PDF Version

May 29, 2024 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 82

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

S PEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2. I understand there's consent of the House to proceed with Motion 2.

SPEAKER: Is consent given to proceed with the private Member's resolution?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

SPEAKER: Okay.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you.

SPEAKER: I call upon the Member for Exploits to present his motion.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Before I start, I would like to say congratulations to one of our Pages here at the House of Assembly, Cody Dalton on his convocation from Memorial University Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: He convocated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. Congratulations to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Bonavista:

WHEREAS Crown Lands' application of the provisions of the Lands Act abolishing squatters' rights against the Crown has, in some cases, resulted in challenges to the claims of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who honestly, and in good faith, have occupied and developed their lands; and

WHEREAS some historical titles in Newfoundland and Labrador trace back centuries and are relied upon the public, but are not accepted by the Crown; and

WHEREAS people have occupied their lands for generations based on informal title without a grant from the Crown; and

WHEREAS some people have strong local community support for their claims of title but do not have their clear title from Crown Lands; and

WHEREAS some municipalities maintain records of land ownership that are not considered by the Crown determining their titles; and

WHEREAS some applicants for Crown lands access are frustrated by wait times for their applications to be resolved even for land which has long been occupied; and

WHEREAS the policies and practices of the province's Crown Lands division are impeding economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador and imposing high costs upon the public; and

WHEREAS this issue impacts potentially thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government to move expeditiously to bring forward legislative amendments to ensure fair reconciliation of existing claims for people seeking title to the land they have occupied in good faith for generations and which is recognized within their communities; and to take steps in the interim to address Crown Lands' actions against occupied properties in the province.

Speaker, this is an issue that has been ongoing. We've heard it time and time again from the residents of the province how there are a lot of problems plaguing Crown lands. We've known in the past few years, of course, adverse possession, squatters' rights,

section 36 of the Crown's Lands Act is causing a lot of grief and anxiety to people in our province.

First of all, acquiring land is becoming a problem. If we're going to increase food security in our province, farmers need to access land and acquiring that land is very, very challenging. It becomes a cost to the farmers, it becomes a cost to the person trying to develop it, trying to get access just to acquire it, and by the time all those applications and red tape is done, that farmer or that person is gone, finished with it, had enough. We're not even going to start. We are out of here. So they need to be accessing the red tape on Crown lands and access to Crown lands in order to increase our food security.

Another big problem we've been hearing, of course, is seniors. Seniors today are trying to sell their properties, trying to move into smaller units, the seniors' homes, it might be health care facilities that they want to get closer to. There may be a number of reasons that they want to get closer to. They just want to sell their home and sell their lands to be able to invest into moving into another property, smaller property, that they can use, but they find themselves in court challenges.

They find themselves wrapped up in not knowing that they own the land, even though they've got deeds, they're paying community taxes to municipalities, they've kept that land up for years and when they go to sell, they end up with a challenge from Crown Lands, which today is unacceptable.

One case that's been very familiar to all of us is the Diamonds of Catalina. They became the poster child of Crown Lands, through no fault of their own, only trying to sell their land, trying to get access to their land so that they could move on to whatever venture they wanted to do at the end of the day. That's all they wanted to do. But the challenges that they faced were enormous, regards to lawyer fees, costs and anxiety and grief that came with it, just to try to sell their land.

There was a review done at Crown Lands back in 2015; almost 10 years later, there's still no legislation brought into the House of Assembly to address challenges within Crown Lands. That was reviewed back in 2015.

I can remember back last fall, we did a PMR, we'll start off there, we did a PMR last spring to bring in some legislation for Crown lands. The government opposed it and shot it down – not for legislation. In the fall, the minister said that we would see the legislation, but we asked two questions the fall, all he said was stay tuned.

How long do the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador have to stay tuned to get the Crown Lands Act changed?

Only this spring, the minister was asked in the House of Assembly, he was asked by myself, I asked a question about it, the Leader of our Party asked a question about it. The minister doubled down and said we would see legislation this spring. We're at the end of the session, there's no legislation.

They went as far as to say we'll give you a briefing on legislation for Crown lands. Last minute, the 11th hour, they pulled back the legislation, nothing coming to the floor of the House of Assembly to be discussed.

Ten years later, the minister says he needs more time. How much time do the people of the province need? How long can they wait? The review was done in 2015. There was nothing adopted from that review , and now we're gone 10 years later and the minister still needs more time to get his legislation done. He's had lots of time, Speaker.

So that brings us to today. We're here to try to get some legislation brought into the House of Assembly to recognize the challenges, the problems within the Crown Lands Act , especially

section 36, adverse possession, to alleviate some of the pain and anguish that's on the residents today trying to sell their properties, trying to sell their homes and move into other properties that they can access, just to sell their homes and be able to move on and maybe they just want to pass their homes off to their children to say that they've done that.

So those are the things that we are expecting. We'd like to see some legislation to be brought into the House of Assembly next session, I guess. This one is over, it's done. So, hopefully, if the minister needs more time, he's got to bring in some legislation. But having said that, we're more than willing to stay for this session. We're willing to stay here until we get some action on Crown lands and to get this done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: I mean to say, people have waited long enough, we've waited long enough. We've asked the government time and time and time again, but there's no legislation being brought forward. So if the minister had that few days, a bit of time to get his legislation together, bring it in and we'll discuss it.

We'll stay as long as it takes to get some legislation done, some legislation approved to have the legislation approved here in the House of Assembly so that people can move on with their lives, the way they want to and to be more comfortable in knowing that they have the title to their land and be able to do whatever they want to with it at the end of the day and just move on to do other things.

So with that, Speaker, I'll leave that to others now to have their say on the Crown Lands Act and the PMR that we're debating.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate this morning on a very, very, very important issue to, I think, all of us and specifically to many, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are caught up in the Crown lands maze and trying to get title.

I do want to compliment the Member for Exploits for the resolution. It is clear. It is precise and I dare say, probably, one of the best-written resolutions that we have seen here in this House in this session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. ABBOTT: So whoever the crafter is I give them full credit.

The important thing and the other thing is there's no poison pill buried in it either. So thank you to the Member for Exploits.

So in that context and in that respect, it's easy for me to get up here and talk to the resolution. As the Member said, this issue has really been talked about really for many, many years. The previous administration tried to tackle it. We are tackling it with the support of the Opposition.

I know that the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture and his department are working on amendments to the legislation. I don't think we'll have it here this session but something is a priority of this department and certainly for the government. So we will be moving forward on that.

The Member talked about the public consultations done back in 2015, and a lot of those issues are still with us and is certainly incumbent upon this House and the government, in particular, to get this right. There's a lot of development to help up because of this, a lot of households are struggling in terms of transferring title of property from one generation to the next and it is time we, obviously, sort that out.

In the recent consultations back in last year – in January 2023 – I'm just going to flag for the House some of the things that were identified at that time in which the legislation will have to address when it comes forward. Interestingly enough, I would have thought there would be more submissions because of the nature of this issue, but in the consultations of last January, we received – I'm going to use the word only – 124 submissions through engageNL and we received 22 written submissions; 11 individuals representing six organizations, also with an interest in land transactions, attended the virtual session. Again, small numbers though the issue is pervasive.

While the proposed amendments, with the exception of the introduction of a limitation period, may have been seen as positive impacts on adverse possession issues and claims, the amendments, as been discussed at that time, were not seen as going far enough. I know the department is working through that issue.

There's lengthy processing time and the resolution speaks to the operational side of Crown Lands and how that needs to be improved, it needs to be done on a more timely basis and that's something I can certainly support.

I think, as I said earlier, the fact we have a lack of confidence in land title by many households or by many businesses is causing stress: economic stress, financial stress and anxiety within households and within businesses. We want to make sure that we again get this right so that on the go-forward basis, we avoid that type of situation.

Of course, if you go back in time – and this speaks to the settlement patterns, of course, in the provinces, as a colony – when land and settling land was by original, at least, I'd say original from European perspective when we arrived on our shores, were dissuaded for settlement and that unfortunately is carried through for long periods of time. So we don't have a land registry and title system as other jurisdictions have. In my view, it's unfortunate but that's the reality we're in so we have to figure out how we can best sort that out in terms of land title.

I know in my family, we have had lots of reasons to go do adverse possession and look at how we can expedite that, but you have to be tenacious, you have to know what you're doing and you have to have good legal advice. You need to have good surveying in place and certainly you need the courts and others to be able to co-operate with you.

The time it takes to do a title search and to claim title on land, as the Member for Bonavista and others have said, folks have been living on this land for generations, and when I say that in Newfoundland context, you're maybe talking hundreds of years. The fact that the title was never done in a Crown grant in the first instance, maybe or maybe lost, but certainly not codified, really causes challenges. I know down the Southern Shore where I live, wherever the fence went, wherever the cows went, wherever the sheep went, were a determining factor on possession.

We know that our older generation is not there to identify that anymore, for individuals. Again, my family was involved in a case recently and we were able to identify a couple of elderly individuals who had good memories and they were recognized and trusted for that memory. But, in the absence of that, that transaction would not have proceeded. So we have to get past that and we have to make sure we bring our system up to modern standards, i.e., 2024 standards. Again, the department is working on those issues.

So what rights are conveyed under a Crown lands title holder? When we get into the legalese, it becomes very, very specific and that's where obviously those involved in land transactions – quote, unquote – make their money. What does a Crown lands title convey? It conveys only the surface rights. All minerals, limestone, granite, slate, marble, gypsum, clay, sand, gravel, et cetera, are excluded from the title and are reserved for the Crown. That won't change.

So that's something that a lot of folks who are not involved in land transactions would not really appreciate, but it allows the Crown to still have an interest in the subsurface rights for mineral extraction and the like. Obviously, there are arrangements made with the surface landholder to access those resources.

For those who are paying attention from outside the House, Crown Lands are administered by the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture under the Crown Lands Division and the whole purpose of that in the Crown interest is to support social and economic development in the province. So that's sort of the larger public interest. But as an individual landowner or a title holder, we're more interested in our piece of land, what do we own. The fact that I have a bill of purchase and sale from my grandfather or an uncle or a neighbour in itself does not convey ownership.

Again, I've experienced that, where the land had been transferred through purchase of sale, but it meant nothing. Then when the estates are being settled, it's pandemonium within that family because nothing is sorted out and you have to really go back to the original records if you can find them. If not, then you're back into adverse possession and determining that. So it's a very, very complicated system and something that we need to rectify.

So I want to, again, compliment the Member for Exploits for his work. He's been tenacious on this file. I know the minister responsible for Crown Lands, whoever he or she has been, has said they are going to address this, and I am confident that the current minister will address it. So stay tuned, if not this session, the next.

With that, Speaker, I'll take my seat.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the Broadcast group who look after the audio for this House because they do a great job. I noticed that I sometimes elevate my voice in this House, but when the broadcast comes out, it speaks like I'm talking normally. So I really want to commend the Broadcast team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I don't know what it is, but I have a tendency to elevate the decibels in my voice. And Crown Lands will do that to me for sure as well.

I thank the minister who spoke before me for his frank comments. He had made comments like, he fully realizes that people have a total lack of confidence in titles. They do – they do. He does want to make it better and realizes that there is a need to do it. Because whether it be residential or businesses, they are anxious about it, concerned about it. One thing he didn't mention was that the financial cost that's associated with not having the Crown Lands Act amendments done now. And there is a financial cost to the people. I'll get into that in a short time with an example from my district.

I represent the District of Bonavista, one of the earliest settled districts in the province. In fact, we were in the 1600s with settlements on our peninsula – and earlier – but at least the 1600s. Our settlement predates the central government in St. John's. It predates when they issued the Crown grants in 1824, I would believe. So we've been on that land a long time. If you look at the Crown Lands atlas in Bonavista, you'll find that it's all Crown land.

Most of those settlements that have been there for hundreds of years are Crown land. Government lays title to it. I had the opportunity to speak to a gentleman who was an engineer, a surveyor privately, and he was an educator. He referred to government's operations as bureaucratic theft.

Now, that was his words. Because when this House sat in 1977, we said that in a 20-year period before, we didn't want to take land from people – we don't now – and we didn't want to charge people for the land that they had occupied for hundreds of years or decades. What we do now is charge them.

The MHA for Exploits mentioned the Diamonds in Catalina. The Diamonds in Catalina paid for their land. They paid for their land, following the system at that time with a lawyer, registered in the Registry of Deeds the title and they thought they owned the land until they sold it, only to find out that Crown Lands opposed it. But the bottom line is that we pushed them to court, where they had legal fees, and secondly, Crown Lands issued an invoice for $16,000 for land that they already paid for. In conversation with the minister, I was thankful because he reduced it down to a little over $10,000 to this senior couple who already paid for their land in Catalina.

It brings me to the point now that we have the Cullimores. We have Alex and Mary Cullimore in Bonavista. They just celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: They bought land in 1967, built a house on it in 1968 and they've been living there and still live there today. Only to find out that they don't own their property because it is on Crown land and they have been there for decades – Crown land. Nobody opposing in Bonavista their right to that title – nobody – only Crown Lands.

I've written the minister this past weekend, and the minister may stand up and wish to talk about it. I wrote him and I had asked him: Can we have some kind of exception for the Cullimores so they don't have to go through the legal pursuit and they're not going to be charged in excess of $10,000 for land that they've occupied for that period of time?

This is the difference between the legislation or the legislative body in 1977. There were names in that body, Minister Rousseau, and other names you may recall like Joseph R. Smallwood, Frank Moores, Tom Rideout, but the House was unanimous that we wanted to make it easier for people to obtain their title, those who lived on it for decades upon decades.

The Legislature is different now. Those people like the Cullimores, or those people like the Diamonds, or those people like the Abbotts in Bloomfield, two of those three had to pay exorbitant amount of monies through the legal course and also to government. This is where the educator had stated, he referred to it at bureaucratic theft, when you ask people, or people that were on the land for decades upon decades, their families had it in some cases for hundreds of years, they often find that they've got to pay for their land.

The minister who spoke before me said they are on it. Stay tuned. The Member for Exploits said three sittings ago we asked for Crown lands to be brought to this House – three sittings ago. We all expected it this sitting. This was the sitting that we expected it and I think we believed, only to find out earlier, three sessions ago, that it's not coming.

So if you think what is the problem with the wait? Well, the Cullimores are going to get dinged by Crown Lands again in Bonavista, like many in the District of Bonavista with Crown Lands, because we haven't brought the amendments to the floor of the House.

This government came in power in 2015. At that time, there was a report that studied it. They entered in 2015 with a report that gave them direction on how to change Crown Lands, the Lands Act . Here we are in 2024, knowing that the Diamonds had to pay a lot of money and are still trying to get over the financial hit. The Cullimores have it coming, the Abbotts lost $40,000 when they sold their property in Bloomfield because of the Lands Act and it hasn't come to the floor of the House.

So I would say I'm no longer hopeful. I was the one who was hopeful that this time we were going to see it, have meaningful input and how quickly legislation could come, the Limitations Act which came up in petitions this sitting. We've had legislation brought in of which we all got together and we put it out. We did it quickly. For three sittings in this House, we still don't have it. The same archaic rules apply. The minister was lucky that he can access some people to give affidavits. Rural Newfoundland in Bonavista is a challenge. You go to rural Newfoundland and try to find two affidavits in a rural part that can provide a reference point that you occupied that land and it's trouble.

In dying seconds, the educator that I spoke with, the engineer, he had said we have got the worst land registry system in the world. Remember he's an educator. He referenced that Africa was much better – his words. I would say to you, that is another one. People got a fallacy or misconception, they got a deed in the registry and it's good. It's not good. We need action on the Crown Lands and the registry.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

It's great to stand on my feet again and represent the people of Lake Melville. It's interesting that we're talking about Crown Lands this morning because I'd like to say that some days I kind of think if there was an H in Crown Lands, we could have the triple-H factor. In terms of my office, and I would suspect the offices of all of my colleagues, particularly in the more rural parts of this province, I've got health care, highways and if I could say H-Crown Lands with my H, then I would have a triple H.

AN HON. MEMBER: His Majesty (inaudible).

P. TRIMPER: His Majesty is responsible for Crown Lands. Good idea.

Anyway, with that said, yes, it is cumbersome. Yes, it is complex. Yes, we all look forward to seeing some revisions and some updates to the Lands Act .

With that said, when I listen to my comrade, and I've got to say he's a buddy from across the way from Bonavista, there's not very often that I hear something that he says that I'd like to challenge, but there's one point I just heard him say. He used the concept of bureaucratic theft. I think that is intonations on the bureaucracy because I would suggest the regulations, the policy, that's what we need to talk about .

By the way, the reason why this PMR is here, and I have to thank the Member for Exploits for bringing it forward, because it's timely, we need to make this front and centre, we need to get on with the action of it, but it is complicated. I think myself, and I'm sure each and one of us, could probably sit around a circle and vent about the individual circumstances that we're trying to fit in the pigeonholes of these regulations. I could, as again my colleague from Bonavista just said, he's listing off different family names that have struggled and so on, I get it and I can add many names, too, to that list.

However, you think of the different circumstances that have arisen over the years. The best advice that we can give anyone is get clear title of that land, consult a lawyer and get your house in order and let's just find out where you sit vis-à-vis that property. What often happens, of course, is you're coming before a transaction, you're trying to sell or buy a piece of land and as the clock is ticking and you're counting down, all of a sudden, you're faced with a situation where, according to the Crown, you don't own the land.

Now you go down this chase of trying to find, as the Members have just said, two affidavits or other clear title or you proceed down a legal chase of trying to quiet the title, something I have some familiarity with and frankly had to walk away from one time, just because we couldn't clear the title. You couldn't quiet it down.

Some of the other areas that really challenge us, of course, are in areas like grants verses leases and some of the situations that I'm finding in Lake Melville, particularly around the communities, of course, where somebody has been there for some time and then as they go to sell, they realize the might own the home, but they don't own the land underneath it. Of course, then the situation is now they've got to seek an opportunity to rectify that and usually the typical way that we're proceeding with right now is Crown Lands will go in and get an appraisal done.

I've had to represent clients, constituents frankly, who are faced now with having to purchase land that maybe worth more than the house that they're trying to sell.

So it's a very tough option to consider that they may have to spend more than they would eventually receive if the transaction is successful. These are not predicaments that anyone wants or welcomes and absolutely we need to address them.

The length of time, of course, is another challenge and, as I said, when the clock is ticking, it is a great challenge for some of these bureaucrats and others that are in Crown Lands to get through that. The pressure is on them. They feel it. I feel we need to, hopefully, as soon as possible, and I look forward to with all the colleagues in the House here, welcoming these new changes to the Lands Act .

It's interesting that we refer to Crown land as in the property of His Majesty. When I think about this concept and being in Labrador as I am and look at the resolution of claims by the Indigenous groups in Labrador and elsewhere across the country, it's a concept that challenges me sometimes temporally in terms of thinking who actually was there first. This idea that the monarch way over in England is somehow land owned by His Majesty when I'm in a region such as I am in Lake Melville and throughout Labrador where I see argument and evidence much to the contrary. So I think about that a lot as we're representing different people that are going through some of the challenges.

I want to speak about another little particular situation and circumstance that we're finding in Lake Melville. That lies around churches and often churches were provided land – and it could be for the manse and/or for the church. And they're trying to now relocate, downsize, sell at market price and so on. Having this same challenge with declining congregations, limited budgets, now being faced with, again, having to put out a substantial outlay to secure the land before they can sell the land. These are, again, tangly situations and I can feel the angst of so many constituents and all of us when you look at the individual peculiar aspects of trying to find a way forward.

Frankly, it's blocked a lot of opportunity, a lot of economic opportunity. I'm thinking just in my own community where I live in Happy Valley-Goose Bay there are key pieces of property within our community that if we were to unsnarl them, legally, we could proceed with so much other development.

So there certainly is a lot of incentive. I do say that and believe that the bureaucrats are there trying to do their best. But it does take time because you have to go back through the history, the peculiarities of each individual case and make sure that you're getting the right decision. Because if you're not, now you can just imagine the legal implications and court actions that could follow. Selling property to somebody, they develop on it, only to be shown later that they actually didn't own it in the first place. This is why you have to move carefully. This is why we have to move and ensure that the decisions are the right ones and they're the accurate ones.

Just for the sake of the viewers out there, it was back in, I guess, 1977 or '76 when squatters' rights were essentially extinguished in this province. What that means is that you needed to have clear title according to the Crown land in the form of a grant or a lease. As we've alluded, to prove that you were there continuously, you require two witnesses who've lived in the community over that period of time, usually that 20 years we're talking about or whatever is under discussion, and they have to be at least 77 years of age, thinking about it from this time frame.

So it's often very challenging to find these types of witnesses who have lived there consistently, who also were there over the period of that time, and say that yes, I lived there that whole entire time. So-and-so did live there and no one else was there during that whole period of time. It's a challenge and I get it, and this is why sometimes we have to get and seek other interventions.

I believe what the Member for Exploits is going to find is that there's great support. What I would ask, and I think some of my colleagues on this side have already mentioned, I think we're going to continue to say it's coming. I'm certainly doing my best to lobby the minister and his department to proceed and bring it to the House, and I can tell you we'll look forward to active debate and bringing all of our own collective experiences forward. It would be great to push the Crown Lands files into a more objectively driven and fair system for all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Speaker, I'll thank you very much.

Thanks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I, too, obviously have lots of people in my district and lots of people across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who contact my office about the challenges they're having with Crown lands. To be perfectly honest, I thought I would be here this morning in this House of Assembly on this Wednesday morning actually debating legislative changes to Crown Lands instead of talking about another PMR.

That was a commitment that was made earlier on in the session that that draft legislation would be introduced in this session. We heard back from the minister later that he needed more time, and all of us on this side of the House understood that, accepted that and stood and said we're prepared to stay here in the House of Assembly and get this done, whatever amount of time it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: We saw yesterday how that type of initiative or incentive could work with the Limitations Act and how quickly we were able to come together and make significant changes to what I would argue is also a very complicated piece of legislation, but it got done because the will to do it was there.

That is part of the problem here – and I do want to go back and refer to my hon. colleague for Lake Melville and some of his comments. Firstly, the comment about my colleague for Bonavista and bureaucratic theft. That was not his comment; that was a quote that he was referring to from someone else. So let's be clear about that.

The second thing I wanted to talk about is the Member for Lake Melville made a comment about the fact that perhaps people should get ahead of the problem by going out and getting their house in order before they decide to sell it. I know he doesn't mean anything by it, but that almost implies that people are to blame for their own problem.

That brings me back, again, to the bureaucratic thing about bureaucracy. I agree with the Member for Lake Melville. The people that work in our government system are working hard and trying to get the job done. Their frustration, just as it is our frustration, is the legislation that they have to deal with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: They don't get the opportunity to change the legislation. That has to happen right here in the House of Assembly. And in the last nine years, we've had four different ministers talk about Crown lands, talk about the challenges of Crown lands, talk about the need to reform Crown lands legislation, yet we're still here again today, unfortunately, with no legislation in front of us.

So I totally agree with the Member for Lake Melville, that it is not the problem with the people that are working in our public service. It is a problem with getting the legislation brought to the House of Assembly so it can be debated, so changes can be made, so people will not be impacted. That's where the problem is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: And again, I'll go back to the Minister of Transportation. He talked about previous governments, and he's right. This issue around Crown lands has been around for a long, long time. For many people, they don't know they have a problem until they go to sell their land. And because there are no changes in the legislation, then that problem gets compounded and the costs rise.

Because if you lived on your land for 50 years and you've paid your taxes on the land and you've got a deed to the land, why would you think that you don't own the land? That is the problem. So all of these people that we talk about, my colleagues reference here, these are individuals who have lived there.

Recently in the Baie Verte - Green Bay District, I met a couple of different people, a family who had built a house on her father's potato field 53 years ago. Her husband went in the woods, cut the lumber, built the house, and they've been living there ever since, paying taxes on that piece of land, only to find out now that they're being told they don't have title to the land.

So that's the challenges we face. So, again, I think that what we ought to be doing is talking about, not how we delay this, but how we fix this. I think we've missed a real opportunity here in this session of the House of Assembly to actually get this done. Now we have to postpone it again, punt it down the road, and what will that mean? That will mean that these problems that we have identified, the problems are still there and will continue to be there until the actual legislation is introduced into the House of Assembly.

So that's the issue. The issue is not about individuals. The issue is about the legislation has to be brought to the House of Assembly and changed. Then, and only then, can we, anybody that's working in the system can turn around and actually get their job and make their job easier. You know, there was a report that came out not that long ago that said the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador leads the country in red tape. Well, let me tell you, those of us on this side of the House, we want to lead the country in red-tape reduction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: And what better place to start than Crown Lands. Because all of us, all 40 of us, have heard those stories about the Crown Land issues. That's why this was so important and we've missed a real opportunity to do that.

But, again, I go back and say, we can't continue to keep punting it down the road. There's an old saying: If you don't start, you'll never finish. We haven't started yet; we haven't introduced legislation. There's been nine years of the Liberal government. Previous governments before, four different ministers, and I'm standing here today still talking about Crown Lands legislation. That's a problem. That is the problem. We have not been able to move this forward.

Again, we have to find a way, collectively, to get this legislation to the floor of the House of Assembly so we can make those adjustments. There have been lots of suggestions about amendments and changes being made to the legislation. Those have all been there. Those are in the minister's hands. There are lots of things that have been put, but we can't seem to find a way to bring it here.

One of my colleagues mentioned a 2015 report. That report was never acted upon. Why? Why? Why are we standing here again today talking about Crown Lands legislation instead of talking about the actual amendments and changes that we're going to debate on Crown Land legislation?

When we talk about all these individuals and name them, it's not about individuals. When we talk about health care and we talk about everything else and we talk about individuals, the individuals – and the minister can stand up and said they can't talk about individual issues and they're right. There is that confidentiality that exists, we understand that. But when we talk about individuals, we're talking about individuals who represent a lot more individuals. We're talking about problems that exist in our system right now.

So whether it's in health care, whether it's in the cost of living, whether it's in our education system or whether it's in Crown Lands, which is what we're debating here this morning, we're talking about individuals. We're talking about people all over the province who have been impacted and are continuing to be impacted by the lack of legislative change right here. That's what we're talking about. They represent many, many more people all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is important to get it right, but it's also important to get it done and that's unfortunately what has not happened. We have not been able to get this legislation brought to the House of Assembly. Four ministers, nine years, that's an issue – that's an issue. So we have to find a way.

Unfortunately, again, as I've said, the minister stood up, we took him on his word that it would be introduced in this session of the House. The minister turned around and said unfortunately he needed more time. We agreed. We said let's keep the House open to get it done and we are prepared to stay here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: We're continuing to stay here, and if they want to start to introduce this legislation tomorrow, today, we'll be here to help.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Trimper): Thank you.

I now call on the Member for Corner Brook.

G. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I will open up the debate, my comments and contributions to the debate, with four words: open, notorious, exclusive and consecutive. In common law, these are the principles, these are the four words, the four tests that apply to all squatters' rights, all adverse possession against the Crown.

These date back to Westminster edict. They're applied in the Canadian context by leading cases from Prince Edward Island in the early days of Confederation, and they are important because any solution to the Crown lands issue have to take into consideration these four words of open, notorious, exclusive and consecutive.

What do the four words mean? It means that in order for someone to dispossess the Crown – let me actually begin a little bit earlier. All land in Newfoundland and Labrador is presumed to be owned by the public, unless it has been conveyed by the public, by government, to an individual and the public lands become private, or the public has been dispossessed of the ownership of the land through occupation, through possession.

So what we're talking about here are instances where the public have been dispossessed of public lands in favour of private lands. In order to meet the test of dispossession, those four words remain essential: open, notorious, exclusive and consecutive.

What they mean is that: open, it means that occupation, possession must be visible to the eye. There has to be physical circumstance, which indicates someone has dispossessed the Crown through an occupation. There needs to be clearing of land, there needs to be fenceposts, there needs to be agricultural plots created, there needs to be houses built, something to that effect, that the occupation, the dispossession has to be open and openly visible to the eye.

It needs to be notorious, which simply means that the community at large, everyone needs to understand and accept that the public has been dispossessed of the land. There has to be an awareness that someone is now the true owner instead of the public.

It has to be exclusive. It must be to the extent that it does not engage anyone else's co-sharing of the property. It has to be exclusive to a single owner. That is important because, for example, a common pasture or a trail or something along those lines, automatically creates a lack of exclusivity. So no one else other than the public can own those lands.

Finally, it must be consecutive and this is, I think, one of the most important things. It says in common law that any break in ownership in any period of time within a prescribed period automatically deletes, voids, dispossession of the public.

So, for example, just to draw a perspective of this, if someone were to suggest that my family owned land in a particular area for generations and generations and generations, but within a period of time, my family did leave and go somewhere else to work or did not occupy the land, that period of time that we felt we owned the land but we didn't actually occupy it, we left it – if that period of time in the break of the consecutive was during the statutory period, the prescribed period, that would automatically void dispossession.

These four words are important because any prescription that's offered by any government, the current government, a future government, will abide by those four prescriptive words. It is common law.

So where are we in today's context? This issue was decided in 1976. The Frank Moores government, at the time, created an amendment to the Crown Lands Act and it prescribed that the dispossession period, the statutory period in which the open, notorious and exclusive consecutive occupation of Crown land, of public land, must occur shifted from a 60-year period to a 20-year period of 1957-1977.

That was what the Frank Moores government decided of the day, and they did so very intentionally because their intent was to void all future squatters' rights after a period of time, all adverse possession. The act was proclaimed on January 1, 1977, came into effect and so what the philosophy was of this Legislature which enacted this bill, the Crown Lands Act , was that you had to prove with evidence that you occupied the land openly, notoriously, consecutively and exclusively from 1957-77.

Therefore, an affiant – someone who would provide an affidavit – would have to be 40 years old in 1977 to be able to be able to speak affirmatively, with knowledge, about who occupied land from '57-'77. So you would have to have reasonable, personal knowledge of the entire land tenure from '57-'77. So that means you would have to have been, say, 20 years old in 1957. In the proclamation of the act, in '77, you would have been 40 years old.

Now, that was 50 years ago. Today, that pool of affiants that could speak to this act, speak to the requirements of evidence, would be 90 years old. It was a deliberate intention of the Legislature in 1977 when they passed this act that when the pool of affiants was no longer available because, in our senior years, we do pass, and there would be no available affiants. That was the intention of the Frank Moores government when they passed the Crown Lands Act in '77 was that Crown lands adverse possession would stop because the availability of affiants would no longer exist, and that was the intention of this Legislature.

So it's very fitting that we had a very historic moment last night with the amendment to the statute of Limitations Act because that's really what we're talking about now is changing the limitation. Any legislature that contemplates changing the squatters' rights, the adverse possession, the dispossession of the public from a piece of land, it has to take into consideration what will be the criteria on which that dispossession will be proven in evidence and can be made available.

Is it someone, for example, who occupies a piece of land – a gravel-pit camper, just to use an extreme example; should they be able to claim now squatters' rights? I think we would probably argue, no. I think that would be fair.

The argument saying – it's interesting it came up in the Legislature this morning – that someone who occupied land for the last 50 years, and it's their primary home, should be able now to declare squatters' rights and get title to the land. Well, 50 years ago was 1977, not '57-'77. By law right now, by design, they should not be able to claim adverse possession.

So the question is, what are the reasonable rules that should be amended to fix this problem? There's not a legislature, not a government that will ever sit that will ever be able to provide a solution which meets everybody's satisfaction – never. Because someone will come forward and say, listen, I have had my camper on that gravel pit land for the last 20 years, how come you're not giving me title to it? Is it reasonable that they should be expected to have title to it? What are the rules that would be put in place?

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that we have to amend the statutory period in which the adverse possession is considered examinable and be able to be presented in evidence. We have to amend that. We also have to recognize that Crown lands jurisprudence have considerably changed since 1977. I take the Collingwood case, for example, where the Chief Justice actually just said, in appeal, that the context of the use of the land is important in identifying whether or not it's a legitimate squatters' right application.

We've had significant change in jurisprudence since 1977 that have to be reflected in the act. We've got a body of evidence that says the Newfoundland and Labrador association of surveyors should be more involved. We're got changes to squatters' rights to the quieting of titles that should be included. Mr. Speaker, this side will take any suggestions from any side (inaudible).

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I now call on the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

First of all, I'd like to thank the hon. Member for Exploits for bringing this forward again. It is a year ago to this month that we had another motion similar to this on Crown lands and here we are, a year later, talking about Crown lands and the need for actual changes.

The Member for Corner Brook had some points there, that things do need to change and how do we change it and how do we do it in the fairest possible way. But it is true that there will always be a hiccup; there will always be someone that doesn't fit the right criteria. But we can never get as close as we possibly can to making amendments that we can actually fix a lot of these situations that arise.

Once again, like I said, a year ago today – I'll say again – it is a bit different in my area. The town was only put there in 1959. It was an engineered town and it was built completely on corporate-owned land and that was eventually devolved once the town became and actual recognized municipality.

So it is a little bit different, but there are some similarities. Instead of fighting with the province over who owns land, we're fighting with the mining company on who owns land, so it is a little slightly different. But when you start getting out of there – like my family originally lived in Central Newfoundland. You know, I hear lots of claims like that about land and stuff like that. It took my grandfather years to straighten out the family land in Centreville-Wareham-Trinity.

Recently I had my uncle – my aunt's husband – and his father passed away and they were trying to straighten out some land down in Wesleyville. Same thing, they lived on the land for generations there. They were fishermen. They lived there for generations and trying to find people and stuff that could say they've been there for generations; this is their land. Just trying to straighten it out for the family.

So I think, without delving back into what everyone else has said, we need to find a path forward. I know that it was on the Order Paper to have the Lands Act amendment come through. We didn't see it. The minister asked for more time. It has been years in the making. It is a problem that has been faced by different sittings of this House for, I'd say, a decade now.

This is not a new issue. I think even if you look at it back the last time the Land Claims Act came in under the Moores government, they said they know this group of people will eventually be gone and there will be no more affidavits to be able to be made. But even then, you can see that there was a fallacy. There was a possibility that this could possibly have an adverse effect.

You can go back, lawyers and surveyors have said in the past that there has to be something come in, eventually, to actually settle this. So, you know, we have to make amendments; we have to do this, because we have seniors who don't even know if they own their land or they're fighting in court to take possession of land that they've lived on for years.

The last thing you want, now, is someone who has lived there for so long realizing they have to go through this whole struggle in a time in their life when there's supposed to be less struggle. They're supposed to be enjoying their time. They're supposed to be, you know, finished work, retired, enjoying it. Now, they're just in court paying fortunes in legal fees and other service fees and fees just to say that they own this piece of land and have peace of mind.

Especially, people who are going to pass down this land or pass on their homes to other members of their family that might need it because that's the things that they're thinking about at that stage of life. Instead, they're in court paying $10,000 or $40,000 just to clear up some of these issues that have come up.

I had a conversation with an individual who is telling me that her mother lived in this community their entire life and day in, day out, apparently, she's doing affidavits for people. She is 80 years old and doing these affidavits for people just trying to clear up a lot of these issues in the community so that people can actually have title to their property, to make sure that there is no issue.

We can find a way forward; we can work together. Once again, we have proven that we can work together to get this through. So I am disappointed that it didn't come through in this sitting. We're cluing up here now. I'm disappointed it didn't come through in this sitting, but I hope that day one in November when we sit again that we'll have this here in front of us so that we can actually get through it and actually help a lot of these people because that's what we should be doing.

We should be finding the best way possible to fix these things and to try to minimize adverse effects on as many people as possible. The Member for Corner Brook did say, there are always going to be one or two people that's there, and that's fair, but we got to get as close as we physically can to avoid that, as physically possible, that we can get that through to make sure that we're protecting as many people as we want and especially that this is a direct effect on mostly seniors in our communities.

These are people that have lived in these properties for generations, raised their family there and, in some cases, they have been there their entire lives in some of these houses. I don't want to beat it up anymore than I have to in the sense that I support this, I support the idea of this, I support that we have to get this fixed. I wish we could have done it sooner. If there is anyway to sit longer, fantastic, we can get this done. If not, first thing in the next sitting. This needs to be something that has to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

With that, I do support this PMR. I'll always support this PMR.

Thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

I now recognize the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

It's always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the people of Placentia West - Bellevue. Crown Lands, of course, is the PMR that we're bringing today. Just for the people who are watching, I don't want people to think that this is a debate. We're not debating legislation because it wasn't brough to the floor of the House of Assembly. What we're doing is bringing a private Member's resolution to the floor of the House of Assembly in hopes that the government will listen and bring this legislation to the floor of the House of Assembly, because it kind of goes without saying.

We've asked for three sittings now to get this legislation. We're told that they need more time. We've offered as much time as needed to get this done, but, unfortunately, it's still not on the floor of the House of Assembly.

We did a PMR a couple of weeks ago on drugs and addiction. The government brought in amendments that actually kind of flipped the whole PMR upside down and ended up making us vote against our own PMR. So I hope that's not the intention, because we are trying to bargain in good faith and we're trying to do that on behalf of the people of, not only Placentia West - Bellevue, but the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because once people make an investment in a personal property and then they end up with no value, after a lifetime of investment.

Then on top of that, adding insult to injury, the government is taking them to court to prove their case, that they're more right than the people who are occupying the land. It just makes no sense.

Like I said, after three sittings, we've asked for this legislation to come forward. We see how important it is and how convoluted it is right now. To hear the MHA for Corner Brook speak, who was a former Crown Lands' minister, for him to stand here and talk about open, notorious, exclusive and consecutive.

To me, it's just about opening up the bureaucracy of the whole situation because you can take any small minute detail of any one of those points and if it's not proven, then you have a way out of saying that it's no longer your land, it's our land, it comes back to the Crown and we sell it at fair market value, but fair market value is certainly not what they walked into. When they walked into that piece of land, the value has increased because of their occupation of the land.

So where is the value then of their lifetime of investment into this piece of land that they feel that they own? Not only that, if they have a larger track of land, maybe they offered their daughter or their son or their grandson or granddaughter a piece of that land so they could build on that piece of land to help them get a head start in life. Now, all of a sudden, it's bogged down in bureaucracy again.

So, again, the MHA for Corner Brook was actually the minister of Crown Lands at one time, and they've been there since 2015. When this department was looking for solutions, their solution was to put $25 million towards Crown Lands and move it out to Corner Brook. Did it improve anything? No. The only thing it improved was the amount of bureaucracy that the people had to go through to get the title to their land cleared and that's as simple as that.

To have somebody sit here and tell the House about how it all works and all that kind of stuff is fine and dandy, but maybe if that's the case, if they're that well versed in how the bureaucracy of how Crown Lands works, maybe they could have come up with some solutions while they had the opportunity to own that office.

Like I said, it's hard to believe that the government's been in place since 2015 and the only thing that they decided to do to fix the economy was line items through their budget, which obviously didn't work.

So like I said, to also hear the Member across the way talk about bureaucratic theft when that was a quote from my friend and colleague, the Member for Bonavista, as opposed to words that he spoke himself. He was quoting somebody else that was an expert in the field that brought that to his attention of how things were being done. So it wasn't the Members own words, it was a quote that he was using from an industry expert to say that this is how it is and this is how we see it.

There are many different reasons for the Lands Act to be brought to the House of Assembly. We talked about churches. I'm currently going through that with some of the churches in my district because, to me, the church doesn't own the building itself and it don't own the land because it's part of the community that was bequeathed to them to establish their church. Now that they're not going to be congregating or giving of those services, then I think that land should automatically go back to the community so that they can utilize then, not only the building, but the land and everything for their own use, for their own community centre or warming station to help them in a time of strife.

I had one in Goobies, for instance, that there was a family that gave up the land itself so that the church could be built on it. They actually went out and cut the logs to build the church itself. They've paid the light bills on it, they paid the insurance and they paid the upkeep on it. Yet, now, the church is coming in and saying that it's their piece of property, which to me is nothing further from the truth.

It belonged to the community, it belonged to the congregation, it belonged to the people of the community that put in their toil and effort and raised funds to keep it going. I always compare it to the fact of somebody owning a nightclub and having a band come in and play to entertain their audience and their guests. But, at the end of the day, when the bar decides to close or they don't feel like they want to stay in business any longer with that investment, then the bands don't turn around and come back then and say we played in your venue, therefore we have title and ownership to your building. So that's not how it works.

It can't work both ways is what I'm trying to say. Because then we also have the family split that I talked about, but we also have the agricultural lease. If it's not carried on as an agricultural lease, then it goes back to the Crown and is sold at fair market value. But again, this is somebody that's probably been on – I've got a case down in Mooring Cove. This gentleman has been on that land for almost 50 years. Like I said, he's been developing the land, he's been raising sheep and all his animals and all that kind of stuff, but there was a whole convoluted story in how he would have access to that land or be able to pass it on to his own children.

Another thing with this, Crown Lands can't have it both ways because there are a lot of things that government are passing through people's properties, personal properties with water lines and sewer lines and stuff like that, where the property owner hasn't been charging the government on a lease for utilizing their land for the last 50 years either.

When we see some of the things like cabin areas, somebody that I've been arguing for, for the last five years – and hopefully it's just getting straightened out now – has been occupying that land for 70 years. He actually opened up and gave ideas to the government of how we can make these lots into sellable lots in this cabin area. Yet, everybody else got their lease, but this gentleman doesn't have his lease. And he actually helped government sell the land in around the Garnish Pond, so it just makes no sense.

The bureaucracy is the reason why we want this legislation to come to the floor of the House of Assembly. We don't want the bureaucracy to increase. We want it to decrease. We want some of these arbitrary reasonings, like openness, notorious, exclusive and consecutive, to all – it just seems to be a little bit too much because the thing is that, as our populations age, these letters of support are obviously harder to garner.

With that being said, that should not be the way that it is. We know that all communities have been keeping a ledger of who is occupying land, where, when and for how long and all that kind of stuff. Yet, it's not acknowledged by the Crown Lands Act or the Division of Crown Lands. I think if we were able to work together on the Limitations Act , then we can certainly work with the communities that have been keeping this record for hundreds of years in order to make sure that Crown Lands becomes less bureaucratic and more for the people to understand title of their land.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I am pleased to speak on this private Members' resolution and a couple of introductory comments about the actual PMR that was introduced by the Member for Exploits. He has been the champion of proposing amendments to this legislation on behalf of the Official Opposition. This is the second PMR that he has introduced, on behalf of the Official Opposition, trying to get government to deal with this serious problem that is facing and impacts potentially thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Speaker, we know that the fact that the Member for Corner Brook – I have to make a point about this. We heard from him just a few moments ago talking about the legislation in terms of the legal aspects, in terms of the adverse possession and what adverse possession means and other things, in terms of property law. While I appreciate the lecture on these points, I think the point that's being missed here is the importance of having this legislation brought before the House so that we can correct the deficiencies that exist with this legislation.

We know that many, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, honestly and in good faith, have occupied and even developed their lands, Mr. Speaker. Yet, they are told that they do not have clear title. They have informal title, and this informal title has been reassured to them by strong, local community support and has been recognized within their communities.

What we need to see happen here is the fair reconciliation of these existing claims for these people who have been seeking title to their land. We have to understand that this has been going on – we're told it's three sittings of the House of Assembly where the people of this province have been patiently waiting for this government to get its act together and bring forward amendments to the legislation.

Now, we saw, this week, that that is possible to be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: We saw it with very complex and complicated legislation involving the Limitations Act . So we know it can be done. We know when all individuals here, the elected Members, work together that we can address the complicated legislation that comes before us and deal with it.

I must say, the Minister of Justice and Public Safety did take the lead, as the minister, and he had a commitment in the past year to make sure this was brought before the House. Where is that same commitment from the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture to do the same? We need to see this. It is unconscionable. It's completely unacceptable that there is just delay like this. It's very disappointing to the many constituents that we represent in the Official Opposition.

I, in the District of Harbour Main, have had constituents that have faced these same problems. I have one case, in particular, a senior who was caused extreme stress and anxiety having to deal with this. The financial hit that she has had to take is just inacceptable and it's not being addressed properly by this government.

I must say that the comment that was made by the Member for Bonavista who was quoting an expert, as the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue just pointed out – he had quoted an industry expert, an educator in the field who had stated and had described the situation as bureaucratic theft. To suggest that was any aspersion on bureaucrats in our government is completely unfair. That is not what the Member for Bonavista was doing.

What he was doing is he was explaining that the wait times for applications and all of the bureaucratic legal quagmire that exists within the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture with respect to Crown lands is just not acceptable. So to suggest or to attribute any liability or responsibility to the bureaucracy is totally false and is certainly not what was being done.

In fact, that responsibility, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, lies not with the bureaucracy, but with the department and with government, who has failed to create the policies and the proper legislation to deal with this matter once and for all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: All the people are asking for, Speaker, is fair reconciliation of their existing claims for people that are seeking title to their land. We know that we can work together. If government had that will and took that initiative, instead of delaying now for another three sessions, we would be able to deal with this problem.

So I must say, it is very disappointing on behalf of my constituents in the District of Harbour Main and the constituents of the Official Opposition and the constituents of the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that this is still going on. We were promised by the minister, or he made a commitment, that this would be dealt with in this session and yet here we are, forced to raise another PMR, which is not what we need here. We need to be able to get this legislation before the hon. House, debate amendments, bring them to a vote and get this resolved finally.

I must say, as well, I am very disappointed when we know that government has promised this and yet continues to divert and deflect and we see comments that are made which really do not address the problem. The issue is when are we going to get this before the House. It is not whether we're saying there are problems with the bureaucracy, that's not what we're doing, or we don't need to be hearing about all the nuances of adverse possession right now. We need to get this before the House so that we can figure out a solution.

When the Member for Corner Brook says, well, a solution never meets everyone's satisfaction. Well, that's true. We're not looking for perfect legislation. We know that is impossible, like with the Limitations Act . There was not perfect legislation, but it was good legislation. Yes, it will not meet everyone's satisfaction but no one is expecting that. So to try to suggest that's what we're doing here – we want this legislation brought before the House so we can try to address all of the concerns within this Crown Lands. It's a mess; people are frustrated by their wait times for applications. We hear it almost on a weekly basis in the District of Harbour Main.

So government has to get it together and we're willing, as we have stated, the Official Opposition is prepared. We'll stay here for another three weeks or whatever it takes to deal with this once and for all.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

Certainly, a great opportunity to get up and speak to this. I've had many people in my district over the five years call me on issues regarding their own land or Crown land. It's very complicated. You know, when you sit down and listen to it, to believe that the government is going to come after them for money that they paid for land. It's terrible. It really is.

So I did listen to the Minister of Transportation say there was 124 submissions and 22 written submissions. I would say that myself and the Member for Exploits, the other day, spoke to a gentleman in my district and he was questioning his Crown land. He had no written submission. He had no submission gone in. He didn't want to bring light to it in case somebody else might try to go in and claim it, that it's theirs. So he didn't bring light – he was wondering where we were to with the Crown lands application. He's got a fair amount of land. I am sure the Member can remember the conversation.

I would be the same if I was him. You know, you go up and you start putting marks down. If you want to know where land is in this province or know who owns it, go out and put a stake down and put your name on it and you'll find out that somebody is going to fight you for it, for sure, if it's not yours. Then you'll know who really owns it. People in the area certainly know that for sure.

That gentleman that day wasn't really comfortable with speaking on that and wanting to open up a can of worms to say that someone else could go in and claim it and he may say it's his. He's trying to wait for this legislation to come through, which is very important. It's very important to him and a good many in every district, not only mine, in every district.

So I look back at my property where I'm to, where my father lives now and my mother lives now. They're at that place 100 years. Was that ever granted to them? I'm frightened to death to find out. I'm certainly not going to check and put the pressure on them now in their years where they're to now, to find out if it's theirs or not. I'm going to leave it be. Whatever happens, happens in the end.

Do they own it? I'm not sure. I'm not sure that they own it, don't know. It's a hundred years they were given it by a family member. They built on it. They've been there now 60 years themselves. There was somebody there before. So it's pretty bad when you don't want to check because you don't want to put that stress on them. It's terrible.

There are lots of others. The land I live on myself, my father gave it to me, and his father gave it to him. Was it ever granted to him? We've had mortgages on it over the years, so I would hope that it was checked. I didn't go back and check it, but I would hope that it's done. But it's a scary feeling to know that it may not be yours. The people in Bonavista and people elsewhere in the province paying taxes on land and then the Crown comes back and tells them it's not theirs. It's terrible. It should never happen.

So this is an example I got from a gentleman that has emailed me. This is two years ago. I'm not going to read all the email, but I'm going to go through some important points on it because it's what's happening today in Newfoundland and Labrador. It really is.

In 1974, he said he was married, looked for a piece of land in the Goulds, built a house and raised their family – found a piece of land that was butted onto our land on Shoal Bay Road.

In 1975, they built a house on it. In 1992, Hydro power, upon the inspection of a sawmill deemed electrical service was not up to standard. As a result, the owner decided to close the mill and sell the property. He offered the property to me. I purchased it. I registered and surveyed and got a legal firm to do the necessary documents and purchase through the provincial registry.

For the next 30 years, the land was left vacant except for skating rinks in the winter and horseshoe pits in the summer.

In 2021, a local contractor approached me to offer to buy this property to build two homes there. He said it was time for me now to sell, move on, move into a seniors' complex. That was his plan, to sell his own house, sell the land and move into a seniors' complex.

He applied to the City of St. John's in 2022 for the necessary approvals and the building documents as requested by the contractor. They were eventually granted. On the day of the closing, the buyer's lawyer requested two affidavits would be required to finalize the sale.

This became impossible as the requirements were the person would have to acknowledge where the property was back in 1957. At that point, my lawyer suggested I apply to Crown Lands to get clear title. That I did, and after waiting several months for response, Crown Lands claimed that I did not own the property, as it was not fully occupied, in use in some form, such as farming, from 1957 to 1977. When I built the home in '75, he said it was in full operation. There was a mill there, it being totally clear as the government aerial photos indicate.

So Crown Lands then sent him an email saying the government owned the property. He would have to make an application to buy back the property at government market value – and I will finish the email in a second.

Government market value came back. The land that he owned and purchased and paid for 30 years before, the Crown came back, or the government officials came back and he can buy back each piece of property – which he was going to retire and sell his home – for $94,300, based on their evaluation of market value, after he paid for that 30 years ago.

That's one example of what's happening in this province. That is something to deal with in his golden years. He wants to retire and go to a seniors' complex – and we all have those stories. But we need to put them out there so people can understand what we're trying to get and get the legislation. I mean, that is real life. It is right here in writing.

He said, on March 6, he got an email or phone call from the City of St. John's asking what was going on with Crown Lands who requested that the city review the property with regard to its use. The city informed me that they would not have issue with any approval or permits if my application documents weren't in order. They were mystified with the Crown Lands request.

So going through the city, they gave him approval and then they turn around and say you don't own it. This government regulation claiming back people's land is insane and comes off as a money grab, which one senior Crown Lands official indicated to me in a conversation: It is a money grab. He said: I have documents on the property going back to 1918. There was a sawmill and I paid taxes on it for about 25 years. I owned the property for 30 years. I have close to $100,000 invested in this property. I had to purchase the property, survey fees, legal fees, city taxes to St. John's this past 30 years. It cost him close to $40,000.

That's one example. I spoke to this gentleman on a couple of occasions and he has called me back to see where Crown Lands is. So we're in here now and this is the third session. The Member for Exploits put forward a Member's resolution before and he had mentioned that and got turned down. We didn't agree to it. But we all know that this is important. We are beat out from looking at you on the other side patting yourselves on the back. Good thing you have a doctor; you got a torn rotator cuff from patting yourself on the back.

It is unbelievable that this has not been done in three sessions. It is incredible that we have not got this done. It just makes no sense. We've been here talking for three sessions about Crown lands and stay tuned is what we get – stay tuned. It is just unbelievable.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it at that. I wanted to put my story out for my constituent and just to get it out there. These are real-life stories.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not going to take much time here. I just wanted to speak about what happens and what doesn't happen. We all understand that there is an issue with the legislation and that the legislation is being reviewed. The Member just spoke about how long it is taking. I'd go further than to say three sessions. I mean, we've been talking about this since 2019, and I'm sure that government before 2019 talked about it also.

It's a huge issue and what really blows me away is how quick these issues can be resolved when government sees it as a benefit. I'm not saying a benefit to them, but I'm saying as a benefit to the province. The ability to address these issues on any level are a benefit to the province.

But I'll just go back a few months ago and highlight and try to remind people what happened. It's only in the last 12 months, really, when all of this wind energy stuff took off and government immediately found a way to put a freeze on all Crown lands and found a way to make it so those Crown lands could be distributed to companies that were pursuing wind energy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I'm showing how quick it was solved on a larger scale because government thought it was important.

But if somebody from Bonavista, my district or any district in this House is living on a piece of property and they're getting older and they're looking at going into a home or downsizing or doing everything that today's current economy has caused people to consider, and they find out that they don't own that piece of land, think of the mental stress and the financial burden that that puts on an individual. It's incredible what it's done.

So while we're waiting for legislation – we all know that the minister or any minister of any department has certain authorities and abilities to do stuff. Instead of trying to find a way to fix some of these problems, we're taking people to court. We're actually taking people to court and fighting them over something that we have the ability to fix or pause or do a whole number of things that makes it right.

My district in 2019 when I got elected, I can tell you from 2019 up until 2024 right now, one of the largest issues we face – and I don't mean the biggest issue but one of the most common issues we face are issues with Crown lands. My office is located on the second floor at 8 Myers Avenue, and directly next to my office is the Crown Lands office.

In 2019, it was open five days a week. In 2020, or leading up to 2020, part way through 2019 after the election, they went to one day a week, Thursdays only. Then they went to by appointment. I can tell you right now – and I'm not making any comment about the individuals that work there. They don't have the ability to do it. You cannot get through to that office. You cannot get an appointment. The only way to get an appointment is for their MHA to send an email, which is absolutely ridiculous. It should not be like that. That office needs to be open full-time. I guarantee you there's enough work for it.

Now, the office has been rented and here's the issue: It's like the Premier's office in Grand Falls. The office has been rented for three years and there's nobody in it and it's still leased. It sits empty and it's still leased. We talk about saving money and finding ways to do things, so we've got an office that's full of stuff for Crown Lands and nobody is in it. It's leased. It's a privately owned building. My office is leased; it's not a government building. That office is being paid for and there's no staff in it. So if you live in Clarenville or Bonavista or whatever, you've got to go to Gander or in here to St. John's.

I'll say something else: The minister stood this morning talked about consultations and he talked about we didn't get very many people who replied or whatever. There's no Crown land in St. John's, very little. So when we talk about these consultations, you've got to remember that the people that live in my district, on the tail end of Random Island or people that are running into these issues, the people who have lived in a house for 100 years, a lot of these communities don't have Internet. They don't know that there were consultations. They don't have access to government sites.

There's the issue that we run into with every single consultation that we've been doing over the last little while is the fact that we assume that people are engaged in engageNL. They're not only not engaged in engageNL, they don't have access to it. How we don't consider that as a major problem – it's okay to try to get advanced and get more technical and utilize these tools because we got to. It's where we have to go. But everybody has to have equal access to it, and they don't.

So I would argue that that's why you didn't get the consultations that you thought you would get. But the one thing I would say about this is that there are solutions, and those solutions don't mean taking people to court. Those solutions mean getting people back into the offices and certainly if we're renting space, occupy them. I can tell you right now the office that is in Clarenville has zero occupancy. You cannot get through to there, you cannot get there and it's absolutely shameful.

Anyway, on that note, I'll take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

I now call on the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to stand and have a few words on this because it's brought to my attention, if not on a daily basis, at least five or six times a week – absolutely brought to my attention.

I know when I had the privilege of being the minister and Crown Lands was under the department, we made some major changes. A lot of those changes were reversed. A lot of them were reversed. The only department in government that I know, maybe the RNC or somebody, where you can't get into an office in Corner Brook. You can't get in.

I look at any minister here, you could walk up to your office here and say: Can I have a meeting? If the minister is around or someone's around, yes. Crown Lands – I'll just give you one example and I brought this to the minister many times. A person went up just two weeks ago and they're dealing with a septic design, and they said I've got to see someone about this. Okay, go online and make an appointment. He went home, made an appointment and the appointment is for late June. That was fine.

He wrote them, got a letter back: You've got to go to Service NL. He went to Service NL. They said: Oh no, we can't touch this because the land is not done yet. He went back to Crown Lands and said I still need that meeting because they won't talk to him. We can't talk to you, and they told you what to do.

You can't get to talk to nobody – can't get to talk to nobody, but one department is saying you can't do this. Another department is saying, well you got to get them to approve it. They're saying we're not approving until they approve it. That's the kind of frustration.

I'll give you another good example. There's one case I've been working on for years. It's simple, they want a cabin. They put in the application. It was denied because it's a wetland. The Department of Environment here in St. John's said it's a wetland.

There was a policy between the Department of Environment and Crown Lands that you would send a person out to look at it because they don't have the personnel to do it in Corner Brook. That was fine. They said, no, we're not going to follow the policy.

I go out there a lot. I went out and took pictures. In their map where they got the cabin, it's not even the right cabin. It's not even the right cabin. It's not even in the right area and the map they're talking about is 1945. That's the kind of frustration for people. I can't get no one from Crown Lands to go out and look at the land – you don't have to look at it, you can walk up to it. I got pictures.

On the land that's supposed to be a wetland, I went out and took a picture. I go in there on my mountain bike, I took a picture – all trees. Over by that wall, there's another cabin; down there, where the Speaker is at, there's another cabin, but they're saying this cabin here is in a wetland. They already approved about five in the same area. The size of this House of Assembly, there are at least two or three approved, but they're saying this one here, who's right here, right in the same area, is a wetland. They won't go out to say, b'ys there's a mistake on the map, the 1945 map.

That's the kind of frustrations people get. I even had frustrations from people with them putting in an application – refused. They come back and say, nope, refused again. I said, why was it refused? It's because the city had to go through it. I said, no, that's the wrong application, here's the application. Sure enough, misunderstanding. It took two years to clear that up – two years to clear it up that they're refusing, and you can't get to speak to nobody. That's the most frustrating part for any of this is you can't get to speak to anybody.

I think the Member for Terra Nova mentioned seniors, a lot of those seniors who are trying to get their house straightened up, their land straightened up because they might want to move into a home, or they might want to pass it down to the kids, they got to go online. They don't even have a computer. They got to go online to book an appointment, instead of saying, okay, how can someone help us.

Crown Lands is not a service organization anymore, it's really not. I don't know if it's a direction from – well, it has to come from government, it has to. When you have to up there and you can't see anybody, you can't speak to anybody, you have to go back out of the office and go online to book an appointment. It may take five or six weeks.

Here's the other thing that many people brought to my attention, when you make an appointment, you go up and visit, oh no, you have the wrong person, you have to go back and make another appointment. Here's who you have to speak to in the department. Well, can you go get them? Oh no, you have to go back and make another appointment. This is on a regular basis.

Why we don't bring this legislation to this House of Assembly amazes me. It's so frustrating for people.

Just think, you're 75 years old, you may move on to a seniors' home, something may happen to you. You want to leave your land and your house that you lived there for 50 or 60 years to your wife. All of a sudden, you say, my God, I can't let her have that mess and trying to clean up Crown land that you lived on in a house for 50 years. The lady wants it straightened up because if she passes away, she doesn't want to leave the mess to her husband. The husband doesn't want to leave the mess to the wife. And they can't get it straightened out – living in a house for over 50 years.

I've been dealing with one in Corner Brook. Here it is, I don't know how many houses, a hundred houses, and this guy said, okay, I'm going to get it straightened up. I'm moving up in life, I'm getting it straightened up. It's in the Corner Brook area, it's right in Corner Brook proper. He went to Crown Lands and they said, no, we have no deeds that it was ever signed over back in 1902. They had it where it was done. No, you can't get it. So he had to go hire a lawyer to get it straightened up. Crown Lands still won't accept it – still won't. There's about a hundred there and he's scared to talk about it around because everybody would go: Is our land part of that? Are we part of that?

A house that's been there, the earliest notification that the house was built was in 1947 and still can't get it straightened up. When the City of Corner Brook amalgamated with the four regions, Curling, Humbermouth, Humber Heights and Townsite, they were paying taxes then in 1956, paying taxes to the City of Corner Brook because they owned the land. There's proof that they owned the land, but you can't get it cleared up at Crown Lands that yes, here's the tax bill. Can't do it. That's the frustration.

I know the minister is now here, and the part that we all hear about the GH2, one of the biggest concerns they had out in Port au Port – and this is not for or against the windmills, this is not – is that a lot of people had their houses, their great-grandfather built the house there, their grandfather and their father, they lived in the house. So when GH2 was going out and putting up windmills, they just went on the Crown Lands' map and said, okay, where's Crown land, and they started plunking down sites where they're going to put the windmills.

You go along the road and there are about 25 or 30 right on people's houses. Now, the houses have been there 70 or 80 years but you can't get it straightened up, you just can't.

Crown Lands definitely needs some direction on what has got to be done. They have got to have some direction. I know the minister, last week, I think, said that anybody who has any concerns, come ahead and show them to me. I'm waiting.

I wrote the minister and said, I've got a lot of concerns, I want a meeting. I'll give you some good concerns – not only concerns, I'll give you documentation. I'll give you documentation where there are issues that should be resolved that's not resolved. That's the frustration.

I don't know about St. John's, but anywhere in rural Newfoundland, I guarantee you, you're getting calls about Crown land. The biggest problem I got with it is that even when you present the documentation, even when you go to the steps of getting affidavits, even when you go through the steps when the house was built, you've still got to get a lawyer to get involved to get it done for you.

Because what could happen – I don't know if people realize this – when you go to court, imagine how frustrating this is, imagine how somebody trying to get their land straightened up, goes out and gets affidavits, goes out and shows that the land was used before '56, you've got to get a lawyer, then go to the court, get the court to say, okay, I want this application approved. You don't know until you walk in the court if Crown Lands is going to object to it.

So you've got to go through this whole process, walk into court, the lawyer has got to be prepared, that means you've got to pay him to be prepared. Crown Lands may say, we object to that. Okay, they object. Now, you have got to go up and wait again, go to court again to get the land. Now some they may not. They say we're not going to object to that, give them the land. You don't even know.

Can you imagine a senior going to court, trying to prove his house was there in the '50s and someone saying no, we're going to object. You've got to go back to court, a senior, 75, 80 years old trying to get his land straightened out.

It has to be fixed, government. It has to be fixed because there were commitments made to bring legislation back. It wasn't done. This has to be fixed.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. the Member for Exploits to close debate.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It's been a great debate, actually, and I'm glad to see – I think, for the most part, we've got all the Members in this House of Assembly, the ones that spoke anyway, that are in approval with this PMR. That's the way I take it. I certainly appreciate their discussions on it, and I'll just mention a few. Members have provided lots of examples where the legislation needs to be changed, should be changed and can be changed, when it comes to that.

First of all, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, I appreciate the comments there. I thought he was talking about me when he said a piece of work –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

P. FORSEY: – until he put good in front of it and then I knew he was talking about the PMR. But he also agreed with the PMR and he realizes that we need to bring in legislation to relieve some of the stress off the Crown lands issues.

The Member for Bonavista came up with some other good points. He said the settlements in his district are owned by Crown Lands, and that's true, archaic registration. So there are lots of changes need to be done. He gave the examples there and quotes, I must say, in his district, and I appreciate those comments.

The Member for Lake Melville: We need to get on with action for Crown lands. So that's an approval. Member for Stephenville - Port au Port: We need to get this resolved and we'll stay as long as it takes to get it resolved and reduce the red tape, especially on Crown lands. And we will do exactly that.

The Member for Corner Brook mentioned that the Lands Act is open, notorious, exclusive and consecutive – I always thought that it was continuous – but he would know, so I'll still say it's continuous. After 53 years, someone on that land should meet these points. But legislation interferes, so that's where that stands.

The Member for Labrador West, of course, agrees that changes need to be made, and he talked of his grandfather and it took years and years just to fix up their land. So that's another example of the situation that we're in. The Member for Placentia - Bellevue spoke of the churches being in the same precarious situations. So everybody is feeling it, every organization, every group, every church feels this situation with Crown lands. It's not just our issues that we want to bring forward, we're listening to the people of the province and bringing their issues forward, and we'd like to see some changes.

The Member for Harbour Main discussed the fair reconciliation; all she's asking is to bring in legislation so that we can do fair reconciliation and we can resolve those situations. She referred to how quick legislation can be produced. So it can be done and we can bring in fair resolutions.

The Member for Ferryland mentioned the resident in his district. The resident offered to buy back his own property for all those years for $94,000. There are certainly changes that have to be made there. The Member for Terra Nova, again, referenced how quickly this legislation can be changed and gave examples of how quickly it can be solved. With regard to bringing in legislation, it doesn't take nine years to bring in legislation.

That's some of the statements that I heard. I think there is no longer anymore reason to debate it, no longer than that. It's just that we need to bring in the legislation. We need the legislation brought into this House of Assembly to bring the legislation up to date and to have this fixed.

We understand it's successive governments but, in 2015, there was a review that was done and it was not adopted. So let's get it done, it can be done, it should be done and we'll stay until it's done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

The resolution has carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER: This House do stand in recess until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin, we have a number of guests here today.

In the Speaker's gallery, I would like to welcome Lin Paddock, Member-Elect for the District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: In the public gallery, I'd like to welcome athletes from the Paradise Warrior Elite Kickboxing Club, who will be recognized this afternoon in a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also in the public gallery and visiting us today for a Member's statement are the friends and family of Mr. Harry Stone.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Welcome to Chase Marrie, youth representative for the District of Topsail - Paradise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: He re this afternoon for a Ministerial Statement, I would like to recognize representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission, Executive Director Carey Majid, K.C. and Legal Counsel Hillary Winter.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Before we move on, I would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Member for St. John's Centre on May 16, in accordance with Standing Order 49.

The Member for St. John's Centre stated that the Minister for Housing, in response to a question during Question Period, used unparliamentary language when he stated that: the Minister of Housing chooses to characterize what I'm saying as misinformation, which is tantamount to basically saying I'm lying or that I am misleading.

The matter was taken under advisement at that time. I have now had the opportunity to review Hansard and I note that the minister, in responding to the Member's question, stated the following: The misinformation that he is continuing to spread about the situation with Housing.

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker considers the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking. The Speaker also considers, too, the person to whom the words were directed, the degree of provocation and whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.

I note that in today's society, we often hear the terms misinformation and disinformation used. The dictionary

definitions distinguish these two terms based on intent. While disinformation is deliberately false or misleading information; misinformation refers to information that is inaccurate but that is provided without an intention to share inaccurate information.

What constitutes misinformation, or what is accurate or inaccurate is not a matter for the Speaker to determine. It is a difference of opinion from two hon. Members. After consideration, I find that there is no point of order.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Terra Nova, Torngat Mountains, St. John's Centre, Topsail - Paradise and Cartwright- L'Anse au Clair with leave.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

After 10 years and a lot of work by some amazing groups and individuals, the Lionel Kelland Hospice received its first resident last month.

A vision that started from three true humanitarians, Ken Dicks, Dr. Jeff Cole and Dr. John Campbell, is now a reality. This would not have been possible without the help of so many, including present and past board members, the complete fundraising team and our community and regional support.

This year the Hike for Hospice will take place from June 9 to June 15 and I encourage everyone to take part.

A couple of weeks ago, we had the opportunity to witness what community hospice care was all about. On May 17, a resident was treated to a Side-by-Side ride across the Exploits River and into one of his favourite spots. There he enjoyed his favourite food and a big old boil up of tea. That is true purpose of the first Newfoundland and Labrador community hospice.

I want to thank all the staff and volunteers for their tremendous work, including Dr. John Campbell, for putting his heart and soul into making sure their last moments truly matter.

Congratulations to the Lionel Kelland Hospice, a place we can all be proud of.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to congratulate the winners of the annual Poppy and Remembrance Day Poster and Literacy contest sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion.

The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 41 in Eastport is very active in the school community within the region from Greenspond to Eastport. There are seven schools in the region that participate in this event. Entries are first judged at the branch level, these winners advance to the provincials and the provincial winners advancing to the national competition.

I would like to congratulate our provincial winners: Avery Squires, St. Gabriel's school in St. Brendan's, first place in the Primary Colour Poster category; Lily Briffett, Glovertown Academy in Glovertown, first place in the Intermediate Colour Poster category; Jaida Burry, Holy Cross School in Eastport, second place in the Black and White Poster category; and a huge congratulations to Alexa Sturge and Mackenzie Quinonez of Smallwood Academy, who were selected to travel to France and Belgium for the 2024 Trail of the Caribou, after being national champions in the annual poppy Remembrance Day Competition, an experience of a lifetime.

Please join me in congratulating all those who took part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Maria Merkuratsuk, born in Nain Nunatsiavut, spends her life out on the land. “I've been going out on the land since I was a baby. Even before I was born, when I was in my mom's belly, I was going north. I'm so grateful I grew up out on the land.”

A strong Inuk woman, faithful daughter, sister, mother, grandmother, Maria was always an old soul, speaking and living the olden ways, even as a child. Maria has come full circle. Now an Elder, herself, Maria continues to spend her life teaching , educating others, especially our youth, about the ways of the land to hunt and gather food. She teaches traditional clothing making and she shares Inuktitut words that could be lost if not spoken.

Maria speaks of protecting the land and vocalizes the harm of climate change that's impacting the traditional knowledge and learning. She's invited to speak at international conferences. Her published book, Feeling at Home out on the Land , teaches our youth.

She was just awarded the very first annual Nunatsiavut Government's Cultural Preservations Recognition Award which acknowledges individuals who strive to keep the Inuit culture alive.

We trust Maria's voice and we are so proud the world, too, values Maria's wisdom.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Speaker, on Saturday, April 6, our province lost a great man with the passing of Harry Stone. Harry was a beloved husband, a father, a grandfather, community builder, activist and friend of many.

He was a strong supporter of the local arts community, hosting legendary gatherings with his wife Pat at their home on Barnes Road, featuring up-and-coming artists. He was a vocal advocate for social justice and a lifelong member of the New Democratic Party.

Harry served on the board of directors of the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador and Wonderbolt Productions. He purchased a truck for others to use, whether filming a movie or moving house. He was known in activist circles and within our party as someone to seek out for counsel in good times and bad. His charm, quick wit and lifelong experience provided him with a clarity of perspective that is hard to find.

Though Harry enjoyed success in many aspects of this life, including a successful career in real estate, he would be the first to tell you his greatest achievement was his family. Harry remained humble in his success and never lost sight of the plight of our most vulnerable. His example inspired us all.

Please join me in extending our gratitude for his presence on this earth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador kickboxers found plenty of success in the ring at the recent World Association of Kickboxing Organization's National Kickboxing Championship held in Niagara Falls this past month.

Ten athletes, all from Paradise Warrior Elite Kickboxing Club, competed in 14 divisions: Isabelle Quinton came home a 2 division national champion; Leah Quinton came home with a silver and bronze medal; Amanda Roberts, two bronze medals; Karla Peters, a silver medal; Annabelle King, a bronze medal; Anna Snow, two silver medals; Braden Evans, a bronze medal; Caden Stock, 2 division national champion; Daniel Seymour, silver medal; Fred Holloway, owner and operation of Warrior Elite, brought home a bronze medal

The Warrior team was also named the most supportive club outside of Ontario. On top of that, Caden Stock, Braden Evans, Anna Snow, Isabelle Quinton and Leah Quinton all earned their spot on the national team that are heading to the 2024 WAKO World Junior Championships in Budapest, Hungary in August as part of Team Canada.

I can tell by the sounds next door to my office in Topsail - Paradise that this group continues to work very hard. I hope the gyprock holds out.

Speaker, it is my honour to congratulate all their accomplishments and wish these amazing athletes continued success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, with leave.

Does the Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you.

Speaker, I stand to recognize the achievements of Aidan Sampson, a student at St. Lewis Academy, who has a bright future ahead of him.

Aidan is the very first Labradorian to be selected as a Loran Scholar. He was one of 90 finalists selected from 5,000 applications and one of only 36 from right across this large country to receive a scholarship.

Loran Scholars receive financial support for undergrad studies to the tune of $100,000. They benefit from a leadership enrichment program, experiential learning, mentorship and a lifelong, supportive community.

Aidan Sampson is deserving of this incredible honour. He received praise for his enthusiasm, leadership qualities and a commitment to looking beyond his personal goals. Aidan is also a shining example of the quality education students are receiving in rural areas.

With an enrolment of fewer than 20 students, St. Lewis Academy has dedicated teachers, and students benefit from the unwavering support of parents and the community.

This young, Indigenous student has succeeded in working hard, reaching for the top and pushing boundaries. The sky is the limit from here.

On behalf of all Labradorians, Aidan, you have made us all so very proud.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker, I rise today to share my commitment to preserving the history and contributions of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the First World War.

On Monday, I addressed this hon. House, sharing the emotional journey to France to bring Newfoundland and Labrador's son home.

Speaker, while overseas, I found myself reflecting on the sheer magnitude of the experience. I found myself wishing that we could do more to ensure the sacrifices made on the battlefields of Northern France and Belgium over 100 years ago are never forgotten.

Each year, approximately 30 students participate in the Trail of the Caribou Pilgrimage, a partnership between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Royal Canadian Legion Newfoundland and Labrador Command and the Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. This includes Remembrance ceremonies at the five caribou monuments in Northern France and Belgium, including a very emotional July 1 ceremony at the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial.

Speaker, I'm proud to say that beginning in 2025, we intend to expand that program to allow 100 Newfoundland and Labrador students to travel overseas for this life-changing experience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: So, Speaker, we will, indeed, do more. We will do our best to ensure that they are never forgotten. That their names continue to be spoken and their memories honoured.

Lest we forget and God guard thee, Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement.

I join him and my colleague from Terra Nova who spoke on Monday in marking the arrival of our Unknown Soldier back home to Newfoundland and Labrador.

All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are looking forward to July 1st, Memorial Day, when this young man can be laid to rest and honoured at the National War Memorial on behalf of all those who have fallen and rest overseas, not far from the battlefields, where they so tragically and heroically sacrificed their lives.

It is vitally important that we keep their memory alive by sending students each year to participate in the Trail of the Caribou pilgrimage.

We commend the government; the Royal Canadian Legion, Newfoundland and Labrador Command; and the Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador for making this possible. For every student the experience is life-changing and unforgettable. Expanding the number of students who can participate to 100 starting in 2025 is a wonderful initiative.

I wish every young Newfoundlander and Labradorian had the opportunity to visit. Many find familiar names and similar ages among those who gave their lives and it resonates immediately with them. They understand that those soldiers hail from their own communities and many others across Newfoundland and Labrador and sail to war to keep war from coming to our shores.

Many of these young students may choose to step into service in their own time. Others will go on to lead in other ways, but all of them will be changed by the experience and do whatever they can to keep the memory of those who served alive.

We also thank the people of Europe for sharing the preservation of our caribou monuments. They remember our soldiers for the gift of peace they were given through the sacrifice of our citizens. They welcome and honour our students because they appreciate the price that young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, just like them, paid for their own freedom.

They will never forget, and neither shall we. Where once they stood, we will always stand.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement.

In a cemetery in Belgium lies George Toomashie, an Inuk man from Labrador, my wife's great-great-uncle. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to continue to repeat it. That is why we commend the decision to expand the student ambassador program.

In commemorating the sacrifices made by previous generations, it is all our hope that the next generation will champion the causes of peace, freedom and democracy for all the people of this world. Let us all work together to build a better world for everyone here.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission.

Everyone has the right to a life of equality, dignity and respect.

In the late 1960s, our province passed its first human rights code, joining a generational movement as Canada led the world in the advancement of human rights. The code made us the first Canadian jurisdiction to prohibit discrimination based on political opinion and the second to ban sex discrimination in the workplace. In 1974, legislation was passed to create a permanent provincial Human Rights Commission to administer this code.

Since then, the Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador has championed an impactful mandate that includes resolving complaints, educating the public, raising issues of public importance and working closely with community partners.

The work of the commission benefits all of us, and I urge everyone who feels discriminated against to reach out for guidance and for support. For information and updates on events marking this anniversary, visit thinkhumanrights.ca. The staff are truly a great resource and strive to make our province a more inclusive place to live.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission on its 50th anniversary and thank its staff, past and present, including Carey Majid and Hillary Winter, for their contributions to our entire province.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I rise today to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission. It is important to reflect on the progressive steps taken in the late 1960s when our province passed its inaugural human rights code, being the first Canadian jurisdiction to outlaw discrimination based on political opinion and the second to prohibit sex discrimination in the workplace, it showcased our pioneering spirit in fostering inclusivity and fairness.

The establishment of a permanent provincial Human Rights Commission in 1974 laid the groundwork for advocates and staff to resolve grievances, educate the public and amplify issues of social importance.

I was privileged to be legal counsel at the Newfoundland Human Rights Commission for five years. I had the privilege to work alongside a team of dedicated professionals. I can speak first-hand as to the commitment and the resolve of the Human Rights Commission to advance and to protect human rights of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement.

We celebrate the 50-year advocacy of the Human Rights Commission. We believe in everyone's right to a life of equality, dignity and respect. The Human Rights Commission plays a critical role to ensure these rights are not denied. We, too, echo the calls of this government for people to reach out when facing discrimination including those living through the housing crisis.

We, the NDP, are clear in our belief that every human right is important.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statement by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

Newfoundland and Labrador has led the formation of a country-wide coalition of provinces and territories of all political stripes to reverse these federal cuts.

Thirteen provincial and territorial premiers, rallied by our Premier, have persistently informed the prime minister that these cuts are ill-advised and must be reversed.

Newfoundland and Labrador has led a united effort of every labour market minister in the country to fight back. Collectively, we have demanded an urgent, emergency, in-person meeting with the federal employment minister, but the federal minister has yet to acquiesce. Federal Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault has, however, acknowledged to the Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration, in my presence and the presence of 12 other ministers, that the federal budget was flawed and should not have included the cuts.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has lost $16.8 million annually to support our people. We stand by those whom these funds supported. I should note, the bulk of these funds are not derived from federal revenues. They are deployed from the employment insurance account. They come from Newfoundland and Labrador workers and should be given back to Newfoundland and Labrador workers. It's our money. It's the workers' money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

G. BYRNE: We have already taken action to stabilize services to the vulnerable and will work within our means to ensure continuity of services. We stand with them.

While I fault the federal government directly, I take with concern the knowledge that not one question has been asked of the federal government about its impact or its lack of wisdom by either federal political opposition parties. Neither the federal NDP nor the Conservative Party have drawn any attention to this issue on the floor of the House of Commons.

Provinces and territories have taken a united position that backfilling federal cuts by raising provincial taxes is not the best answer. The money is already being collected from us but is being denied to us. The right solution is for Ottawa to give the workers' money back to workers.

I ask all Members of this House to stand in unison, in solidarity, with the same position taken by every Liberal, Progressive Conservative and NDP provincial government in this country. I ask for the ability to communicate to our provincial and territorial colleagues and, most importantly to Ottawa, that we as a Legislature demand these national cuts to worker supports be reversed.

I ask if we stand united on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Speaker, the federal cuts to the labour market transfer agreements is a terrible decision by the government to rein in spending by impacting programs that assist some of the most vulnerable in Canada.

The wonderful work that supportive employment organizations throughout this province conduct and the impacts that they have on many people's lives cannot become a fight with Ottawa. We believe that those partaking in these programs should not live in anxiety, wondering what will happen beyond six months. Organizations need to begin planning for the next year and the hundreds benefiting from the programs deserve peace of mind.

In the absence of this federal government top-up, it is contingent on our Liberal government to assure that the program continues throughout the lobby for restoration of funding with your federal Liberal cousins.

I state the obvious when I say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: – there is too much at risk here for politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

As we said in our press release this morning, this government did not have a backup plan. It is very typical; even thought they knew about this funding cut for months.

We absolutely support the fight with Ottawa, but unlike the minister, we are not willing to play a game of chicken with the federal government and jeopardize the future of people who depend on the supportive employment program.

We, too, call on the minister to commit to funding, not just for six months, but at least until the end of the fiscal y