood against their government when they decided to fire all of
the duly elected trustees at four different school districts. It was our
government that stood against them when they appointed all of their hand-picked
trustees to fill the vacant positions that they had created.
We have
brought elected school trustees back into the school system in this province,
returned that right to elect trustees to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. So I'll take no lectures from the Member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So democracy and due
diligence by volunteers only works for the Opposition and this minister when it
suits his needs, Mr. Speaker. It's not acceptable.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Education has stood on his feet for years and claimed
to be an advocate for inclusion education.
I ask
the minister: We are well into the current school year; why has there been no
update on the education action plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I provided an
update to the House of Assembly the last time the Member asked the very same
question almost, just a few weeks ago when we were here talking about special
ballot legislation. I told the Member at that time the report of the task force
wasn't released until July. I don't know how he thought that we were supposed to
transform the education system in a couple of months.
Staff
are working very hard at implementing the recommendations. I look forward to
telling the Member all about our plans once they go through all of the internal
processes, the budget processes that they have to go through. But I assure him,
we're doing a heck of a lot more over here to support kids with special needs
than your government ever did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island for a very quick question, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
Is a review of the inclusive
education model included in the education action plan? That's what people want
to know, one way or the other. Is it being offered?
MR. SPEAKER:
Similarly, the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development for a quick response.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the education
action plan will be released in the spring. It has not been created yet; it has
been committed to. The education action plan will be overseen by a committee of
stakeholders in the education sector in this province.
I can't
say there's something in it because it actually doesn't exist at the moment, Mr.
Speaker. The Member should pay more attention.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Finance Minister said today his plan is to target agencies, boards and
commissions, including health authorities and school boards, regarding their
spending.
I ask
the minister: Will he come clean and tell the people of the province that his
plan will force more cuts to jobs and to services that people need?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I'd like to ask the Member
what jobs and services we've cut in departments, Mr. Speaker, because I'm not
aware. Other than the deputy ministers and some managers, most of what we've
achieved, upwards to 600 positions in government, we've practiced attrition.
That's what we're asking agencies, boards and commissions to do.
haven't cut services in departments, I say to the Member, but we're asking
agencies, boards and commissions to become more efficient, to find savings, to
cut the fat and deliver programs more effectively and efficiently to the people
they deliver them to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the minister to listen to our questions carefully day after day after day and
he'll hear about the services that have been cut.
Mr.
Speaker, government says Nalcor's expenditures are separate from government, but
over the past five years we have given Nalcor billions of dollars without proper
oversight. We might have spent much less on Nalcor all those years if there had
been more scrutiny of the amounts paid to embedded contractors.
I ask
the Premier: When is government going to intervene with Nalcor to see that these
exorbitant embedded contractor costs are reined in?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
First question: We don't need
this legislation. Second question: We need this legislation.
I say to
the hon. Member, if you want us to get at embedded contractors we need the
legislation we're bringing in so we have oversight of the money Nalcor is
spending. We need this legislation, Mr. Speaker, so that agencies, boards and
commissions can find efficiencies the way government has in departments. That's
why we need the legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance says he wants to take a balanced approach to fiscal management. That's a
good thing. All we've seen, though, is government balancing on the backs of the
most vulnerable with cuts to over-the-counter drug coverage, home care, dental
care and other services that people need, impoverishing our people further.
I ask
the Premier: Does his government have a long-term fiscal management plan that
does not include hurting the most vulnerable people in our society?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell you what our fiscal management plan doesn't include: continuing to borrow
$2.3 million every day, Mr. Speaker, just to fund the deficit. That's not
including money borrowed to build buildings or money for other purposes.
Mr.
Speaker, $2.3 million – it was $4.38 million. We've gotten it down to $2.3
million, trying to inflict the least amount of pain we can on the people of this
province, but we need to cut costs. Unfortunately, some people will have some
effects, but we've done it with the least impact we could possibly find.
I ask
you how we can do it any softer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, fewer and fewer
seniors have access to dental programs, to teeth. How many seniors are calling
our office saying they have no teeth?
Government saves money on the backs of seniors by tying the provincial seniors'
drug card to the federal GIS. For example, if a senior is late submitting their
tax return, they lose the GIS and their drug card. It takes six months to get
the GIS back and their drug costs continue to rise.
I ask
the Minister of Health: Will he eliminate the unfair practice of tying the
65Plus drug card eligibility for seniors to a federal program and base it simply
on income like all the other drug programs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
I think
it's worth making a couple of observations. One of those is that the issue of
financial eligibility for Health and Community Services programs we've committed
to in The Way Forward as a policy
through health to try and rationalize those and make it into a seamless and
uneventful process.
The
other comment I'd like to make reference to expenditures in health care and
simply point out that they rose by 37 per cent in the previous 10 years of the
previous government, and that's the legacy we have to deal with. We need to get
better value for those dollars, Mr. Speaker, and I think that comment from
before needs to be challenged.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded
by the Member for St. George's – Humber:
WHEREAS
safety for all students is an important priority; and
WHEREAS
speeding in school zones is still a prevalent issue in the province; and
WHEREAS
according to the World Health Organization setting and enforcing speed limits
are two of the most effective measures in reducing road traffic injuries;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador in setting a maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per
hour in school zones.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's resolution just entered by the Member
for Baie Verte – Green Bay is the private Member's resolution to be debated
tomorrow.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Indian Meal Line and the Bauline Line are maintained by the Department of
Transportation and Works; and
WHEREAS
these roads have very narrow shoulders particularly for pedestrian traffic; and
WHEREAS
excessive speed is an issue on these roads;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to implement traffic calming measures such as
speed bumps, electronic signage, et cetera, to reduce speed to ensure the safety
of the residents.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a very important issue. I know in some roads right around the
province, which are maintained by the provincial government, a lot of these
roads are very narrow roads. Years ago on the Indian Meal Line, there were
probably about 40 or 50 homes. Right now on the Indian Meal Line there are
probably up to 400 or 500 homes, so there's a lot more traffic. It's a real,
serious issue because the roads are really, really narrow.
I have
different petitions here and I have over 300 names just from the Indian Meal
Line alone that are very concerned with this. We had a meeting with the Minister
of Transportation and Works – and I thank him for that – with a group from the
Indian Meal Line. We're looking at doing some calming issues, but I think it's
the responsibility of government to ensure our roads are safe.
We spoke
in legislation here last week about safe roads in our province. It's very
important that while I know there are calming things that will slow it down, a
police presence is very important. It's very important to the people who live
along these roads, that they can walk and ensure their safety and there isn't
speeding there. These are different effects that we want government to implement
on provincial roads and I'm hoping that they will.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
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
there has been an identified lack of mental health services in our province's K
to 12 school system; and
WHEREAS
the lack is having a significant impact on both students and teachers; and
WHEREAS
left unchecked, matters can, and in many cases, will develop into more serious
issues;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs
in our province's K to 12 school system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had the opportunity over the last number of weeks to present this
a couple of times. It was important for me to get it out there because from my
own knowledge of the school system and talking to educators and that, it's been
identified as an issue.
Reading
the report from the all-party committee, they talk about early interventions and
supportive services are key to ensuring that either people get proper diagnosis
or get early interventions so that the issues around mental health don't develop
into something more chronic, more encompassing and more restrictive and have a
major impact on their lives and their ability to be productive citizens.
Since I
presented it, sometimes we have queries here whether or not there's anybody out
there watching this or listening to it or see the significance of what we're
presenting, knowing that it's the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who
signed these petitions, who obviously have a stake in what we're trying to
present and what we're trying to argue to.
I had
two responses. One was from an email from a former educator who talked about
thanking us for presenting this and hoping that the House would look at
implementing programs and services in the school system that she said, as an
educator, she would identify that there were issues with particular students and
she knew they were around mental health.
That was
a couple decades ago when the whole mental health process wasn't understood and
the interventions weren't taken as seriously as they should be. And that people
didn't understand that early intervention is the key to longevity and to success
as adults. She didn't understand why at the time, had she had some of the
programs and services that could easily be implemented now and the process, how
she could have helped some of those students who now are dealing with chronic
mental health issues.
A second
I got was a Facebook from an individual who had said they now realized when
they've been reading up on mental health issues in schools that they have some
challenges in school, but nobody identified them. They just took them as a kid
who was being disruptive, who was a slow learner, who had some issues around
that, but it had nothing to do with that. Very competent – this individual tells
me he's very successful, but had a challenge, had to go a different lifestyle to
be able to get to this point to make this successful.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk more about this over the next number of weeks about the
importance of implementing programs and services in the early intervention in
our K-12 school system around mental health.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call Order 4, second reading of Bill 3.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 3,
An Act Respecting An
Independent Court Of Appeal In The Province, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 3, entitled,
An Act Respecting An Independent Court of Appeal In The
Province, be read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting An Independent Court Of Appeal In
The Province.” (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand here today in this House of Assembly and to speak to Bill 3,
which is entitled the Court of Appeal Act .
As I said on numerous occasions when I stand in this House, in many cases we're
able to debate amendments to legislation and certainly we have some amendments
that we deal with every day. We have some today, but today we're also dealing
with a brand new piece of legislation.
What I'd
like to do prior to commencing, I had an opportunity during the Ministerial
Statements to recognize Chief Justice Green who will be retiring from his post
in the very near future. I guess I'd like to say a couple of things, if I could
be indulged here today.
First of
all, this province has benefited greatly from having Chief Justice Green as its
chief justice, both of the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal. The fact is
this legislation that we're dealing with here today, this very piece of
legislation is very much something that the chief justice has advocated for, has
discussed. So I'm very proud and pleased to be able to stand here today, prior
to Chief Justice Green retiring, and announce this Court of Appeal. Certainly
the thanks and a lot of the hard work goes to him.
While I
do this, I'd also like to thank the staff of the Department of Justice because
when you create a new piece of legislation, when you make a substantive change
that we are doing here today, it requires work for many people. So while
certainly the chief and his staff deserve a significant amount of credit, I'd
also like to thank the solicitors and drafts people within the Department of
Justice who put a lot of time and a lot of effort into this.
This is
a concept that I think has been around the department for some time and was
discussed for many years and for various reasons it did not move forward. So I
am happy to stand here today, and I need to give credit to Chief Justice Green
for advocating it, for making this happen, for convincing me that this was the
right thing to do. I would add that Chief Justice Green is a very convincing
individual; I have to give him a lot of credit there.
On a
personal note, I have to thank the chief here in the House today for everything
that he's done and certainly, as a brand new minister, it's been very important
that I have the wisdom of the chief justice of our Court of Appeal, to be able
to consult with him, to meet with him and speak to him about issues of justice
and to have his input and his oversight in many ways, to have that experience.
That's one of the things that I've been very grateful for.
We know
that it's huge shoes to fill and I'm sure that whoever assumes this role will
also do a wonderful job. I'd also like to think that, even though the chief is
retiring from that position, I have no doubt that he'll be able to continue to
make contributions to the system. I hope I can still rely on him from time to
time when I have pressing issues.
I don't
know if I've seen anybody who is the researcher that Chief Justice Green is.
I've been very lucky to have him contribute to me information and insights,
decisions from the past, and it's amazing how some of the things that we
discussed today were the same things that were discussed a century ago. I had
the benefit of the chief who has been to take his time and energy and put that
into educating me as well.
In fact,
my introduction into the legal system was from the chief. The chief actually
oversaw my call to the bar a few years back. So it certainly has been an
interesting run and to have him there, I'm very thankful for that.
there's one drawback to me standing here and debating this today is that
unfortunately the chief is not allowed on the floor to debate this. He would do
a much better job of explaining this bill today. It would certainly be more
interesting and entertaining but, unfortunately, this House will have to deal
with me trying my best to put it forward.
We may
have to amend the act to allow strangers on the floor to help debate legislation
better than the legislators. I'll try my best because this is not a simple
topic. It's one that's quite complicated because – actually, when this was
introduced back in the spring session, I actually received calls from the media
saying: What's going on here? You have an independent Court of Appeal. What does
this mean?
I'm
going to try my best to go through this a little bit and explain some of the
nuance and intricacies here that make this – in many ways it's a very
significant change, but at the same time many people may not notice an actual
difference, and that's important for people to understand.
In this
province, we have our three levels of court. We have our Provincial Court, which
is established under the Provincial Court
Act, 1991 , and they have locations throughout the province. We have our
Supreme Court Trial Division. Now, they are commonly referred to – when we say
Supreme Court, what we're referring to is Trial Division. That's established
under the Judicature Act . Finally, we
have our Supreme Court Appeal Division, which if you ask people, they'll just
refer to it as the Court of Appeal. That is also established under the
Judicature Act , under
Part I;
previous, the Trial Division under
Part II.
The
Provincial Court is created and the judge is appointed by the provincial
government
whereas the Supreme Court, both divisions, is a federally appointed
court under
section 96 of the Constitution
Act . So there is a significant difference just there in and of itself.
Now, the
current legislation that we have, as it stands, has the Trial Division and the
Court of Appeal described as divisions of the Supreme Court under the
Judicature Act . It's a structure that
has evolved over time from when an appeal was heard by three Trial Division
judges. I think the term would be sitting together, or sitting on en banc. So
this didn't change. This is how it was done here in this province. This didn't
change until 1975.
The
Judicature Act , the amendment act came
in 1974 and it created a separate appeal division. It basically created
Part I
of that piece of legislation. There has been a concern expressed over time that
this linked structure – the fact that it is linked together by virtue of
legislation, it fails to recognize the very distinct roles and responsibilities
that these two courts have. It certainly fails to recognize the distinct
responsibility that our Court of Appeal has. When you think the Court of Appeal
hears decisions, hears appeals from decisions made by the Trial Division, yet
they are linked together.
There
can be and it has been said – and it is something I certainly subscribe to,
given the fact I'm standing here today leading this legislation – that it
prejudices the perception of it being an entirely separate level of court
review. Someone could look and say, well, they're actually linked together;
there is no difference. Now, in practice, that has not been the case but, as we
all know, in many cases perception is reality. What we're doing today is
basically bringing in a different piece of legislation, an entirely separate
piece of legislation to eliminate that perception.
One
might say, is this such a big deal? Well, the fact that we are the last province
to have this type of structure, we are the last province where the Court of
Appeal is recognized as a separate court, I would suggest that we are moving in
the right direction. I'm happy to stand here today and to bring us up to speed
with the rest of Canada. I can't explain why this has not happened to date, but
I'm not as worried about that. What I worry about is what we are in control of,
and we're in control today leading second reading to make sure we have an
independent Court of Appeal.
The
distinctions we have here – obviously, we have separate rules. We actually have
a Court of Appeal rules that came into effect October 2016 of which Chief Green
played, obviously, a very significant role in that. We have different sources of
proceedings that as a matter may end up before the Court of Appeal, so it could
be an appeal from the Trial Division. Sometimes they can go directly through the
legislation, for instance, the Public Utilities Board and sometimes there can be
a reference from a Lieutenant Governor in Council or from Cabinet, which is also
something we have seen recently. It's fairly rare, but we have seen that.
When I
go back to the point about us catching up, the fact is that some provinces have
done this through their Judicature Act
or whatever their equivalent is, some have created independent Court of Appeal
legislation. In our case, we've decided to go the route of an independent
Court of Appeal Act .
This
Court of Appeal Act will separate the
Court of Appeal from Trial Division. The sections of the
Judicature Act relating to the Court of Appeal will be moved to the
new Court of Appeal Act and they will
be restated and modernized. In many cases, the rules that we follow aren't
stated explicitly. In many cases, they evolve over the years and what becomes
practice is not actually dictated in the rules. So in many cases, given the fact
that we are here today and we are bringing in a new piece of legislation, we've
taken an opportunity – and again Chief Justice Green and his staff and support
have played a large role in helping us modernize.
sections 8 and 9 – sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself there. We have the new
Court of Appeal Act. The name now will
be the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador and our Trial Division will
now go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. So there's that
distinction there, very clear to everybody.
A lot of
the Judicature Act which applies here,
a lot of it has been carried over unchanged. You won't see any substantive
change there; it's been carried over. That's been a part of this entire process.
The new
and modernized provisions include
section 8 and 9. These are versions of a list
of the powers of the Court of Appeal that was previously only found in the old
Court of Appeal rules. I have here – I'm just going to refer to
section 8. This
is explicitly stating the powers.
Section
8(1): “The court may give any judgment which ought to have been pronounced, and
may make further or other orders that it considers just.
“
(2) The
powers of the court include the following: (
a) the court may draw inferences of
fact not inconsistent with any finding of fact that is not set aside and, if
satisfied that there is before it all the material necessary for finally
determining the matters in controversy, or any of them, or for awarding any
relief sought, may give judgment accordingly; (
b) notwithstanding paragraph (a),
if the court is of the opinion that there is not sufficient material before it
to enable it to give judgment, the court may direct the appeal to stand over for
further consideration, and may direct that those issues or questions of fact be
tried and determined, and those accounts be taken, and those inquiries be made,
as are considered necessary to enable it, on those further considerations, to
dispose finally of the matters in controversy; (
c) the court may, in its
discretion, receive further evidence upon questions of fact by oral examination
in court, by affidavit, or by deposition taken before an examiner or a
commissioner; and (
d) where judgment has been given, a judge may, on terms the
judge considers appropriate, order that proceedings, including execution, in the
cause or matter from which the appeal was taken be stayed in whole or in part.
“
(3) The
powers conferred by subsection (2) may be exercised (
a) notwithstanding that the
appeal is as to part only of the judgment, order, decision, or verdict; and (
b) in favour of all or any of the parties, although they have not appealed.”
Under
section 9 which is titled “Further powers,” “For all the purposes of, and
incidental to, the hearing and determination of any cause or matter, and the
amendment, execution, and enforcement, of any judgment or order, and for the
purpose of every other authority expressly or impliedly given to it by
this Act, the court has the power, authority, and jurisdiction, vested in the
court appealed from.”
We also
see changes to
section 29, Mr. Speaker. Representation now has to be made
subject to the agreement of the Attorney General, recognizing that the courts
cannot dictate rates paid to counsel – now that, in and of itself, could form an
entirely different debate, one that I've been very involved in, but that's an
actual substantive change that we see there.
We also
have paragraph 37, which sees a number of changes clarifying the scope of the
power of the rules committee. There will be subsequent consequential amendments
to the Judicature Act , other than the
repeal of
Part I, but most notably there are changes to references to the Court
of Appeal, the Supreme Court, to match the new changes. A lot of that is just
the consequential amendments that have to follow.
The
chief executive officer – now, this was something that was introduced in 2013;
in fact, I remember being a part of this debate while on the other side – as
part of the administrative overhaul of the
Judicature Act will continue to be the CEO of both the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeal. That does not change.
One
thing, I'd like to point this out because this is something else I think we
should be very, very proud of. Amendments to
section 21 of the
Judicature Act are being restated to increase the number of Supreme
Court justices in the province from 20 to 22. These were only proclaimed this
fall.
What I'd
like to point out is that when we started, we've had a lot of conversations with
the chief justice of the Trial Division and certainly I've had a lot of
conversations with the federal minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould. In
fact, I'd like to think that in the less than two years since we've been in
government, we've seen a lot of positive changes as it relates to our federal
relationship, changes that we never saw for a few years before that.
I only
have to go back last year, just under a year ago, when we had our first Supreme
Court of Canada justice appointed by the federal government, the first one from
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that's very
significant.
I'd also
like to point out that we've had the number of judicial positions increased in
this province from 20 to 22. I can take this opportunity right now to
congratulate our latest justice appointed by the federal government, Mr. Sandy
MacDonald, Q.C., who is now Justice MacDonald of the Supreme Court, Trial
Division. Again, that appointment was just made Friday – another appointment
made here in this province. We have another great member to what is already a
deep bench and what I would say, Mr. Speaker, is we're not done yet.
We are
continuing to advocate. I've already written letters to the federal minister of
Justice advocating for more positions, especially for our Family Court here in
this province. We need more. We've already been successful in having that
increased.
I'm
meeting with the federal Minister of Justice in just a few weeks. In fact, I
just had a very significant phone call with her less than a week ago. I'm
willing to bet there's been no provincial minister and federal minister that
have had more conversations and meetings than I've had with our federal minister
now in the last number of years. We have a very good relationship, one where
we're not always going to get along.
In fact,
we do need to remind them of their duties. We do need to remind them of what we
are deserving of here. That's witnessed by the fact – going back to the Supreme
Court of Canada when Justice Cromwell announced his upcoming retirement and we
needed to have a new justice appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Two days
later we wrote to the federal minister and said that justice should be from
Newfoundland and Labrador.
advocated, and at the end of the day, I'm glad to say the justice came from
Newfoundland and Labrador; and, more importantly, the justice is from
Newfoundland and Labrador because it's a merit-based appointment. In fact, I'm
very confident in saying we have a number of justices that could sit on the
highest Court of Canada. I'm very confident in saying that.
We're
very lucky in this province to have a very strong, intelligent, experienced
legal community. That shows by the fact that we have a very strong, experienced
judicial community. We have a strong number of jurists.
Again,
I'm going to be asking – in fact, I wrote a letter. I indicated this to the
minister. I'm going to be writing another letter because I would like to see
more judicial positions created here for Newfoundland and Labrador to the
benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, on that note, I
look forward to the debate. I will be adjourning this debate today to allow for
more review of this piece of legislation. I look forward to hearing the comments
and questions from my colleagues across the way on what I think is a very
important and significant debate, certainly a very important piece of
legislation.
Before I
conclude, what I would like to restate is my sincere congratulations to Chief
Justice Green on his upcoming retirement from the Court of Appeal. I think we
all join together in offering him our thanks and our appreciation for all the
work he has done for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
As it
was stated here in the House today, it's not just the work on the bench.
Actually, it was only last year that I popped down to the court one night and
Chief Justice Green, very late at night, was doing a free presentation to
average Newfoundlanders and Labradorians trying to illustrate how the Court of
Appeal works. These are things that he doesn't have to do. He didn't have to do
it. He wanted to do it. He wanted to ensure that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians understood the justice system, that they had access to the justice
system. Our system now is better for it.
I'm very
happy to say that I've been able to work with him over the last couple of years
in achieving some of his goals and achieving some of our goals. They are the
same common goal, which is to make the system better than what it was when we
found it.
On that
note, I again express my extreme gratitude to the chief for all that he's done.
I will let him know that I will continue to be calling him for his advice. He
can retire, but that phone will still be ringing from time to time. We can't let
a body of knowledge like that go untapped.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, it's been an honour and a privilege to stand here and speak
to this today. I will adjourn debate at this moment on Bill 3.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 13.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I'm just waiting for the
clock, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
You have time remaining in
your –
MR. A. PARSONS:
I have time remaining. I
don't know if I have three hours but –
MR. SPEAKER:
Nine minutes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I was near the end of my
remarks on Thursday when we last debated Bill 13. What I'd like to reiterate –
and I'm unsure if there will be any other comments coming from Members on the
other side.
I'd like
to congratulate the Minister of Service NL and her predecessors for the great
work they've done in introducing legislative change to this province to increase
safety on our roadways. It's something that I know the minister takes very
seriously. In fact, we had another meeting today to debate more change that
she'd like to see to our roadways because safety of travelling Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians is something that is on her mind every single day in the role
that she carries.
I've
been happy to speak to this. I'm very proud to be a part of a government that's
willing to make change to ensure safety for all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. I look forward to her closing remarks.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. Minister of
Service NL speaks now, she will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, the proposed
amendments we have introduced here today will result in significant increases to
a number of offences under the Highway
Traffic Act that are currently less than $100. These amendments help us
continue the dialogue of enhancing public safety and help ensure our roadways
are as safe as they possibly can be.
While
the Highway Traffic Act is
amended frequently, a thorough review of the penalties under the act had not
been conducted in a number of years. It is an important piece of legislation,
Mr. Speaker, which includes 215 sections, plus a
Schedule of penalties.
Over
time, this resulted in a number of offences that have monetary penalties so
insignificant that there is no deterrent to committing the offence. Some
individuals may be willing to take the chance of being ticketed and may even
view it as a cost of doing business, as has been relayed to me by a number of
people. Increasing fines has been shown to serve as a deterrent and, in many
cases, has resulted in a significant decrease in offences. That is the purpose
of fines, Mr. Speaker, to encourage changes in behaviour and safe driving
practices.
I'd like
to close debate by looking more closely at a number of the offences and
associated fines we are addressing here today. Driving with an invalid or no
driver's licence is an immediate risk to public safety. The requirement to hold
a driver's licence to operate a specific class of vehicle is based on nationally
developed standards. These standards give consideration to such things as a
driver's age, their level of qualification, minimum testing standards and
medical suitability.
Failure
to comply with the requirement to hold a valid driver's licence for the proper
class of motor vehicle demonstrates a disregard for public safety. The penalty
is intended to be a deterrent to persons who chose to operate a motor vehicle
without having met the standards and obtained a driver's licence, or whose
licence is invalid for a given reason. The current penalties are low in relation
to the potential seriousness of the offence and a higher penalty will be a
greater deterrent.
Mr.
Speaker, there is also a high prevalence of people operating motor vehicles
without insurance in our province. Operating a motor vehicle without insurance
is a serious offence and already carries significant fines from $2,000 to
$5,000; however, failure to provide proof that a policy is enforced only carries
a fine from $25 to $100 today. Offenders of insurance laws are contributing
enormous, unnecessary costs to law-abiding citizens. An increase in fines
related to this issue would act as a great deterrent.
We also
know that driving with an obstructed windshield poses an immediate threat to
public safety, which impacts the vehicle operator, the passengers and the
pedestrians. It is an offence that is very commonly committed. The current fine
is not a sufficient deterrent and does not reflect the seriousness of the
potential outcomes, such as serious bodily harm or even death.
Mr.
Speaker, operating a vehicle without proper equipment or one of improper
construction is also an offence under the
Highway Traffic Act. Along with the potential to place the public at risk,
modifications of vehicles and their equipment can also generate nuisance
situations, such as excess noise from a modified exhaust system, such as a
motorcycle.
This
offence can apply to defective equipment on any category of vehicle, regardless
of the nature of the defect. A vehicle found to have defective brakes, bald
tires or a school bus picking up and discharging children with defective safety
equipment also presents a very serious public safety issue.
Mr.
Speaker, this also leads to another serious matter we're addressing with the
amendments: namely, failure to comply with vehicle inspection requirements.
Vehicle inspections ensure that vehicles operating on public roadways are
mechanically fit and it reduces the risk of vehicle failure. Failure to comply
with the requirements of inspection creates an unsafe condition for the motoring
public.
So, Mr.
Speaker, you can see the potential for serious harm, which these offences pose
to every single one of us who travel the roadways in our towns and communities.
Any deterrent we can bring forward is a step in the right direction. We chose
the $100 minimum to balance the need to increase deterrents against any
perception of unfairly raising fines too high. Certainly, all of us in this hon.
House will agree that the price we pay with a serious injury or a death is too
high a price to pay for not complying with the law.
Since I
became Minister of Service NL, many individuals and many organizations have made
representation to me regarding the safety on our highways. I have met with
individuals and families who have lost loved ones or suffered great injury. I
have met with law enforcement officers, taxi operators, the insurance industry
and representatives of the legal community, who all know how important it is to
deter the offences being committed on our roadways.
We have
also included our commitment to increasing public safety in the Speech from the
Throne, my department's strategic plan and announced to review of the auto
insurance industry, which has a focus on identifying opportunities to strengthen
highway safety in an effort to prevent accidents from happening.
The
amendments we have introduced here today will help us continue to deliver our
commitment to ensuring the safety of people in our province. And I hope to
announce further improvements to the act in the very near future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 13 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill,
An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The Acting Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole to consider Bill 13.
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 13,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.” (Bill 13)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
These,
indeed, are important amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act. I just have some questions to the minister. During
debate I mentioned that when we met with staff and had our briefing it was
mentioned that you referred to a jurisdictional scan. I was wondering what
jurisdictions you scanned, because when I asked that question they said there
was neither jurisdictional scan done.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, a jurisdictional
scan was done with Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, Yukon, Northwest Territories on invalid and no
driver's licence, failure to produce proof that it's the policy in force,
driving motor vehicles with windshields covered, operating a vehicle without
proper equipment and failure to comply with vehicle inspection requirements.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes. I ask the minister if
you could table those scans, too, because that's what I asked for over in the
briefing.
Minister, a question I'd like to ask you is – when I looked at Ontario's
legislation, they have fixed pricing. If someone's licence plate is covered with
snow or is dirty, we look at doing anywhere between $100 and $175. Theirs is at
$85.
Just for
the general public and my own concern, I'd like to know why is there a variance
in such things? Either your licence plate is dirty or it's not dirty. Why would
there be a variance from $100 to $175?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
We increased the fines for
the minimum to be $100. These 17 offences that we're increasing fines in, they
were down to $20, the majority of them, so there was no deterrent. We put in the
$100 to $175 to allow the RCMP the opportunity to be discretionary on how the
plate was presented.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
When I looked at Ontario's
legislation, they have fixed values of $85 or $150 or $300, whatever. If you
have a cracked windshield, you have a cracked windshield and the fine should be
the same. That's just my opinion – it should be the same.
Minister, also, can you let us know how you determined the amount of money? How
you went from the parts – how did you get to the $100 from $25 to $100 or move
the ones for no driver's licence from $300 to $1,100?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
As I mentioned earlier, the
fines were so low they did not present sufficient deterrent. The fines were
chosen by reviewing the current fines structure in comparison to inflationary
and economic increases, conducting a jurisdictional scan, considering what level
of fine would be appropriate to achieve greater deterrents and consultation with
law enforcement.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Minister, I'm wondering if there are going to be significant resources available
for enforcement, prosecution and collection of these fines.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
That's a very valid question.
What I
did so I could check and see what the difference is when enforcement is
available was the previous administration had put in some changes regarding
speeding in construction zones and school zones, and in May 2016 we introduced
the ability to charge registered owners.
So what
we have noted for the year '16-'17, with increased enforcement and with the
ability to charge the registered owner, we do have the capacity. The number of
people we've pulled in and charged has increased dramatically in '16-'17.
I'm
hoping now that this deterrent will cause the numbers to go down and the revenue
we're getting to go down. That's the whole idea.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I agree with you also,
Minister, that any time we can deter it. Again, last week in the news we heard
of something, I think it was around $80,000 owed in fines. I mean, that's a very
serious problem that most residents in this province have a major concern about.
What
resources are you going to put in place to ensure for enforcement and also
collection? Are we looking at more police officers on the road? Is there a
different way to collect? How are we collecting the fines right now? As I spoke
when I spoke on the bill itself, it's a huge issue that people are really upset
about when they look and see people owing so much in fines.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yeah, it's a very valid
question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
In actual fact, the
individual that was last pulled in with that excessive amount of fines, what I
learned was they were not just highway traffic violations. In actual fact, they
were tobacco violations.
What I
didn't know previously was when those fines are announced, they include –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
When those fines are put
forward by the media, they include other things besides highway traffic
violations.
Secondary, we have the fluid ability within the department for inspectors to
move about and enforcement officers to move about. So when they're not needed in
one area, we will move them into another area. We've also been in discussion
with the RNC around ways to hopefully be able to work to get more officers out
on the ground.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Minister, with our RNC, I spoke to some officers. They told me the only way to
do it for enforcement and to have more people on the road is to move them from
one area to another. So I hope the management of the RNC will work with your
department to do that.
During
your
preamble a few minutes ago, you mentioned about vehicle inspections. Is
your government planning on bringing back motor vehicle inspections?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
All commercial vehicles must
be inspected once a year now. Whenever a passenger vehicle is resold it must be
inspected. The RNC and the RCMP presently have the capacity to pull any vehicle
off the road and issue an inspection.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
appreciate the information from the minister; however, the question was about
reinstating inspection requirements that existed before. In the past, there was
a regular
schedule for inspections that were required. Now it happens when a
vehicle transfers ownership.
We know,
I think, taxis are inspected once a year. Some commercial vehicles – buses are
inspected sometimes, I think, three times a year. For passenger vehicles on the
road, have you considered strengthening the requirements for vehicle
inspections?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, we did evaluate it, but
we came to the determination that we would not be changing. We will be
continuing on with the policy that exists today.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, during second reading debate there was commentary from Members on the
government side of the House that the changes in these fines were to create
safer roads. I don't fully understand how increasing a fine for failure to
produce a vehicle licence – a vehicle licence is your registration, essentially,
and the registration comes with a tag, a licence plate with a sticker attached
and also includes a printed document, paper document, that shows the specifics
of the vehicle, the VIN number, the vehicle identification number, attached to
that vehicle and who the registered owner is and so on. Failure to produce that
particular document used to be a fine of $25 and the minister has increased it
to $100.
I just
ask the minister if she can explain to me how that increases safety on our
highways.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, when a police
officer pulls someone over and the individual is unable to produce the driver's
licence, the officer can, no doubt, go back and check and see if the vehicle is
registered and who it is registered to, but what the officer cannot do is verify
that the person who is driving is, in actual fact, the person whom they say they
are. It takes the driver's licence with the picture to empower the officer to be
able to identify that person.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much.
Maybe I
should be clearer, Mr. Chair, because there are two different kinds of licences:
one is a driver's licence, which legally enables a person to legally operate a
motor vehicle; the other one is the vehicle licence. The vehicle, under law, has
to be registered and it has a licence attached to it. Under
section 29, failure
to produce a vehicle licence, the fine went from $25 to $100.
question was about someone who doesn't produce that paper document of who
actually owns the vehicle, which an officer can check the information anyway.
Very quickly, you can bring up on the system who is the registered owner of a
vehicle, but under law you're required to actually produce that paper document.
question was pertaining to that part, Minister: How does increasing that fine
from $25 to $100 improve safety? Maybe it just went along with the rest of them
because it's a non-hazardous moving violation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
He's correct; it is a
non-hazardous violation. However, the safety lies in the fact that it is
imperative that the officer be able to verify that the individual whom they are
speaking to and who says that they own the vehicle is, in fact, that person.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
But
that's a driver's licence. I'm not asking about the driver's licence; I'm asking
about the vehicle licence because there are no identifying matters on a vehicle
licence, other than a person's name and address. It doesn't show their
photograph or their height and eye colour and so on; that's on your driver's
licence.
failing to produce that printed document, increase the fine – so I'm just
wondering, is that part of this movement for safer highways or was that done for
some other reason? That's my question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, I guess he's pertaining
to number – what it is, in fact, is deterrence. The fine was $20, so we've
increased it to ensure people will, in fact, follow the law. There was no
deterrent. People were seeing that as a cost of doing business by not doing due
diligence and having it available.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I fully
appreciate the concept of deterrence, and they're all valuable points in
deterrence. If we had increased the failure to produce a driver's licence to
$1,000, I'm sure people would go, uh-oh, I better put mine in my vehicle right
away because that would be a deterrence, but I'm not sure how even that would
improve safety on highways.
Let me
run down through some of these, if I can, Mr. Chair; I know I have a few minutes
there. Identification plates not securely fastened is not a moving hazardous
violation. Failure to keep identification plates clean has nothing to do with
how you operate a vehicle. Notify the registrar of change of name; operating a
vehicle contrary to paragraph 10 – and that's 42(a)(iii). That's the
registration or failing to transfer the registration, I think that one is; I'll
have to have another look, if I remember correctly.
Mr.
Chair, 43, no licence for class of motor vehicle, that would be safety. That
would improve safety. Invalid or no driver's licence would improve safety.
Failing
to produce a driver's licence upon request, there's some merit that may improve
safety. Failure to return or deliver a licence, that one in particular, I had
lots of experience over the years and maybe you did as well, Mr. Chair, when
sometimes we're under order to obtain or see someone's licence and they've lost
it. It's hard to charge someone for losing their licence if they can't return
it.
Anyway,
then there is failure to notify the registrar of a lost driver's licence. I
don't think there are too many tickets given out for that one. Failure to
produce proof that a policy is in force, that one is interesting. I'm going to
talk about that one in a little bit, shortly.
Some of
these are somewhat hazardous moving violations, such as slow driving and so on.
I'm just trying to grasp and understand how increasing those fines would be a
deterrent for the conduct of drivers on our highways, how they make people drive
safer on our highways.
Maybe
I'm missing it, Minister, but maybe you could comment on that for me.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'd just like to ask the
minister to answer a question. You look at driving too slow, you can see that
being a deterrent to road safety, but some of the ones that my colleague just
asked there that time were just about proof of registration and stuff like that.
So I'm
just asking the difference between the two and why they're here on this list.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, they're on the
list because a fine of $20 means nothing today. A fine of $100 means something.
We're trying to increase highway safety as a whole and trying to increase
compliance with the law. So by increasing them up to $100, people will think
twice and hopefully will start to obey the law.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't
disagree with that. It's just on the aspect of when something's not a hazardous
moving violation – like if the police, for example, had identified an issue that
we have a lot of issues of people not carrying their vehicle permit in their
vehicle. As an example, if the police said we come across that a lot and we're
issuing a lot of tickets on it, we need to send a deterrent so that people think
about carrying their vehicle licence with them or their proof of insurance. I
stand to be corrected, but I think under proof of insurance you have 72 hours to
produce it anyway. You don't have to produce it right away, unless that's
changed.
That
probably would have increased safety, Mr. Chair, if they're required to produce
it right away, but I stand to be corrected on that if I'm not, but on slow
driving, as an example – and my colleague for Cape St. Francis just mentioned
slow driving. You've increased the fine from $45 to $100. I fully understand the
seriousness sometimes of slow driving. The Minister of Transportation and Works
talked about it last week here in the House, on serious slow driving, talked
about Veterans Memorial Highway and I agree with him.
I went
over Veterans on the weekend, not for that purpose, but I did travel on Veterans
Memorial Highway and going over from the Trans-Canada, going north, I guess, on
Veterans, I experienced a vehicle travelling at a slow speed with a long line of
traffic behind it. I could feel it myself while I was driving. I was conscious,
and we're talking about a vehicle as an issue, but I could feel it myself. That
little bit of frustration that someone is driving so slow, and there were
probably eight or 10 cars behind the slow-moving vehicle. Finally, it pulled off
on one of the exits and the traffic sped up to the highway speed.
Later in
the evening, returning from – do you call it, Minister, down the bay or up the
bay?
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Down the bay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Is it down the bay? It's
going up on the map but you're going down the bay.
On the
way back from Upper Island Cove where I was and going back towards the
Trans-Canada, going south, I experienced the same thing again. Except this time
the vehicle in the front was travelling at 50 to 60 kilometres an hour. This
time there were like 25, 30 vehicles or more stacked up behind this one vehicle.
So there's no doubt it's a serious matter.
question, I think, for the minister is that under speeding, there's a graduated
kind of process of fines under speeding. The faster you're going, the higher the
fine. The more times you're convicted, the higher the fine. So it stacks on top
of you. If you get stopped for doing between one and 10 over the speed limit,
the fine is $50 and no point loss. If you get stopped for 11 and 20 – and I
don't have the fines here in front of me, but it is maybe $75 or $100 and so
many points lost. If it's your second offence it's higher. So it's kind of a
graduated process.
question for the minister is the subsequent speeding fines are higher than they
are for slow driving, and slow driving no doubt is a serious matter. Did you
consider some kind of a graduated process or higher fines for slow driving
knowing that it can certainly create a hazard on the highways?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, we evaluated
everything and we put minimum and maximum fines in place. Chances are if it's
your first offence you will be charged with a minimum fine. If it's your second
and therefore after, you'll be charged with a maximum fine, and it is
discretion. The officers have discretion, and it is discretion based on the
individual situation at the time.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, Minister, I didn't
catch that. You say it is $100 fine, but then there's an increase in fine for
subsequent charges and you said officers had discretion. What discretion is it?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
So, Mr.
Chair, 111(1) is on page 5 in my copy of the bill. Slow driving, $100 minimum
fine, $235 maximum fine was the amendment. I know under speeding, which is not
included – there are no changes included under this particular bill, but in
speeding there's kind of a stacking, I suppose. The faster you go, the more
charges you have, then the higher the fine.
I'm just
wondering if the minister, knowing that slow driving is relevant to speeding,
except it can be quite as serious and frustrating for drivers around you. Is
that something they considered in slow driving?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Get me right; I think the
Member is asking me if we considered to equate slow driving with speeding
because both were equally as frustrating?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Equally dangerous.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Equally dangerous.
A person
shall not stop or impede or park, and sometimes slow driving has a tendency to
frustrate people and cause them to pass. So slow driving is going to be a new
offence. We don't think the consequences could be as devastating as driving 151
kilometres on a highway. So I'm not sure that in fact you can measure the
consequences of 151 kilometres with slow driving.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It was a
good response, an honest response from the minister on her position on it. My
position would be that this was raised recently in the House with the Minister
of Transportation. I know I spoke to it here in the House. I believe it was
under questioning when we talked about highway safety and the number of
fatalities we've seen in recent weeks, in recent months.
I have
to be careful because I don't want to specifically suggest any particular
collision, but we were talking about Veterans Memorial Highway and the
devastation that's happened out there. One of the comments from that discussion
was the serious issue of slow driving. The minister went as far as to say
they're considering erecting a minimum speed limit sign on the highway.
A few
years ago when we were in government, we identified an issue on the Outer Ring
Road where heavy equipment such as backhoes were travelling across the Outer
Ring Road in peak traffic. We know there can be upwards and over 40,000 vehicles
a day travelling the Outer Ring Road on some days, and you're travelling at your
100 kilometre an hour speed limit and you know that most of the traffic there is
doing more than that. Sometimes they're 110 or 112, 115, sometimes even faster
than that, Mr. Speaker. The point was that then you'd have a backhoe trucking
along on the Outer Ring Road probably at 30 or 40 or 50 kilometres an hour and
it created a very dangerous circumstance of a bottleneck and backup and so on.
There
was legislation brought in to prevent that from happening on highways with
speeds, I think, over 80 kilometres an hour, so slow-moving vehicles that
couldn't drive the speed of traffic weren't permitted on those roads. That's on
the books today. Slow driving has been an issue.
respected the Minister of Transportation when he talked about that and as I just
talked about experiencing it myself. My question to the minister was – it's a
serious matter. Is that something maybe you can consider in the future, that
when I look at – and I'll put it to you this way, Minister. Failing to produce
your vehicle permit, vehicle licence, failure to keep your identification plate
clean, so if your licence plate got dirt or snow on it, you could be charged
$100 ticket. Failing to produce your vehicle licence is a $100 ticket. Licensee
failing to produce their driver's licence upon request is a $100 ticket and slow
driving is also a $100 ticket.
In my
mind, driving slow on a highway is much more serious than failing to produce
your registration or your driver's licence. That's where I'm going, Minister.
I'm thinking slow driving is much more serious than that and the fine should be
more consistent with the speeding. Is that something you thought about, or can
you explain to me maybe why you kept it at $100?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, if it goes to
court, the fine can be as high as $235. The obstruction of the plate, in actual
fact, is to help our police officers so they can carry out the duties to enforce
the law safely.
Mr.
Chair, $100 to $235 if it goes to court. So it's not stacking. We figure that's
a good fine consistent with the first time putting this forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
Yeah, it
was a $45 ticket and increased to $100. I think if the minister was to have
another look at that one, I think you'd probably find support for it here in
this Legislature and also publicly. Slow driving can be so frustrating,
especially if you're driving kilometre after kilometre.
Sometimes you can go 10 or 15 or 20 kilometres behind someone who's driving half
the speed of the speed limit. That causes a serious matter, especially if the
second driver doesn't want to pass, maybe the third driver doesn't want to pass,
but the fourth or fifth decides I'm going to pull out now and give it to her to
try and get around.
I do
appreciate the fact the maximum fine is $235. For failing to produce a vehicle
licence it is $175, which is – $60 in the difference is all the difference in
the maximum fine there.
Mr.
Chair, I also want to ask about operating a vehicle without proper equipment or
of improper construction under
section 187(5). I'll give the minister a chance
to go to 187(5). It's on page 6 of the copy of the bill I have in front of me.
Section 187(5) under the penalties
section is: “Operating vehicle without proper
equipment or of improper construction.”
I'll
just ask the minister if she could just elaborate on that one a little bit. What
was your thought process on increasing
section 187(5) from $20, which was very,
very low? I'm sure it costs more than that just to process; it probably costs
more than that to print the ticket book. But $20 for operating a vehicle without
proper equipment or improper construction and move to $100, maybe she can just
make some commentary for us on that one.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Operating a vehicle without
proper equipment or improper construction, meaning if you jack up these big
trucks and if you have a collision with one of these big trucks, it can cause
significant damage and death even, to people in the oncoming vehicle. It changes
the balance of the vehicle on the road.
There's
classification of vehicles for safety reasons. Jacking up your truck with the
big tires is a violation; therefore, we will be issuing tickets and fines for
people who are not following the Highway
Traffic Act .
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
have one question for the minister. It relates to people who have built up all
these fines. We can increase the fines, no doubt, as a deterrent. I support
that.
Although
I would agree with the Member for Topsail – Paradise there that not everything
that's being raised here is a road safety issue, a lot of them are, but there
are a few that arguably are not. That's neither here nor there. It's $20, it's
very low and I understand the rationale for it.
The
bigger issue is people who – regardless of how high you raise the fines, those
people are going to continue to break the law anyway. That's probably the
biggest issue, when we hear about these people in the media periodically,
someone who owes $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 in fines and so on.
I guess
the question is in an effort to deter that, as opposed to simply more
enforcement, which enforcement is good, but I think it would make it a lot
easier if we had, like we have in other provinces where the licence plate goes
with the person and not the car. Therefore, somebody who breaks the law, owes
all these fines, gets hauled over, they lose their licence plate. They can't buy
another piece of junk down the road next month, wait until they get hauled over
again and continue that cycle if the licence plate was with the person as
opposed to the car.
So I'm
just wondering, is there any thought within the department, has anyone looked at
or given any consideration to doing like they do in some other provinces and
having the licence plate go with the person and not the car?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
wanted to stand up and speak to this because even though it is a Service NL
bill, it's something that actually deals with the Department of Justice as well,
as Fines Administration is something that falls under the Department of Justice.
What I
would say to the Member is that I'm sure it's an idea that is worth
consideration. Again, I'm unsure myself as to the resources it would take to
implement such a program. There's a lot of good stuff that we're seeing out of
other provinces that we're hoping to take advantage of and try to implement
here. But, again, in many cases, there are different investments that you have
to make, whether it's resources, time. There's no good idea that shouldn't go
unchecked, so I would say that.
When we
talk about that issue of fines outstanding, it's something that we all see. It
ticks us all off. It certainly ticks me off, not just as the person in charge of
the Department of Justice; it ticks me off as somebody that follows the rules
and is a taxpayer. That boils my blood to no end.
The good
news is that 80 per cent of people are paying their fines on time. The vast
majority, I think, wait until they're about to renew their licence. That's when
they go and pay it again.
I've
noticed that even with the solution that the Member proposed – and, again,
assuming it all worked out, assuming everything is fine – there's a subset of
people out there that no matter what you do they will find ways to try to evade
the rules, evade the laws. So I don't know if there's ever going to be coverage
here or a solution that will fix this.
The
issue when it comes to fines is something that's been around for some time. In
fact, I was checking with Fines Administration and some of the money – a vast
majority, a lot of the money – that is owing is decades old, from the early
'80s. A lot of it is virtually uncollectable. It's people that are deceased,
there's just no way of getting it. In fact, you have to find a way to write it
off because it's money that will not ever be collected.
That's
not blaming anybody, there have been multiple administrations there, but it is
something that is a priority for me. What I would suggest is I'm happy,
actually, to take the idea that the Member suggests. I think if I listened
correctly the Member is saying he agrees in theory with this amendment to the
act, but this is an idea. Can it work or not?
What I
would say is I'm open to any positive idea; I know the minister is also open to
that. Maybe it's something that we can report back on the House because if
there's one thing for sure is that the
Highway Traffic Act is something that's constantly amended. In fact, I know
the minister as well as her predecessors just in the last couple of years have
brought multiple amendments to improve road safety.
If this
is one we can do that will help cut down on people with fines outstanding, I can
guarantee you if there's something that can be done, I'm certainly supportive of
that as well.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Yes, I thank the minister for
the response. Obviously, I'm not looking for that solution right now; I just
wanted to put it on the record. It's not a new idea; it's something that is
being done in other places.
For me,
it's not about the collection of the fines. Just to be clear, it's not so much
about the money; it's about the fact that you have individuals, as the minister
has alluded to, some of them who will never – they have no intentions of ever
paying those fines. In most cases, they don't have the ability to pay the fines.
It's a case of you can't get blood from a turnip.
What
happens, of course, is that they go out on the road with an unsafe vehicle. They
don't have a licence. They don't have a registration. They don't have it
registered. The police will haul them over at some point in time, once they
catch them, probably for committing some other offences under the
Highway Traffic Act . In a lot of
cases, the cars get taken from them and they rack up $3,000 or $4,000 worth of
fines to go on the already $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 they owe.
Then,
two weeks later or a month later or whatever, they get a few bucks together and
they buy another piece of junk that somebody's selling for a few hundred bucks.
They go out on the road again in another unsafe vehicle doing the same thing all
over again. Until the police actually catch them committing another offence of
some sort, then they're out on the road with no licence, no insurance and
putting the public at risk.
Whereas if the licence plate went with the person,
not with the car, then what would end up happening is a person wouldn't be able
to go out on the road.
you're on the road you'd be going with a car with no licence plates, so the
police would see you immediately or the public would see you immediately, report
it and get this person off the road. In theory, they can buy an old heap of junk
and drive around for a year before they finally get stopped again. In the
meantime, they have an accident with some poor citizen who has been following
the rules, has their insurance. They cause all kinds of damage and they have no
insurance and so on.
Just for
the record, it's not about collecting the money; it's about if we want to do
something to make our roads safe, we have to get these chronic abusers and so on
that are out there – those are the people we have to target, not the law-abiding
citizen who might forget to take their licence with them or left it in their
back pocket or something when they changed their pants, they don't have it on
them or they got a bit of snow on their licence plate or so on.
Not
saying those laws don't have to be followed – they do and I'm supporting it –
but I'm just saying it's those individuals that we hear about are the ones we
really need to target. So anything we can do to change that, I think we should
try.
That's
why I throw it out there just for a suggestion to the minister, at some point in
time – I was wondering if they were already considering it. If not, I'm just
asking if they would consider it. I'm hearing the minister say it's certainly
something they will take under advisement and I thank him for that.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
happy to respond