PDF Version

September 17, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 46

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Are the House leaders ready?

Government House Leader ready?

Opposition House Leader ready? Yes.

Third

Party House Leader ready? Yes.

The

independents ready?

Okay.

Admit

strangers.

Order,

please!

Okay,

we're going to open the broadcast now.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today, we have Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Lake Melville,

Stephenville - Port au Port, Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Labrador West,

St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

The hon.

the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

pleased to advise that Muriel Andersen has just made a wish and blown out the

candles on her birthday cake, and she did it in typical independent style – all

on her own. She also raised her six children on her own, in Makkovik, as her

husband had passed away at a young age.

The

respect for her determination is such that she is known across Labrador as Big

Gram or Aunt Mu.

Born

before the 1918 pandemic, she grew up feeling the devastating effects of that

outbreak. She is now living through another at the long-term facility in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. Usually, members of her family and friends gather to celebrate

with this remarkable woman on her birthday. I have attended previous events

bringing greetings and, most importantly, her favourite – root beer. While

visits in recent months have been limited, she continues with her positive

outlook and infectious smile.

Ms.

Andersen has also shaped the composition of this House of Assembly, having been

the mother or grandmother of three MHAs, including the present Member for

Torngat Mountains.

therefore ask all my colleague in this Legislature to congratulate Muriel

Andersen on her 103rd birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

local food bank had closed due to COVID-19. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Council

3742 took on emergency food distribution in our community. At the height of the

pandemic, they saw a need and, without hesitation, created an efficient and

effective drive-through food distribution operation.

This

small team – Clyde Russell, Bob Miller, Conrad Benoit, Joe Eckert, Paul Kane,

Garfield Jesso and Tom O'Gorman – assumed responsibility for fundraising,

financial accounting, food ordering, donations, publicity and the safe operation

of the program. The team expanded the service to the Bay St. George area, where

food banks had also closed.

The team

networked regularly with a wide range of community partners and sponsors,

including Rotary, Town of Stephenville, Royal Canadian Legion, St. Stephen's

Parish, the Lions Club, Bay St. George Status of Women Council, Stephenville

emergency services, Food First NL and others. Throughout, our Food for Families

Program received outstanding community support with individual donations both

large and small.

Starting

April 17, the program ran for 12 weeks, served 572 families, distributed 13,500

pounds of food, costing $32,000. Volunteers expended 876 man-hours. This is a

prime example of community-minded people and organizations filling a critical

need in times of crisis.

I would

like all Members of the House to congratulate this wonderful group of volunteers

and all the people involved with this program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

acknowledge a leader from my district who, for his entire adult life, devoted

his life to the spiritually, socially, educationally and physically well-being

of our provinces citizens. I speak of Archdeacon Ron Lee, who in his 86th year

is still a very active citizen in our province.

From his

days as a young boy fishing in Petty Harbour to travelling the province as an

employee working on the Newfie Bullet, to travelling the Coast of Labrador

aboard the Kyle as an educator,

Reverend Ron Lee has been a pillar of strength and guidance, not only for the

parishes he served in, which number in the dozens, but for every other citizen

of those communities.

He has

been a leader in serving the people of our province in Labrador, the West Coast,

South Coast and Central Newfoundland, but it was the leadership role he took

after returning from retirement to serve the people of Bell Island as the

Anglican minister that I got to call him a friend.

Ron not

only was a major part of the building of a new church in the community, but was

a driving force in promoting inclusion of all citizens through the church's

outreach centre. Never one to shy away from making his views known, Ron would

look beyond the religious boundaries to ensure that all citizens' issues were

addressed on the island.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking Archdeacon Ron Lee for his dedication and

service to the people of Bell Island, and our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I

recognize Peter Blackmore, an outstanding member of our community who has

dedicated his life to spreading kindness and generosity in any way he can.

Peter is

known for his love of fishing and is a pro at catching ouanancihe. Recently,

Peter was gifted fly-tying supplies from the family of a community member who

had passed away. Peter saw this as an opportunity to give back to the community.

He tied salmon and trout flies for a pay-what-you-can donation and all proceeds

would go to the Janeway Children's Hospital. His original goal was to raise

$500.

One day

he ran into a friend who told Peter about the birth of his son. Peter's friend

expressed that he was forever thankful that his son, who is now living a healthy

life, thanks to the role the Janeway Children's Hospital plays in the lives of

the people of this province. Hearing this, Peter decided he would do more. To

date, he has raised over $3,000.

Today, I

would like to acknowledge Peter Blackmore. I encourage all Members of this hon.

House to join me in recognizing his kindness and generosity and thank him for

his dedication to Labrador West and the greater community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I

honour a gentleman in my district who has been bestowed the Newfoundland and

Labrador Award for Bravery, Mr. Gary Briffett.

August 15, 2015, three children were playing on a raft on Terra Nova Lake. Wind

took the raft to the center of the lake. Two children were able to get back to

shore. One child, Jenna Phillips, was thrown into the lake and managed to hold

on to the raft for a little while.

People

on the shore were unable to get to the raft. An onlooker, Nelson Rose, had

noticed a WaveRunner on the beach in front of Mr. Briffett's cabin and went

directly there to ask for assistance. They launched the WaveRunner and raced to

the area of the incident.

By this

time Jenna had released her hold on the raft.

Mr.

Briffett jumped into the water and secured Jenna to his life-saving vest. Due to

the high winds, the WaveRunner overturned, sending them back into the lake.

Eventually they were able to get control of the WaveRunner and were able to get

back to safety.

I ask

the House of Assembly to join me today in giving Mr. Briffett a round of

applause for his heroism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to acknowledge in this hon. House a gentleman who has dedicated his life to

sport in this province.

Carl

Lake has been a pillar in our provincial sporting scene since his early days as

a ballboy at St. Pat's Ball Park in St. John's in the late 1950s. After a brief

tenure as a player, Carl found his true love on the baseball field in 1967 when

he began umpiring games. From that point onward he became a fixture at St.

Pat's, either behind home plate or on the bases.

Local

games, provincial contests or national championships, Carl has been umpiring

baseball games in this province for 53 years. And on September 1, Carl

officiated his final contest at his beloved St. Pat's Ball Park.

Inducted

in 2006 as a builder in Baseball Newfoundland and Labrador's Hall of Fame, Carl

recently told the local media St. Pat's was his heaven. We should all be blessed

with Carl's advocacy for baseball and provincial sports in general, through his

time with local media and on his own website, SportspageNL.ca – please check it

out; it's a gem for local sports in our community.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating my friend Mr. Carl Lake on 53

years of dedication to the sport of baseball and for his continuous promotion of

local sports in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in congratulating

and thanking Carl Lake on his contributions to local sports.

Mr.

Speaker, Carl Lake is a pillar of the sporting community in this province. His

love and passion for all sports, especially baseball, has inspired many. Mr.

Lake recently retired after 53 years as an umpire in the province's baseball

community. I know players, coaches, fans and sports organizers will miss his

dedication and professionalism on the baseball diamonds.

Mr. Lake

has spent his life promoting local sport; thus, I believe it would be suiting to

take this opportunity to encourage all residents of the province to also support

local and amateur sport. From the soccer field to the hockey rink to Mr. Lake's

home on the baseball diamond, we should all follow his lead to encourage

volunteers and cheer on athletes whenever possible.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Congratulations to Mr. Lake on his contribution to sports in the province. His

long career and commitment to the sport are admirable. He's an inspiration to

all athletes and umpires and I am delighted to know that the little bit of

heaven that is St. Pat's exists in St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker, and play ball.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, today I acknowledge September 21 to 27 as International Week of the

Deaf.

This

occasion is celebrated by deaf communities around the world – individuals who

are deaf and hard of hearing and who share a common visual language. In Canada,

Mr. Speaker, that language is American Sign Language.

Newfoundland and Labrador deaf culture and American Sign Language enrich our

province's colourful personality. As Minister Responsible for the Status of

Persons with Disabilities, I am pleased to see this year's theme is “Reaffirming

Deaf People's Human Rights.”

Our

government recognizes that accessible communication is paramount in ensuring a

fully inclusive province where all citizens have equitable access to information

and opportunity. Access to sign language and services in sign language are

critical to the full realization of deaf people, and our province has shown true

leadership in this area.

keeping with our commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities, which strengthens linguistic and cultural viewpoints of deaf

people, we were one of the first jurisdictions in the country to include

American Sign Language

interpretation at COVID-19 media briefings.

During

International Week of the Deaf, I invite all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

recognize the language and culture of the deaf community, as well as

accomplishments and contributions that the deaf community make throughout the

province.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in signing happy

International Week of the Deaf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and for

teaching us a little piece of the American Sign Language to celebrate this week.

As the

minister already acknowledged, September 21 to 27 is known as International Week

of the Deaf.

This

year's theme of “Reaffirming Deaf People's Human Rights” allows citizens who are

part of the deaf community to know that their rights are respected and that they

have our support and there's a good system in place for them.

The

province has made great strides to include American Sign Language in all

government media briefings. Access to government services for people with

disabilities is critical and we still need to continue to do more for this

sector that is so important to our society.

I join

the minister in inviting all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to recognize the

language, culture, contributions and accomplishments of the deaf community right

here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and join him in

recognizing September 21 to 27 as International Week of the Deaf.

Reaffirming deaf people's human rights is essential in creating an inclusive and

a just society. I compliment the government's recognition of the importance of

accessible communication and its inclusion of ASL

interpretation at COVID-19

media briefings.

With

this in mind, I call on government to go one step further and to take concrete

steps to address the systemic deficiencies outlined in the recent report by the

Child and Youth Advocate with regard to deaf education.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers.

The hon.

the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, COVID-19 has

tested the limits of small business in our province, across the country and

around the world. In the face of such challenges many local business have been

working hard to adjust – proving their resilience by pivoting in innovative ways

to continue to reach clients and serve both here and abroad. I would like to

take a moment to just highlight a few of these remarkable companies.

PolyUnity, a medical tech start-up formed by three Memorial University medical

students, has shifted its product offerings and are now using its technology to

develop personal protective face shields for front-line health care workers.

JRAS

Medical Inc. has recreated a version of its product which originally assisted

congestive heart failure patients in a clinical setting to now allow patients to

use it from home, reducing the risk of exposure to COVID at a clinic and

reducing patient load.

BioAtlantic Medical Services has recently increased its focus on automating

ventilators to help hospitals prepare for COVID-19. And TotaliQ has offered a

free version of its software aimed a sharing health and safety information

related to COVID-19.

These

are just a few examples of the adaptability of our local communities and

companies. We commend these leaders for their creativity and ingenuity to find

solutions together and adjust to our changing world. We will continue to work

with our province's innovation ecosystem.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

behalf of the Official Opposition, I thank the entrepreneurs and the innovators

in this province for acting quickly and modifying their products and responding

to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The

modifications and new products are helping people live in a COVID environment,

while the new services are helping ease service delivery for many medical

professionals. PolyUnity, JRAS Medical Inc. and BioAtlantic Medical Services are

just three examples, they are a true testament how our homegrown talent can

offer world-class needed products.

In this

COVID environment, creativity and flexibility has become a mantra of many. I'm

pleased to see our innovators leading the way.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I would

like to commend these companies for their efforts at stepping in and finding

ways to improve technology to help patients and health care workers maintain a

safe working and living environment during COVID-19. In light of the pandemic,

it's important that we increase our focus on local manufacturing solutions and

stimulate the growth of these innovative industries within our province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the

minister suggested I was not doing my job as an advocate for the offshore unless

I had written to Mr. O'Regan. Knowing as she does that writing to O'Regan is

useless, I wrote to the prime minister instead on May 28.

Would

the minister table her request for specific offshore actions, along with the

federal responses?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

This is

a very important issue to the families and to the workers offshore and, indeed,

to everyone here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We've been very focused on trying

to find solutions to this. We've written to and spoken with Minister O'Regan who

is the minister of Natural Resources, federally. We followed up with a letter in

April, which is all on our website by the way – followed up again in April; we

had multiple discussions over this period of time. We had a press conference in

May. We followed up again in June.

I'm glad

the Member finally wrote to somebody back in May, after our press conference,

but I will say while he's been focused on solutions, we've been focused – while

we've been focused on solutions, he's been focused on politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. COADY:

There's your politics again.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

It's interesting to note that my reference to writing to O'Regan being useless

didn't receive any rebuttal.

Yesterday, the Premier said every single day I phone the federal government and

hold their feet to the fire. Yet, he has no reassurance for offshore workers

worried about their jobs.

Is the

Premier getting a live person on the line or is he just getting voicemail?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks volumes to hear the laughter from the other side.

I will say, and it's been public, Minister O'Regan who is the federal minister

of Natural Resources, has said repeatedly that there will be aid coming, that

there will be solutions coming, he said that publicly. I take the man at his

word.

The

Premier has been very public in his support for the oil industry. He's been

speaking with Ottawa as well. We do anticipate something.

These

are very stressful times for workers, very stressful time for the industry. And

while we're focused on solutions, they're focused on politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

It leaves offshore workers and construction workers to wonder when this

government will stop taking Minister O'Regan at his word. Is six months long

enough? Ten months? How long?

If the

Premier calls Ottawa every day, does he brief the minister on the call and can

she update us on today's call?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much.

I'm very

pleased to have the Leader of the Opposition and the PC Party finally – finally

– involved in this file. We've been involved for the last six months working

with industry, working with unions, working with workers, trying to find

solutions.

This is

a global pandemic and a global problem for the oil and gas industry. I'm glad to

have as much support as everyone in this province coming together to try and

support the oil and gas industry and the workers.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I will say that we have been very focused on finding solutions.

They're very focused on politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

It leaves us to wonder where we are getting with these daily calls.

When the

media asked the Premier about support for the offshore, he said: That's with

Ottawa, not with me.

Is the

Premier giving up on those hard-working offshore and construction workers who

are about to lose their homes?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was

totally disingenuous. I think the people of the province understand that. Again

and again and again we have said to the Opposition – actually, we have said to

the people of the province, we've spoken with industry and we've talked to

workers. We've been working on a solution, and we've found some solutions.

Everything that we can do provincially we're doing. The Premier has said he's

looking to Ottawa for their support as well. They are a joint venture partner in

our offshore. They reap benefits of our offshore. As a matter of fact, all of

Canada does.

Again, I

say to the Member opposite, focus on the solutions like we are, not on the

politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Speaking of solutions, the

Premier's Liberal friends in Ottawa are stalling on three major files: rate

mitigation, fiscal stabilization and help for the offshore.

If the

Premier can't deliver support for the offshore, how can people trust him to

deliver anything on the other major files?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

I tell you what's really

stalled, Mr. Speaker, is their involvement on any of these major files.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

I can tell you right now, Mr.

Speaker, they have not been involved in anything to do with rate management.

They put out a plan that didn't even add up. They have not been involved in the

oil and gas industry over the last six months. And I will say this: We put out a

plan last year on rate mitigation that was very fulsome. We have met with the

federal government. The federal government came out in February of this year. We

did an announcement on the cost of service delivery. Officials all throughout

COVID have been working.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly

hear myself speak, the chirping from the other side. I guess we're getting to

them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

But, Mr. Speaker, I will say

this: On every single one of those files we're very active, we're working for

solutions and we're finding them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister

of Finance, people are listening and they're getting tired of these empty

answers, empty questions, empty promises. People need more than what they're

listening to. You're pre-paying; you're empty, empty, empty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Listen to the word, it's empty; there's nothing coming back. They're waiting for

answers.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN:

Your question, yeah, right

on.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday

evening Minister O'Regan was –

MR. SPEAKER:

Proceed.

MR. PETTEN:

– touting the federal

investment for a safe tree planting during COVID-19 and said: There have been

many priorities in the past several months. While I understand the environment

is important, I suggest the minister's time would be better spent supporting our

offshore workers.

I ask

the provincial minister: Who do you agree with, Minister, Mr. O'Regan or me?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, Mr. Speaker, I could

give a very glib one-word answer to that, but I think this debate deserves a bit

more. What I would suggest is that we continue to work for solutions on these

very crucial issues. It wasn't lost on any of us on this side about the fear

that's felt by the workers out in that sector. I know it's not lost on the

federal government and I know it's not lost on the Members opposite as well.

One

thing that I would strongly suggest is that this is a matter that's beyond

politics and if you truly want to help the situation, I would appreciate maybe

some concrete solutions or suggestions and not just the politics that's going

on.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

he agrees with me. If we're playing politics – we're trying to get answers,

we're trying to work on solutions and all we're getting back is leave it with

us, we're working on it. People are getting tired of those answers, Mr. Speaker.

The

federal Liberals are promoting tree planting and other green initiatives, but

this will not put our workers back to work, Mr. Speaker. Liberals are Liberals,

whether they're in Ottawa or in our province.

Is the

federal minister lending assistance or is he unwilling to support his own

province? Which is it, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to see that the Member opposite sounds very pro-environment when he complains

about tree planting. One thing I would say is that we continue to work on this,

continue to –

MR. PETTEN:

(Inaudible.)

MR. A. PARSONS:

You asked a question, I'll

give you an answer. Please stop chirping.

Mr.

Speaker, we're continuing to work on this, but what I can tell you is that

they're complex issues and they require complex solutions. We're working with

the operators, we're working with the federal government and we'll continue to

work on getting solutions to this.

I say to

the Members opposite: I have yet to hear during one question or one debate this

week, one simple suggestion or solution of what you would do to help fix this

problem and that we all face.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Outside

of the environment, I'm also worried about people losing their homes. Maybe the

minister and his government could share the same concern.

I say to

the minister, there's no shame in admitting you're over your head. Have you

spoken to the federal minister since his three-day Cabinet retreat, and was the

offshore even on the agenda?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, if you want to

talk about politics, we're three questions in and now they've resorted to

lobbing insults. I'll come back to the same point; these are all very complex

situations. We're all facing this together, yet I have not heard one suggestion

from the Members opposite about what they would do to fix this.

MR. PETTEN:

(Inaudible.)

MR. A. PARSONS:

The Member wants an answer,

yet he can't stop talking long enough for me to try to give him an answer.

MR. PETTEN:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

would say to the Member: I challenge you to stand up and ask the question and

say one thing you would do to help fix this situation.

MR. PETTEN:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Go ahead, ask the question –

ask the question. You know nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

You know nothing. One

solution – one. One concrete thing. What are you doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

Members to restrain themselves.

We're

going to proceed with Question Period, and I ask Members to restrain themselves

a little bit here. Members have a right to ask questions and Members have a

right to answer and be heard in doing both.

Next

question.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, there has been a concerted effort to ensure that women have jobs in

the skilled trades. With the crisis in the oil industry, jobs for women in the

industry are especially vulnerable.

What

specific plan does the minister have to ensure jobs are protected for women in

the skilled trades?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

would go back to an answer that I gave earlier in the week when I responded to

the Member because I appreciate the concerns that she's hearing from members of

her community and, certainly, I appreciate the ones that I'm hearing from

members of my community.

Right

now we need to continue working on getting a fix to this. When we talk about job

creation, we have to realize that the financial ask that has been made of this

province is simply too substantive for this province to take on. We will

continue to work to ensure that jobs are out there for the women and men of this

province, but they have to be within range of something that the province can

actually do.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, that's no answer to whether there is a plan.

At the

rally yesterday, I spoke to two women. One, she lost her job on West White Rose.

The other, who fears her job is in jeopardy.

I ask

the minister: Do these women have to worry about their future, or will you

commit to actually instituting a policy of community benefit agreements?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

would say to the Member opposite is that we have some good news. Everything you

suggested is actually already in place. There are women's work plans that form

part of these community benefits. There are women's work plans that fall under

Transportation and Infrastructure when it comes to these projects.

The fact

is that these things are already there and we'll continue to work to ensure that

women are getting these jobs.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

He asked for concrete suggestions and solutions. I've offered one. They are not

in place.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, studies prove that women have been the hardest hit by

the COVID pandemic; yet, ironically, the new Premier has made the decision to

remove the stand-alone Status of Women department.

I ask

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women: How can a decision to water

down such an important department be justified at this critical and vulnerable

time for women.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

take a little bit of exception to the question. What I'll say to the Member is

since I've been in this portfolio, the 19th of August, I've been travelling

quite a bit around this province. I have sat down with 11 of the 13 Indigenous

organizations, a number of women's centres and do you know what I heard? People

were very pleased. They recognized the intersectionalities between the Status of

Women and Indigenous women talking about important topics like missing and

murdered Indigenous women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

Just lunchtime, Mr. Speaker,

I sat down with my federal counterpart discussing gender equality.

Back to

the Member's earlier question, Mr. Speaker, when she says there is none. I was

the individual that sat down with three Atlantic ministers and Newfoundland and

Labrador was the lead on the gender equity diversity employment plans. Mr.

Speaker, we led that for our offshore and our resource-based.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a constituent who's packing up his young family and leaving the

province to find work elsewhere. My constituent worked on the West White Rose

Project but, as we all know, the project has shut down and its future is in

question. Fortunately, he found work at the fluorspar mine.

Mr.

Speaker, my constituent, a resident of this province with a young family, the

future of this province, was replaced by an out-of-the-province worker allowed

to come back under the guise of an essential worker.

Can the

minister tell me why a willing, capable resident of this province cannot find

work?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was

summoning your attention. I appreciate your patience.

This is

an important question. I cannot speak to specifics of an individual case, but if

there is a particular breach of a labour standard, if there's been a replacement

of a worker that's in contravention of labour standards, this is a matter that

can be brought forward. The specifics of this particular case on its face are

disturbing; however, we would have to identify the pure facts and examine them

on their face.

With

that said, Mr. Speaker, our initiative and our priority here in Newfoundland and

Labrador is to train Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for local jobs; that

training initiatives have been very successful. While I'm very pleased to hear

that the hon. Member's constituent was able to find alternative work, we always

want to make sure they're able to keep that employment and that they're trained

in the best possible skills to be able to do so.

If there

are specifics around this employment circumstance which need further

investigation, I would be happy to receive further information from the hon.

Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the minister did not hear what I had said. This gentleman was

replaced by an out-of-province worker.

Why is

it that we continually hear stories of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not

being able to get a job in their own province because they are replaced by

out-of-province workers? Minister, how do I convince this individual and the

thousands of others like him not to leave our province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member opposite for the great question. As the minister before me spoke, if

this is an individual case you want to discuss and take it outside this office,

I'm more than willing to talk about that.

I don't

know the qualifications of the person you're talking about. I don't know the job

that they were looking for so I can't speak to the specifics, but yesterday in

this House I did outline some numbers that showed that 95 per cent of the

projects we have ongoing in this province are being employed and worked on by

local Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Since the middle of March how many individuals

have been granted exemptions to enter Newfoundland for work?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The

travel exemption is all I can speak to. We don't have a breakdown

comprehensively of the reasons from the early days. We are collecting that now.

I can certainly go back and supply that figure.

The last

exemption figure I saw for all travellers who were allowed into the province

over the course of the entire pandemic is 16,000 or thereabouts, but I can

provide a detailed breakdown to the Member opposite without any difficulty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, of those individuals who have been granted an exemption and entered

Newfoundland for the purpose of work, how many were allowed to proceed directly

to the workplace?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Again, Mr. Speaker, that depends on the nature of the work. If they were

essential workers and deemed essential, then they are required to isolate for 14

days, with the exception of the period when they are on site. At that time, they

are required to observe COVID-19 precautions. There is an occupational health

and safety oversight and a requirement for them to do that. No one is allowed to

roam freely.

I do not

have the breakdown of those figures as to which might be essential workers. I

can certainly try and get that for him.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

I would expect if people are

entering this province to work, that the Department of Health should know where

they are – they're working alongside Newfoundlanders, Minister.

individuals are permitted to enter our province to work, I ask the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure: Where exactly are they working?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, that's a bit of

a broad question. Where would they work? It could be in the medical field, could

be in the labour field, could be knitting, could be sewing, could be cooking –

any number of areas, I'm thinking, Mr. Speaker. Unless they call me and tell

where they were reporting to exactly, I would have no idea in this world.

I trust

the Department of Health medical people that would give the proper exemptions to

the work site in which these people go, but where they actually go –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAGG:

They could be a lightkeeper,

Mr. Speaker. They could be someone who works on a boat; they could be digging a

ditch – any number of options in this province where people could come in and

work.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

I would suggest that they're

probably knitting stones for the Premier to turn.

I ask

the minister: Is he okay with the amount of carpenters that are working over in

the Corner Brook facility? Does he think that it's okay for carpenters from

Quebec to work in that facility with so many unemployed carpenters here in

Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member opposite once again for his question. We went down this road

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in which I gave a number, but this was quite specific in

the West Coast hospital. This number, as I stated yesterday – and I'll table

this; I'll actually take a picture and text it to you if you like, if you don't

want to wait for the tabled document.

The West

Coast hospital: 30,265 hours worked; 27,901 hours were worked by Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, 92 per cent. I do not have the actual breakdown of who picked

up nails or who drove in nails, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

a fairly straight-forward question so hopefully I'll get a simple answer to it.

This past February Trades NL wrote the then minister responsible for Labour

requesting a jurisdictional scan across the country to look at best practices

for Labour Relations Boards. He got a response that this would be taking place

as soon as possible.

similar letter was written to the current minister, so I ask the minister a very

simple question: when will this scan be completed? I'm just looking for a month,

one of the 12 months and perhaps a year.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

I think the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, is trying to ply me into a glib answer or

to a funny answer which I will not provide him because it is a serious, serious

issue.

What I

will say is that I respect and appreciate the hon. Member's intervention. It is

important to keep apace of best practices in other jurisdictions. In fact, I

would suggest that we do this kind of analysis on an organic or a rolling basis.

It's not meant to be a one-off.

Quite

frankly, Mr. Speaker, I'm engaged in that right away. As soon as I have a

result, rather than give a specific tombstone timeline, what I'll say to the

hon. Member in respect to the office that he holds and the service that he

provides to this House, I will share that information with him directly as soon

as it's done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

I thought it was a simple question. Even give me a quarter. If it's going to

take place in the third quarter, next year, whatever.

When

will the scan occur? Because it's apparently been happening since February.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member does catch at a disadvantage in the sense that if I

were to say that I knew the exact date of the completion of a task, then the

task would have to have already been completed. If you say that you know exactly

when a job will be done, it means that you know when the job will be finished.

I would

like to do this as soon as possible, but for me to give sort of a rhetorical

flourish of, oh, I can guarantee you it will be done by December 1, that would

disingenuous, Mr. Speaker. It will be done when it's done properly and done

right. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I will share that

information with him at its earliest opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People

are worried about their homes, their cars and their families' future. How would

you feel if you were in this situation? In almost all provinces in this country,

some level of unlocking pensions prior to the retirement eligibility has been

opened. Consultations finished September 30.

With so

many people waiting desperately for an answer, how long will it take to see

action on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

MS. STOODLEY:

Thank you very much the question.

To date,

six jurisdictions in Canada allow some form of unlocking. No provinces have made

special accommodations for COVID-19. This is a very complex issue. The last time

we did consultations, for example, most parties were not interested. Again,

we've received over 70 submissions and I look forward to receiving the

recommendations of the consultations. I'm confident then a report will come to

the House, and changes to legislation, if recommended.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, recently the Labour Relations Board accidentally sent the names of

Grieg workers who signed union cards to Grieg, and several of those workers were

let go before the vote could take place.

I ask

the Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour: Will he commit to introducing an

amendment to the Labour Relations Act

to reinstate automatic card certification, which was removed in 2014, so workers

who want to unionize are protected?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There is

an independent investigation of a potential privacy breach. I would not, as a

minister, wish to prejudge what the outcome of an officer of Parliament's

investigation would be. However, there is clear evidence of a serious situation

enough that the chairperson of the Labour Relations Board itself did indeed

provide communication of an action plan related to this incident, as well as the

Privacy Commissioner conducting an investigation.

However,

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the electronic versions of certification cards

were a COVID-19 response. As I understand it, if there is a suggestion that a

privacy breach could not have occurred if there was card certification in some

form, then I don't think the hon. Member has an awareness of the circumstances

around this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

District's May 27 report discussed at the Cabinet table. The minister replied he

didn't believe it was discussed. The report indicated the district needed three

inputs from the government to design a plan, and that a return of all students

to class would require additional staff and infrastructure.

I ask

the minister for clarification. Is he telling us that given the calls for a plan

at that time, and given that a report existed seeking government input with

significant financial implications, this report was never discussed by Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the report that

was provided, (

a) on the cover letter, (

b) on the conclusion of the report,

states very clearly that the report was intended for further dialogue, further

consultation with other stakeholders in the development of a plan. That's

exactly what happened.

The

report went to the Department of Education on May 27 and the first week of July

there was a plan introduced, Mr. Speaker, that took the wide spectrum of

possible solutions that were contained in the report and analyzed those,

consulted with stakeholders and put a plan together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

still no further ahead on that one, but considering that it specifically asked

government for input, I would assume it's one of the stakeholders: government.

I ask

the Minister of Education: Is he content that in at least one classroom in this

city, 24 students and their teacher are crammed into a poorly ventilated small,

windowless classroom with a little over 16.5 square feet per person, which I

believe is less than what is permitted by fire regulations? How is this safe?

How is this even acceptable under COVID-19 measures?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I believe the

Member, in his pursuit of asking people for pictures of unsafe conditions in

schools, was presented with this particular case. I know that he brought it to

He was

advised that the classroom had mechanical ventilation. I remember in a

conversation that the Member had with me that he was saying are windows a good

substitute for mechanical ventilation. Well, this classroom has mechanical

ventilation. It seems like he's had a change of heart, Mr. Speaker.

The

changes in the classroom and have indicated that it seems that both teachers and

students were happy with the changes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for a quick question and

quick answer.

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, Labrador West's

economy is growing. The problem is that our hydro capacity is maxed out. We need

more electricity.

The

former PC government started the third-line project then cancelled it, while

this government sat on its hands on the issue for years. This project will bring

many jobs to both construction and the mining industry.

I ask

the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology: Will he commit to the project

to help our economy grow?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question from the Member opposite. I know how passionate he is

about it because he came to my office an hour and a half early for a meeting the

other day.

saying that, we had what I thought was a really good conversation about this. He

explained to me in great detail the demands that are being faced by Lab West and

I know that I've seen them first-hand from being up there.

What I

can commit to right now is understanding more about the needs, working with the

providers and trying to do more, but I fully realize that whether it's data

centres, whether it's mining – you name it – there's great opportunity there and

we need to maximize it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Yesterday I was asked to table the report by a consultant entitled

COVID-19 Economic Response Initiative

Summary Report: Engagement

Process, Themes, and Responses . It's dated July of 2020. I did get a copy of

it to ensure that this House has a copy.

Members opposite and people around the province know, I did table earlier this

week, of course, the contingency analysis, the money that we've spent on COVID

as well. I'll be happy to put this before the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

maintenance and upkeep of the roadway through the community of Cold Brook is the

responsibility of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Sections

of the roadway have been in a deplorable condition now for over five years and

need repairs and resurfacing. Children are required to ride school buses twice

daily over the roads where sections of the paved road are actually missing.

There have been a number of close calls where vehicles have had to swerve in

order to avoid driving over a

section of roadway where the pavement is totally

missing. The residents of Cold Brook deserve better.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing, upgrading and maintaining the

paved road through the community of Cold Brook in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, we've heard a lot of discussion around school busing in different

communities and children not being able to get on the bus. I'm happy to report

that in Cold Brook, every child is able to get on the bus, the problem we have

is keeping the bus on the road. That's the problem. It's a little different

problem. In saying that, I want to thank the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure, who acknowledged the issue and my petition last time and has

agreed to look into this matter. I look forward to a favourable response.

Thank

you.

comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

Member opposite for the petition. I look forward to working with the Member to

see what we can do to rectify the situation there and other parts of the

province. Can't guarantee anything at this point, but guaranteed we'll look at

it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

petition is regarding the Route 520 roadwork. Route 520, also commonly known as

the North West River Road, has been in dire need of significant repair and

upgrading for many years. The communities of Sheshatshiu and North West River

use this road to work, shop and access health services at the Labrador Health

Centre. The road is in dire need of upgrades in various sections along the Route

In the

spring of this year, these communities were advised by Transportation and Works

that work would be tendered for this construction season. September 1, local

leaders from Lake Melville were advised that the work to be tendered this year

was cancelled.

Community leaders are extremely disappointed and feel this cancellation will

even lead to further deterioration of Route 520 of the North West River Road.

Route 520 is alive with potholes, unsafe shoulders and ruts that create the

potential to hydroplane. This leaves portions of Route 520 unsafe to travel at

various times throughout the year and commuters really are concerned for their

safety.

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to address safety concerns along Route 520, and that

these portions of roadway can be repaired and upgraded before the end of the

2020 construction season.

Going

back to petitions, why is this important? It's important for two reasons: one is

about lives and the other one is about respect, Mr. Speaker. Safety is a huge

factor. I've driven this road myself. It's really unsafe; it's riddled with

potholes, hydroplaning potential and sheets of ice. It's very hazardous.

A couple

of years ago I was driving down to North West River; I was in the passenger side

in the winter. We were driving; we weren't speeding. We hit this sheet of ice

and we actually ended up swerving and turning 360. The reason why we weren't

injured was because there was no other traffic on the road. Sheets of ice, very,

very hazardous.

It's not

just about North West River and Sheshatshiu accessing services in Goose Bay, as

this petition talks about, it's about connections. North West River and

Sheshatshiu have heavy connections to Goose Bay. These strong connections really

force people to travel back and forth on this unsafe road.

That

gets me to the second thing: the delay. This means another winter of unsafe

travel. That actually leads to respect. Why should Labradorians have to endure

unsafe travel? I'm going to use the words that were mentioned by the government,

the words: this matter is beyond politics. That was said about, what, 15 minutes

ago. You know something? The safety for our people to travel back and forth is

basically a matter that's beyond politics and something needs to be done.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure, with a reply to the petition.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

Member opposite for the petition.

Her

parting words or the shot across my bow was safety. Safety is considered to be

the number one priority in our shop, the safety of everybody who uses the roads.

The Member talked about turning around and doing a 360 or a 720 in the road.

Snow means slow, as does ice. I drove that road this year and the Member is

right, the contract was called back. The contract was cancelled because the

contract came in at almost double the price – not good value.

Mr.

Speaker, to find good value next year we're going to do more than what we

anticipated to do. We're going to bring that farther, we're going to upgrade

more of that road. It's not possible to be done this construction season and the

Member opposite would know that. We're into the middle of September now; you're

talking about a month. We cannot pull it together in a month, but we'll give

them our assurance that next construction season we plan to actually put a

tender out that would do more than was anticipated, so it will be better.

MS. EVANS:

(Inaudible.)

MR. BRAGG:

I did not heckle the Member

opposite when she was speaking. I would expect some respect. I'm glad that the

recordings did not pick up what the lady said, because it's very personal to

every

section of this highway that safety be paramount.

We know

by the memorials by the side of the road sometimes that things happen. We don't

accept all that responsibility. People have to drive to the conditions. They

have to. This year, more than ever we've seen higher speed limits than we've

ever seen before. You've seen it on the news. People need to maintain and drive

the conditions of the road, and pay attention to the conditions and the posted

speed limit.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS

many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live

qualify for busing; and

WHEREAS

policy cannot override the safety of our children;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all

elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where

safety is a primary concern.

Mr.

Speaker, I presented petitions like this many times in this House. My colleague

from Conception Bay South has done the same. My colleague from Conception Bay

East - Bell Island has done the same and others have done the same from Harbour

Main.

anything though, this whole COVID pandemic and the schooling issues – which

there are many and I do commend government on trying to deal with it, but the

busing has highlighted the importance of safe transportation to and from school.

It's also highlighted the many pressures it puts on families and their children.

gentleman was on one of the talk shows earlier this morning, from my district

actually, and spoke about the areas where there are no sidewalks. Whether it is

eight or 10 or 12 kilometres or 1.6 kilometres, safety becomes a huge issue

getting two and from school, especially in the winter months when snowbanks are

high and there is absolutely nowhere for the children to walk.

realize, talking to others who I've spoken with, that not every school zone or

school district is created equal. There are some that have well-plowed sidewalks

for getting to and from school, but there are others where the walk to school is

really treacherous and dangerous.

We've

heard the word safety in this House already today. This is hugely a safety

issue. It would be terrible if a child is injured or killed trying to get to

school. It's not just about the 1.6, it's also about the families, maybe a

single family, a family working shift work. Getting children to and from school

in a safe manner has to be paramount.

I call

on government, while we have had a great chance to look at the busing situation,

to now take a closer look at the 1.6 and the areas within this province where it

is not a nice to have but a need to have.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, individual residents, municipal leaders, including the Conception Bay

North Joint Council, have spoken to me repeatedly over the months about the

deplorable road conditions in the District of Harbour Main.

WHEREAS

the district is made up of many smaller communities and towns like Holyrood,

Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South River, North River, Roaches

Line and Makinsons who have roads in desperate need of repair and paving; and

WHEREAS

these roads see high-volume traffic flows every day and drivers can expect

potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many washed out areas along the

way;

We,

therefore, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned

call upon the House to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

immediately take the necessary steps to repair and repave these important

roadways to ensure the safety of the driving public who use them on a regular

basis.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased to hear our Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure just state a few moments ago how safety is number one priority

for him as minister. If he truly means that, then I would expect to see some

immediate action with respect to the conditions of the roads that I have

mentioned.

In the

past 15, 16 months since my election one of the biggest issues I hear about from

my constituents are the roads. Many people, motorists, residents are getting

increasingly frustrated by government's inaction to address these concerns.

Individuals are upset with any lack of real assurances to them that necessary

restoration work will be undertaken, that work will be given the priority it

deserves. It's not only individuals I hear from. I have people calling, emailing

my office, but I also hear from municipal leaders.

I have

letters upon letters, Mr. Speaker, from so many municipal leaders throughout the

district. They are very concerned. They have reached out to the previous

minister of transportation and works indicating there has been an ultimate – and

a disregard for their legitimate grievances about the roads. Members of the

Conception Bay North Joint Council have also spoken to me. They've written at

length to the minister and yet there's no action.

Mr.

Speaker, we're calling upon this government and this new minister, who claims

the number one priority is safety – let's prove it and have some work be

commenced on these deplorable roads in the District of Harbour Main.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure, with a reply.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member opposite for the petition. Safety should be number one in everyone's

mind, not just mine and the department I represent. Safety should be number one

and you should drive to the conditions of the road.

I'm sure

the hon. Member living in her district would know Route 75 this year has seen a

substantial upgrade. Ten thousand cars a day use Route 75. We are investing in

Route 75 in the Member's district.

I drive

this province; I realize the conditions of the roads. There are over 10,000

kilometres, 700 kilometres in my own district alone, Mr. Speaker. If we could do

all the roads overnight and flick our fingers like that, we would. The thing is

we are tied to budget constraints.

everybody would know, we are going to debate a budget here on the 30th of

September. At that time, you will see actually what we have in our roads budget.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the questions in Estimates. There's a five-year

Roads Plan coming out now; EngageNL, go online. I encourage everyone here, all

members of the public to get out, say your part about the condition of your

roads.

But if

you look at it, if we can do the main trunk roads, the main priority roads, you

know the roads have to come back. We need to get where the traffic is. It's

vitally important. Route 75 is vitally important to be upgraded and I'm glad

we're investing in the Member's district.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a

petition here to ensure schools are safe for the return of students in

September. In 2008, the provincial government introduced a provincial teacher

allocation model to address the educational needs of students by providing class

size caps for Grades K to 9, and additional administrative time for school

leaders. This new allocation model was to be reviewed in 2011.

Following the implementation of the class size caps, government instituted a

soft-cap policy which allowed classrooms to exceed the caps established in 2008.

Adding onto that, certainly with inclusive education, we saw the integration of

students with complex and special needs into larger classrooms with fewer

supports and we have seen certainly an awful lot of complications and challenges

that schools, teachers and students have faced.

With the

new physical distancing expectations and school classroom health and safety

protocols resulting from public health guidelines, class size and composition

matters more than ever. On July 29, Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children

recommended smaller class sizes should be a priority strategy as it will aid in

the physical distancing and reduce the potential spread of any index case.

Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to ensure

schools are safe for the return of students in September. I understand that the

NLTA has a similar petition with over some 12,000 signatures on it and I'll

present both to the minister at the end of this.

I will

say that there's a concern that I've heard from parents and teachers alike – I

heard it yesterday on Cross Talk –

with regards to the safety of schools at this point in time. I will again go and

say to the minister the measures and the investment of computers, of the extra

teachers and all these things are welcome. They are a good start but one of the

key things that need to be addressed, Mr. Speaker, is clearly the whole notion

of class size. It's creating significant challenges in our schools at this point

in time.

The 2016

budget saw the introduction of combined grades, but it also swelled the size of

single-stream classes. So we do have issues in this school year that are

basically coming down to the inability to physically distance. We do need the

resources to make them safe and I'll give you one clear example: not only

allocation but the allocation of resources. In one school in this city – and

I've spoke to the administration – 700 children, eight wings, four floors, a

gymnasium, they have one cleaner on from 7 in the morning to 3 in the night who

is expected to make sure all the high-touch surfaces are clean. It's impossible.

That's in addition to other equipment.

What is

definitely needed here is that while we've made a good start, Mr. Speaker,

certainly we need to address these issues in a lot more detail to make sure that

they continue to be safe.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education with a reply to the petition.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Member would know, under the Education

Action Plan that this province brought in, the accumulated numbers of

additional units in school this year are 343. That includes 200 teacher learning

assistants, 104 reading specialists and 39 reading resource teachers. In

addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we've had the 25 additional guidance counsellors,

the 15 administrators and the 10 teaching positions dedicated to virtual

learning, as well as the term contracts for the 70 substitute teachers.

In terms

of having schools open safe, there have been safeguards put in place in

high-traffic areas: the additional disinfection materials, cleaning supplies and

so on, as well as cleaning supplies being provided to busing contractors. The

staff.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of other things that have been put in place, such as

the occupational health and safety resources that we put in place this year for

the safety of the people working within our school systems, as well as public

health nursing positions.

Mr.

Speaker, we've put a number of additional resources in place this year, over and

above the 343 additional positions that are in place as a result of the

Education Action Plan.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3, second reading of Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

MS. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, that Bill 41,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act, be now read a second time.

Motion,

seconding reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act.”

(Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 41 entitled,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act, be now read a

second time.

The hon.

the Minister.

MR. STOODLEY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today,

I'm going to chat about the amendments to Bill 41,

An Act to Amend the Insurance

Contracts Act. It's a relatively short bill, two pages, but very important to

protect residents of the province.

As I'm

sure we all know, insurance is kind of a complex financial instrument. When you

buy insurance, particularly home insurance, you're really buying a claims

experience, really. It's not like a coffee that you have or a car that you drive

around, sometimes when you buy insurance it's all about the price. You don't

really look at all the nuances of what you're getting. It's very complex, even

for people who know what they're talking about; very complicated, especially

when you get into tenant and home insurance, all the policies and deductibles

and riders. I feel like you need an education to really understand it.

Most

people, also, do not read their insurance contracts. I, having worked in

insurance, also did not read my insurance contract. Even if you do read your

insurance contract, it's hard to understand exactly what you're buying and you

can't really compare apples to apples. It's not easy.

Digital Government and Service NL, it's our responsibility to help protect

consumers, particularly when they're buying financial services products such as

insurance. We're here today to talk about the

Insurance Contracts Act which governs

Every

day people in Newfoundland and Labrador buy insurance from insurance companies

and brokers to help ensure a degree of protection and for remuneration should

situations out of their control arise. Again, this is a form of protection

against a possible risk. Specifically, when we're talking about home insurance

and tenant insurance, these are not mandatory unlike auto insurance. The

transaction you're buying is when you have that you're protected and then you're

compensated for your loss if you have a flood or your house burns down or

depending on the limitations in your policy.

In the

past, we've seen insurance contracts that contain an intentional act exclusion.

This means an insured person may not recover for any loss arising from their own

intentional or criminal act. In this instance, a policyholder or a dependant of

a policyholder would have to be listed in their home insurance contract – it

would have to be listed as an intentional act exclusion. I actually looked at my

policy and it's not in my policy, and, as far as we're aware, it's not common in

policies at the moment.

The main

thing we're talking about here is this intentional act exclusion. In our

proposed legislation today, we are, I guess, prohibiting the use of that in

insurance contracts for people in the province.

Historically, we've seen this used to prevent wrongdoers from benefiting from

their own wrongful actions. However, there is kind of a knock-on negative effect

of this. It could be controversial and could have significant unintended

consequences where an insurance policy covers multiple insured individuals. It

prevents one insured from committing insurance fraud for the benefit of another,

denies coverage to all insured persons on a policy and this can result in an

injustice where one of the insured is victimized by another.

In 2017,

Mr. Speaker, the Board of Directors of the Insurance Bureau of Canada

recommended to all its members operating in provinces and territories without

such legislation that they voluntarily align their insurance policies with other

jurisdictions in terms of offering coverages for innocent co-insureds.

At the

moment, there is nothing in our legislation to prevent an insurance company

dealing with a home insurance claim in Newfoundland and Labrador from denying

coverage to an innocent co-insured. So with this change, we are hoping to remedy

that today.

Although

these situations would be infrequent and, again, as far as we understand, this

is not a common occurrence in insurance policies in the province but if it

happened, the repercussions to the innocent parties would be significant. We

believe that most, if not all, insurance companies currently operating in the

province already follow this intention but this change will protect home

insurance customers from malicious acts on behalf of their co-policyholders or

dependants.

This

also harmonizes our legislation with other Canadian jurisdictions. It aligns

with other legislative changes that have been made to offer a degree of

protection for individuals facing complex and difficult family situations.

As far

as our research goes, we believe this only applies to home insurance. Our teams

looked across Canada and we have not found these types of exclusions explicitly

in, for example, auto insurance contracts. In the legislation, it doesn't

specifically apply to home insurance, but as far we're aware it will only apply

to home insurance policies.

This is

focused on consumer protection. That is the primary means of this. Insurance

companies, we believe, are already following this, so there won't be a burden on

the insurance companies.

I just

want to give two examples to illustrate how not having this could play out.

Let's say two siblings are co-owners and co-policyholders on a home with home

insurance and let's say their policy contains this intentional act exclusion, or

an exclusion for intentional acts. Let's say the siblings have a heated

argument; one maliciously burns the house down for the insurance money or

something. If it's proven the house was maliciously burned down, neither would

get any insurance compensation if this clause was in their insurance contract.

The

legislative change would mean that only the person with the malicious intention

would not get any, but the other innocent individual would get a prorated amount

of what the insurance contract would be. If one individual was not involved in

that malicious act, let's say if they were 50 per cent policyholder, they would

get 50 per cent of the value, rather than neither of them getting nothing.

We also

saw this in a Supreme Court case, Scott vs. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance, where

parents and a son – the 15-year-old son burned their house down. They had this

clause in the contract and they didn't receive any compensation. They took it to

the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court maintained this exclusion policy,

which meant the parents could not get any compensation.

believe this legislative change will increase consumer protection around

insurance in the province. If we pass the change, we'll be aligned with other

jurisdictions and better protect residents to ensure they get the financial

protection that they are paying for.

I ask my

colleagues to support these amendments to help protect consumers.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of

all, I'd like to thank the department for the briefing we had on Monday. It was

much appreciated and it just shed some light on it. After listening to it, we

certainly will be supporting the changed legislation.

Just to

give some background, and you did most of it, but I'll just run through what we

have here and just give an example. You nearly gave the same example I was going

to give, but I will go through it.

The

Insurance Contracts Act comes under

the purview of the Department of Service NL, obviously, is where we're to. As

the name suggests, the Insurance Contracts

in the province.

Department officials noted that the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which is IBC,

which represents 90 per cent of the auto, home and business insurers in the

country, have been pushing for this amendment since 2017. Insurance companies in

our province are supportive and have been aligning in the direction of offering

coverage for innocent co-insured.

As the

example my colleague across the way had used, if you have a couple that's

married and someone decides to have some domestic abuse and go back and destroy

the house, the victim, I'm going to say, doesn't get the right to be able to get

their house back in order or get things fixed, I guess, would be the easiest way

to say it. With that being done, it seems pretty unfair, and I'm sure it's

happened a lot in this country and in this province. And we'd like to see that

changed. With that change, I certainly agree with that.

Sometimes I think when I look at it and saying they're going to get half the

amount back, I nearly think the unintended person should nearly get her full

amount back. She's still going to be in her house and she still has upkeep to do

and kids to raise or whatever the circumstances may be. Sometimes we look at

getting half back; sometimes they deserve to get back to where they were and be

able to live their normal life. That doesn't happen and probably left out in the

open with our legislation now. Hopefully, this legislation moving forward will

correct that, and by all means we'll certainly like to see that.

The

proposed amendments consist of two sections being added to the

Insurance Contracts Act .

Section 18.1

is added to permit loss recovery by innocent persons, meaning if the contract

contains an intentional act exclusion, the exclusion coverage will apply only to

the person whose act or omission caused the loss or damage, who abetted or

colluded in

an act or omission, who consented to the act or omission and who

ought to have known the act or omission would cause the loss or damage, and who

is not the actual person.

Again,

we support this motion and this legislation and look forward to getting into

Committee and just asking a couple of general questions and see how it goes from

there.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree

with my colleague here, as well as the minister, that this is an important piece

of change in our legislation. It's another housekeeping thing that has come

before the House. It is unfortunate we're one of the last provinces to correct

this in the system, but it's being corrected. That is the main thing.

We speak

to the importance of innocent peoples in situations of joint insurance and stuff

like that. The two examples that my colleagues have given are excellent examples

of the loophole in the system where individuals are left holding the bag when

someone else's actions have harmed them. In this case, it's great that we are

moving forward, that innocent parties in these joint situations are not harmed

or dinged or whatnot. I'm glad to see that this is being adjusted, and the

housekeeping of these acts is good.

It's

good that these things get reviewed and checked. We find these loopholes and

correct them as best we can, but unfortunately, of our sister Houses across the

country, we're the last again, but hopefully we'll be the first on something

else.

I'm glad

to see this. We'll get to Committee and ask the questions there that need to be

asked. I'm glad to see that this is before the House and we can correct this and

keep people from being victimized in some cases as well.

Thank

you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, reviewing the Insurance Contracts

Act and the specific amendments that have been proposed, I support the

amendment. These types of amendments are important, even though, as has been

noted, it is not really a common occurrence that we see in play here. It's

somewhat infrequent. However, it still affords protection to innocent parties.

As has been stated, this specific clause that is of concern here is the

intentional act exclusion clause. As has been stated, it's sometimes inserted in

insurance contracts. Basically, what it does is it excludes coverage for an

insured person for any intentional conduct, whether it be criminal or otherwise,

or actions that have unintended consequences.

I think

the important example for me is the one when we see that multiple people who are

insured under policy, sometimes there's a danger that coverage for all of those

people can be eliminated, even if the loss or the damage that has been caused by

only one of the insured by an a commission of an intentional act. This means

that even though there's an innocent insured, they're still going to be excluded

from coverage. They're not going to be compensated, yet they are innocent of any

wrongdoing or any kind of intentional act that resulted in damage or loss. Mr.

Speaker, that's an unfair consequence, that's an unjust result and that's why I

would say that this is a good amendment to remedy any kind of outcomes that

would unfairly prejudice innocent parties.

Another

point that I'd like to make with this relates to incidents of family violence or

domestic violence. For example, if we have one individual or one partner who

caused damage, the other innocent party, innocent victim, may end up also being

denied coverage, being denied compensation. That, of course, would be a true

injustice. That is why this is an important protection for innocent parties.

The one

proviso, though, I would make here is in regard to the fact that it appears that

the innocent co-insured must co-operate with the insurer's investigation of the

loss in order to be awarded benefits. The only comment I would make about that –

and this has to be carefully monitored – is would this present problems for

people that are innocent and victims of family violence? What would the

consequences of this be for that victim if they are co-operating with the

insured against their partner?

I just

wouldn't want to see the innocent party being put in any danger, especially if

it's a volatile domestic violence situation. I would ask that be given extremely

careful attention to ensure that innocents are protected in these kinds of

scenarios, innocent victims, and that they are not placed in further jeopardy

against their, perhaps, abusive partner.

Other

than that, these amendments are important, I think, even though they may not

apply and they're not often inserted in insurance contracts. Even if they're

there occasionally, we still have to make sure that they're corrected and

remedied so that no one is left with an unfair outcome.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last

time I spoke in this hon. House about insurance it was auto insurance but today

it is home insurance. Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the

Insurance Contracts Act will provide an increased protection for

innocent co-insured policyholders.

The

Insurance Contracts Act governs the

Intimate partner violence is often accompanied with assault, threats and

property damage, and the abuser knowingly harms his or her partner. This person

tries to control or to overpower the relationship by using intimidation, threats

and physical force. Most victims of intimate partner violence are women, but men

also can be victims and have been victims, Mr. Speaker. I know since I became a

politician that I have worked alongside two men who are victims of intimate

partner violence.

The

amendment we are introducing here today aims to address a gap. It's a huge gap

in insurance coverage and protection, and it aims to prevent unintended

consequences from hurting various parties, in particular where incidents of

family violence are involved.

Mr.

Speaker, this is very important because this is something we are adding to the

other things that we have done around residential tenancies and we've done some

work in Justice and Public Safety over the years. So here we are again today

doing an amendment that is going to assist individuals who are victims.

Mr.

Speaker, what it really means is this amendment can prevent an angry spouse from

hurting the ex-wife or the ex-husband by destroying the family home when they're

on the way out the door, so to speak. If a partner or a past partner were to

damage the home or burn it down – arson, for example – and your particular

insurance policy had this coverage for the innocent co-insured, the homeowner

would be covered.

Intimate

partner violence can affect anyone, Mr. Speaker, it's any age, any gender, race,

sexual orientation. It does include, usually, behaviours that are meant to

control a partner.

This

amendment is very important here today, Mr. Speaker. While every relationship is

different, intimate partner violence typically involves an unequal power.

Hurling insults, as I said, threats and emotional abuse wear a person down. To

destroy their home, that would be the ultimate defeat rendering them helpless.

Some

perpetrators may use the threat to destroy the home as leverage to get their

victim to do what they want. So insurance contracts often include intentional

act exclusion clauses that basically do a disservice to others who as part of

the contract did not benefit from the coverage done by another co-holder as a

result. Such clauses had the effect of denying the coverage to a holder as a

result of the wrongful actions of another. It was here that an injustice could

occur. It is that injustice that we want to address with this amendment.

Insurance is meant to help you in the event of an accident and in the event of

need. It's not meant to deprive you of the very protection you need at one of

the most vulnerable times in your life.

Mr.

Speaker, parents could separate, for example, but the home is still in both

their names. The one living in the home decides they're not letting the other

have any profit from the sale of the home. So, again, we see arson. They burn

the house down, and normally with arson there would be no coverage. However,

with the amendments, the one who didn't cause the damage and wasn't engaged in

the crime will receive a benefit.

This

amendment addresses unintended consequences; it addresses a gap in our insurance

coverage and protection and it brings us in line with the rest of Canada. PEI

will be the remaining province without this coverage if we adopt this amendment

today. The Insurance Bureau of Canada supports this amendment, as the minister

has indicated.

Mr.

Speaker, I strongly support this amendment, as you can tell, and I think it's a

really good thing for us to do here in this House of Assembly today.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Any further speakers to this

motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I trust

my light is on.

This is

a very important piece of business the House is engaged in today. Insurance is

not a small matter for Newfoundland and Labrador families, for the financial

well-being of all of us. The changes to the

Insurance Contracts Act are not small

changes either, when you take into consideration and in perspective of the

evolution of the insurance product as a whole and the insurance industry as

whole. There is a matter of political economy related to insurance, as well as

natural finance and economy, and statutory reform is sometimes seen to be an

intrusion on the capitalist system or the financial markets, and unwelcomed.

Mr.

Speaker, this is very welcomed by very many and it is a break from past

consideration. Normally, an insurance contract holds a clause that says for the

acts of intentional or criminal nature – for any act which is intentional or

criminal that causes a loss, those losses are automatically excluded.

In fact,

in the past those who held insurance contracts on homeowner's insurance faced

losses from those who were dependants who were not necessarily perceived to be

members of the contracting party itself. Minor children, for example, who

committed intentional, even criminal acts within the household itself, one would

have expected in the past that that would have been insurable and the payout

would have occurred based on the nature of the loss, but insurance companies

held firm on the view that intentional acts and potentially criminal acts would

be excluded.

Mr.

Speaker, the study or the sociology of insurance is just as important as the

study of its political economy. I want to refer to some very important work from

Ericson, Doyle and Barry called Insurance

as Governance where they kind of give a framework for how important

insurance is to each and every one of us but how little it is understood.

They

write: “Although the insurance industry is among the most pervasive and powerful

institutions in society, the sociology of insurance remains nascent.” They go on

to express the view that: “In spite of its significance for people's lives,

insurance is a product that most buy with little appreciation. They spend large

sums of money to purchase something they have little knowledge about and

therefore cannot adequately assess with respect to price and features. The only

material thing they obtain at the outset is a piece of paper: a legal contract

that they rarely read and even more rarely understand” and hope they never have

to.

Mr.

Speaker, in the evolution of our society and the perspective that we expect our

institutions, including the insurance industry, to respond to modern-day

concepts of fairness and respond to modern-day concepts of political economy,

this legislation is the right legislation. It acts outside of the contract

itself and provides a statutory requirement that nullifies the policy; that does

not respect that at times an intentional or criminal act can still be insured if

the balance or an interest of the parties are not equal. This is a very, very

important point because it gives fairness to multiple parties to an insurance

against the actions of one of the parties.

Mr.

Speaker, when we think of the modernization of insurance, it is one of the most

important products that are available to us as a financial product, as a

security product. As we look to the fact that the environment in which we are

insured is changing, climate change is making greater impacts on insurance,

insurability and payouts, when we look at the fact that society is modernizing,

when paternalistic ideas within insurance policies are now becoming more and

more exposed to a more modern, a more open version and the law is following

suit, these are important sociological phenomena that this Legislature now is

acting upon.

It's

incumbent upon the fact that we have a responsibility to do that, for the

legislatures of our country, to act in the best interest of its people. While

the insurance industry may at times very much dislike government intrusion into

its affairs, I can tell you the insurance industry often calls upon government

intrusion into its affairs. For example, in the products that it sells there was

a concerted lobby from the insurance industry to prevent banks from selling

insurance because they felt it would be an imbalance for the consumer.

While at

times it may be voiced that the insurance industry does not like unfair

government intrusion in terms of their underwriting and their risk management of

policies, it affects their risk management portfolios, let's be clear, the

insurance industry calls upon government, more often than you might appreciate,

for government intervention for their benefit. Mr. Speaker, it's the

responsibility of this Legislature to act in the interest of the consumer, to

act in the interest of the insured and to ensure that there's a balance of

parties who are subject to the contract in question.

Those

who expect to receive a benefit against risk, against a personal lost through

collective risk management, deserve to have that enshrined in law because at

times, as we've seen through the courts, through the adjudication of insurance

policies, that does not always happen by insurance companies.

In a

modern context, Mr. Speaker, there are other reforms that could be contemplated

for example. Is it fair and reasonable that those who are of an interest to the

contractor or to the management, the adjudication of risk, those that have a

direct interest, should they be a part of the adjudication of the risk?

Adjustors, for example, Mr. Speaker, more and more often are becoming a wholly

owned entity of the insurance companies. They are not disconnected or

disinterested parties in the outcome of a claim. Other things, for example, we

think of whether adjusting occurs at a local level or whether there's telephone

adjusting.

We look

at employment levels. I know the previous administration, for example, had a

significant program to a particular company to provide incentives for employment

here locally which now is – I understand the term of that contract is now closed

with marginal results.

The

president of a major insurance company operating not only in Newfoundland and

Labrador but throughout Canada, RSA Canada, just announced that – the CEO

indicated there would be significant changes in their workforce structure and

that more and more telephone work, as opposed to retail outlet work, is being

contemplated within that company. The footprint of insurance companies,

therefore, is changing, and the impact and the overall benefit of insurance

company activity in small jurisdictions like Newfoundland and Labrador is

changing as well, and not necessarily for the better.

This is

one example of a reform which I believe is very, very welcomed by consumers, by

those who are disadvantaged in a power imbalance in particular. That is breaks

strong, significant history and jurisprudence, former jurisprudence which always

was in favour of the insurer for acts of deliberate negligence or intentional

criminality. That is a break in pattern which cannot be overstated.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I will be supporting this legislation, and I applaud the Minister of

Service NL for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Her work is very

much appreciated and she's showing she's very much on the side of consumers.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to take long this time. I'm really not going to take long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LANE:

I guess, as usual though, as

opposed to simply voting on something, I at least like to have the record say

how I voted on it and have it stand.

I'll be

supporting this piece of legislation. I think it's a good piece of legislation.

I didn't realize this kind of situation actually existed, that it would be a

thing, but after hearing it explained, I can see why it's something that we

need. We have it in other provinces, and, again, it's just a protection to

individuals. I'm not going to repeat everything that's been said, but I looked

at it and when I had it, I asked for an example.

Basically, just so I'm clear – and I'm pretty sure I am – what this piece of

legislation comes down to is if, for example, you had a husband and wife, they

owned a property and they had insurance – both names were on the insurance – and

they had some marital issues or something and the husband moved out or whatever

but the house was still insured in his name, and god forbid he came back to the

house one night or something and did serious damage to the home and so on, maybe

burned the house down, who knows? Things can happen. Worse things have happened.

The

bottom line is we would have a situation then where the house would be gone and

because of the intentional act, the insurance wouldn't cover it. Here would be

the spouse left with no home and no insurance on the home. Based on what we have

here, he would get nothing, but she would get half the insurable value for the

home.

The same

thing could happen in a business partnership, not in a corporation. If I had a

business and it was a partnership, two of us owned the building, and my partner

decided they were going to burn the building down – it was

an act of arson or

something like that – and the investigation determined it was arson and I didn't

know anything about it and I was no part of it, under the current rules, the

business would be gone and it would not be insured.

Obviously, the partner who was involved, besides going to jail, he would get no

insurance money, but me, as the partner who had nothing to do with this act and

knew nothing about it, my business would be destroyed and I wouldn't get any

insurance either. Once again, this particular clause allows in that particular

scenario that if I wasn't involved and I'm a partner, I would get half the

insurance.

That

only seems like justice to me, seems like the right thing to do. It's happening

in other jurisdictions. I'm surprised that it wasn't covered off here before

now. I don't know if something happened here that made us aware of this or if

it's just a jurisdictional scan that picked up on this. I'm not sure how that

occurred, but it seems to me like a good amendment nonetheless.

With

that said, I'll be supporting the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

If the minister speaks now

she will close the debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MS. STOODLEY:

Thank you very much,

everyone, for your feedback, particularly the Member for Ferryland; the Member

for Labrador West; the Member for Harbour Main; the Member for Placentia - St.

Mary's; the Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour; and the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands. I think you all brought up excellent points.

The

Member for Harbour Main, you asked about innocent co-insureds and that they must

co-operate with legislation. That is consistent with how all the other provinces

also have their legislation. Currently, insurance companies are operating in

this manner, in the spirit of this legislation. I have no reason to believe that

it would be an issue, but it's certainly very important to consider. As well,

the superintendent of insurance also oversees all disputes with insurance

companies that individuals might have as well, so they're kind of an extra check

and balance that residents or consumers have in dealing with insurance.

I just

wanted to clarify. I think I used the word prohibiting when I was speaking,

which probably wasn't a good word to use. Just to clarify, we are exempting the

application where a clause is used where there is an innocent co-insurer. The

word I used, prohibiting, probably wasn't the best word to use, so I just wanted

to clarify that.

Again,

thank you very much everyone. I look forward to answering any questions and

discussing further in Committee.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that Bill 41

now be read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Insurance Contracts Act. (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act,” read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Deputy Government

House Leader.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Mount Scio, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

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

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 41.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act.” (Bill 41)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 2 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Insurance

Contracts Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

carried without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

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

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Deputy House Leader.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I ask

that the Committee rise and report progress on Bill 41, from the Committee.

CHAIR:

The motion is that I rise and

report Bill 41 carried without amendment.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report Bill 41,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act,

without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred

and has directed her to report Bill 41 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MR. CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

Now,

sorry.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now?

Now or

tomorrow?

MR. CROCKER:

Now.

CLERK (Barnes):

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, third reading

would be tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill 41 ordered read a third time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 2(a).

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve into a

Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution and Bill 40 respecting

the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that I should now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution and Bill 40.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

We are

considering the resolution and Bill 40 respecting the granting of Interim Supply

to Her Majesty and the amendment to clause 2.

Resolution

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her

Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial

year ending March 31, 2021 the sum of $1,560,324,100.”

CHAIR:

Shall the amendment to clause

2 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm glad

to have the opportunity to speak again. Madam Chair, as we've said in the past –

we all know but for anyone who is watching – we are doing Interim Supply, which

is a money bill, which provides flexibility for Members to bring up basically

any issues that they wish. I've certainly had a number of constituents and

individuals throughout the province reach out to me on a number of issues, so I

want to take this time to address a couple of them for sure.

Madam

Chair, the first issue I want to address is the issue around the essential

worker top-up program. The money, I think, primarily if not totally, is federal

money. It's for essential workers who worked during COVID-19 and provided us

with all the goods and services and so on that we required.

It was

put in place for workers at the lower end of the pay scale and there's a whole

list of people who could qualify for it. I'm not going to get into the whole

list but we think of home care workers, we think of workers who are working at

the grocery stores, other retail outlets and so on that had to work through

COVID-19. I think we appreciated through COVID-19 just how essential a lot of

these workers are to us all. I know that everybody would agree in this House

that we owe them all a great debt of gratitude in getting us through so far.

This

program, of course as I indicated, is federal money, but it was left to the

provinces to design the criteria. They were given parameters by the federal

government, the provinces would be, and then they developed their criteria. I

think that then had to be approved by the federal government. Then the province

could move forward in administering the program and the money.

I'm

absolutely sure and confident in saying that this program was put in place by

both our federal and provincial government for the right reasons, to help those

that required the money at this time and those who put themselves and their

families at greater risk than many. The intentions on behalf of the federal

government and I believe the intentions at the time, and still the intentions of

the provincial government, are honourable and everybody wants to do the right

thing by these essential workers.

Unfortunately, it's like any program and, particularly, these programs during

COVID-19. A lot of them are, let's face it, somewhat reactionary and perhaps did

not take the same amount of time and scrutiny as other programs would take

because we were in the middle of a pandemic. That's totally understandable.

Given

the fact that we are in a pandemic, I think that all parties involved did a

great job and their heart was in the right place. Unfortunately, though, there

are a number of issues which have arisen in this program that I'm sure a lot of

them probably were never contemplated, and there are unintended things that have

happened that have now come to light. I know that the minister is aware of a

number of these things. I have chatted with him about it. I've had discussions

with officials in his department about it and I know that they are working on

solutions. I know they have and I have told everyone who's asked me, people in

my district and others. I have told them that and I'm confident that they're

going to work to resolve a number of these issues.

Some of

the things that have happened, Madam Chair, that are of concern – and I've heard

from employees and I've heard from employers as well. There were definitely some

challenges with the compatibility issues, if you will, with the software system,

the LaMPSS that government is using. I've heard from employers that was a bit of

a nightmare for some of them – compatibility issues.

I heard

They'd request a password and had to wait a long time to get a response and get

those passwords. There were other administrative issues around providing the

information that they felt were somewhat onerous. I have to say that in speaking

to officials in the department this morning they recognized there were some

concerns and they tell me that a number of those things have been addressed. I'm

glad to hear that.

I've

also heard that there are employers out there who have not applied for the

money. This is a big one – employers who have not applied for the money. The

money cannot get into the hands of the workers for which the money was intended,

unless the employers actually apply for it. It's very, very disappointing to say

the least, to hear that there are employers out there who just didn't bother to

apply for the money.

That

doesn't mean that's the case in all cases because I also know there are

employers, like small employers, that were so busy just trying to keep their

businesses afloat and dealing with the federal government on programs just to

keep their own businesses alive, who may not have been in tune with everything

that was on the go. This may have passed them by and they didn't even realize.

That's a possibility as well.

There

are also situations I'm told, or is being alleged, where employers have applied

for the money, they have received the money and even though that money is

supposed to be distributed to the employees immediately or at least within I

think 10 days – I stand to be corrected on it, but I think it's 10 days. There

have been allegations made to me of employers who have had that money in their

hands for an extended period of time and have not paid it out to the workers.

Why they

have not done that, I have no idea. I can't speak for individual circumstances,

nor will I. There may be some reasons that are valid and there may be some

reasons which are absolutely unacceptable. I don't know, but these are things

that I have been told.

I guess

the purpose of bringing this up now – and the minister is aware of it; I thank

him for his commitment and his department's commitment to work on these things,

but I did want to have it on the record in the House of Assembly that these

issues do exist.

There

are other issues as well. Here's another one I've forgotten, and probably one of

the more important ones that have happened. We've had situations, Madam Chair,

where – and I'm going to use home care as an example. Here you have, say, home

care workers and when COVID started there were a number of workers who said to

their employer: I'm not going to work. Perhaps they were immunocompromised, they

had family members who were immunocompromised or whatever the case might be. So

they did not go to work.

As a

result, here you have situations where there are people who require home care

who now don't have that home care. So the home care employers would say to the

home care worker: Listen, I'm in a bind here and this lady is not getting care,

can you work some overtime? Can you work some additional hours to get me out of

a bind to provide care for this lady? The workers took it on at additional risk

to themselves.

As a

result of taking on those extra hours, they didn't qualify for the program

because the program is $3,000 gross or less a month to qualify. So if you had a

home care worker who was making, say, $2,500 a month and they would have

qualified, now they're working overtime to help out the employer provide the

service and they made $3,200, now they're being punished for actually stepping

up when the time was needed.

There

were cases where there were, say, a husband and wife, for argument sake, and one

of those people got laid off, they needed the extra money at the time so they

cashed in on their vacation time or money they had banked with their employer,

got that extra money and that was enough to put them over the top that they did

not qualify for the program because now they went slightly over $3,000. Even

though, under normal circumstances, they would have qualified, because they took

that one-time extra payment, they didn't qualify.

These

are the kinds of things, Madam Chair, that are going on. The minister is aware

of it. The department is aware of it. I know he is going to do his best to

address it. I thank him for that.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just

want to make a few brief comments with regard to the Interim Supply and budget.

I guess if nothing else, it's about setting priorities as to where we're going

to spend our money and how we're going to allocate it.

Often we

get asked the question: Where are you going to come up with the money? And

certainly the Third Party has often said it's not a matter of coming up with the

money, it's about what are our priorities and where do we allocate it.

One

thing that's become abundantly clear – and I think we all recognize – is

certainly with dental care. Any of us who have worked in any unionized area or

any company that has a dental plan, you know that part of that insurance plan is

about dental care. It's probably one of the most expensive yet one of the most

necessary health insurances to have.

We also

know that not everyone is fortunate to have that, and it has a significant

impact on not only on their dental health but their physical health, their own

self esteem, their own ability to go out and get a job and so on and so forth.

It has repercussions throughout.

It's

certainly an issue that the national party, NDP, has advocated for the adoption

of a national dental care program for uninsured families who are making less

than $90,000 and do not have access to dental insurance. But it became very

clear when I was campaigning as well, and even since, how seriously the deficit

in dental health is.

One

issue has come up to my attention recently and has come to the attention of Jack

Harris, who's the Member of Parliament for St. John's East. And I'll read from

his letter, Madam Chair: “One issue recently brought to our attention was the

fact that individual children who are beneficiaries of the Children's Dental

Health Program have aged out as beneficiaries of the subsidized dental services

during the lock down mandated by government … after mid-March when dental

offices closed.”

So there

is a concern that has been brought to our attention that those children who aged

out during that time may not be covered. That they've lost that time when they

could have dental appointments or services provided. But as a result of that

since that time, now that dental services have been reinstated, they're unable

to avail of those appointments that they would've been able to take care of

during that period.

As I

said, in effect COVID-19 – Mr. Harris goes on to say: the COVID-19 pandemic

prevented these children from receiving dental care that they need. This letter

he writes is to the Premier and the government to extend the eligibility of this

program for a period of time to permit them to obtain the services that would

have been missed.

In terms

of priorities, this is very much – certainly, as we debate this, I'm hoping that

– as I understand it, no decision has been made on this as to whether it will be

extended. I'm hoping government will see this as a priority to make sure that

those children who aged out during the pandemic will have an extension of time

so that they can have their dental needs taken care of.

As a

said, it's the key to not only dental health but also other health issues and

also to a person's self esteem. I have the letter here to table if you wish.

Thank

you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

If the

Member wants to table the letter, if he has leave he can certainly do so.

Does he

have leave? Does the Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll

just speak on this motion also. I hear a lot about the offshore here recently,

and you hear a lot of bantering back and forth. Some of it is political, some of

it is concern trying to get issues done. I don't think there's either party here

that wouldn't want to see a resolution to it, no matter who you are in the

House.

remember back, I'm going back to 2002, and even earlier than that with the FPI

hearings, when we had a major issue with the fisheries, and this is just a

suggestion – maybe it's gone too far in the Legislature here now. I remember

when that happened they set-up an all-party committee, that everybody would come

together as one and go to Ottawa as one.

At the

time it was an all-party committee with the Liberals, who was in government, the

PCs and the NDP. They picked two people, three from the Liberals, two from the

PCs and one from the NDP. They combined, they had hearings and they went as a

unified voice to Ottawa. I'm just throwing that out there because I know on the

FPI hearings that I was on – that once again reunited to go all across the

province to have public hearings. We went into a lot of areas, we heard a lot of

emotion and then we came out as a unified front on what we should do.

That's

just something that has been done in this House on several occasions, that when

there's such a major crisis people would unite t