PDF Version

May 13, 2024 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 73

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin this afternoon, in the public gallery I'd like to welcome students from Christian Home Educators of the Avalon.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also in the public gallery, I'd like to welcome staff of VOWR radio station and family of the late Henry and Frances Pike. They are visiting us this afternoon for a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we'll hear statements by the Members for the Districts of Placentia- St. Mary's, Placentia West - Bellevue, St. George's - Humber, Bonavista and St. John's Centre.

The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, Marina Power Gambin was born on May 13, 1947, in the community of Branch to Aggie Mooney and John Power, the second child of seven.

At the age of 17, upon completion of her Grade 11 and a six-week probationary course, she left to teach Grade 5 to 9, in a two-room school in Culls Harbour. In 1964, she met Pat Gambin, married him and they had their first child in 1967 and their second in 1968.

She completed her Bachelor of Education degree by attending summer school and evening classes while teaching primary children full-time at St. Edward's School in Placentia.

In 2007 she published the book, A Meadow in Time , comprised of a collection of short stories and accounts of her life growing up in Branch in the 1950s and '60s. Many of her articles, stories and poems have been published in the Downhome magazine, The Telegram and The Shoreline .

In 1995, she retired from teaching at the age of 48. Her time is now spent volunteering with the ladies' hospital auxiliary, cheering for the Montreal Canadiens –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: – and walking every day.

Please join me as I wish my mother and all moms a Happy Mother's Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Today, I stand in this hon, House to recognize the community-based organization Burin Peninsula Brighter Futures in the beautiful District of Placentia West-Bellevue.

Burin Peninsula Brighter Futures have been offering programs and services to the families on the Burin Peninsula since April of 1994 and are celebrating their 30th anniversary this year.

Through the family support facilitators and a volunteer board of directors, they are committed to support the health of families and children throughout the region. They work to provide a safe and welcoming environment, enriched learning experiences through active engagement, information sharing and peer support.

They promote positive parent-child interactions and offer programs such as the Healthy Baby Club, Baby & Me, Basic Shelf, Small Wonders, the Clothing Exchange and the Lending Library. These programs are flexible to meet community needs and work in partnership with other community support services like Burin Peninsula Voice Against Violence.

I ask all hon. Members of the 50th General Assembly to join me in congratulating Burin Peninsula Brighter Futures on their 30 years of service and wish them many more years of helping build successful families.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.

S. REID: Speaker,100 years ago, Rachel Cavell McKay came into the world. I recently had an opportunity to wish her Happy Birthday and to learn more about her life.

Rachel is easy to talk to. She has an amazing wealth of knowledge and experiences to share. She is proud of her family. She has a kind heart, bright smile and a laugh that fills everyone around her with joy. She says the secret to a long and happy life is to not let your worries get you down.

After her first husband, Nelson, passed in 1968, Rachel still had children to raise so she had to make a living on her own. She planted vegetables, raised sheep, took in boarders, sewed clothes, sold knitted goods and worked at the Gilliam restaurant as a cook. It was tough going, but Rachel told me the hard work made her strong.

She later met Willie McKay through her involvement with the Royal Canadian Legion and married for the second time. Rachel is also a proud member of the Anglican Parish of Bay St. George and she received a 50-year service award from the ACW.

I ask all Members to join me in wishing Rachel McKay a very Happy 100th Birthday.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, the Cross of Valour is the highest civilian honour to recognize bravery in Canada. Today, I recognize two residents of the District of Bonavista, Mr. Martin Sceviour, who sadly passed in February of this year, and Mr. Harold Miller of Burgoyne's Cove.

The men were honoured in 1981 for saving the lives of 12 crewmen on a trawler trapped in strong seas, heavily iced over and in imminent danger of capsizing. This occurred in November of 1978, 13 kilometres from Nain, Labrador.

Responding to the call in their fishing vessel, they were unable to get close enough to the trawler due to the adverse weather and volunteered to man a six-metre motorboat. Battling 1.5-metre waves and high winds, these brave men made two nerve-racking trips from the rescue fishing boat to the trawler, having to constantly bail water from their own boat during the harrowing journey.

Amazingly, they rescued all 12 crew members. Unbelievably, Mr. Harold Miller, once again in 1987, entered the cold waters to rescue a fellow fisherman, receiving the Medal of Bravery in 1989.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the courage and bravery of Martin Sceviour and Harold Miller of Burgoyne's Cove.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

VOWR, Newfoundland and Labrador's Pioneer Radio Station, celebrates 100 years of broadcasting on July 20. Owned by Wesley United Church on Patrick Street, VOWR is the longest running church-operated radio station in Canada and the longest running station in the province.

In 1933, the federal regulatory agency shut down all church-run radio stations in Canada, but Newfoundland was its own country. Fortunately, when Newfoundland joined Confederation, VOWR was able to maintain its licence.

VOWR grew out of Reverend J. G. Joyce's vision and interest in the evolving new radio industry. He could serve parishioners unable to attend church services and the community at large. The station was ecumenical in nature and shared its airtime with different denominations. It also broadcast public service announcements, news, personal messages to people in isolated communities and musical entertainment.

Thanks to the Internet, VOWR is able to broadcast to people around the world. Fifty dedicated volunteers keep Reverend Joyce's vision alive. The late Henry and Frances Pike dedicated 62 years to the station and Henry still hosted his own show at age 92.

Speaker, VOWR continues to serve the public. Please join me in congratulating VOWR on its centenary and wishing them another 100 years of broadcasting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to congratulate College of the North Atlantic for receiving their Silver Program Excellence Award for Early Childhood Education from Colleges and Institutes Canada.

These awards recognize and promote excellence within Canadian colleges and institutes, and highlight the role of institutions in social, cultural and economic development.

The College of the North Atlantic currently offers four programs in early childhood education, including a two-year diploma, an advanced diploma in administrative leadership, a four-year applied degree in early childhood education and – beginning in this September – an advanced diploma in early childhood education advanced studies in inclusive practice.

Speaker, there are currently more than 600 students enroled in early childhood education programs at College of the North Atlantic. Once they finish their studies, those individuals will play a key role in providing high-quality early learning and child care throughout the province.

To meet the needs of families seeking child care, we need a sustainable early learning workforce. College of the North Atlantic is one institution training that workforce, and they are doing a fine job of it.

Speaker, I invite all hon. Members of this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating College of the North Atlantic in receiving the Silver Program Excellence Award for Early Childhood education from Colleges and Institutes Canada.

Well done and well deserved.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Speaker, I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I, along with my colleagues, congratulate College of the North Atlantic on receiving the Silver Program Excellence Award for Early Childhood Education – a fantastic achievement. I would also like to thank the early childhood educators currently working in our province and recognize those currently enroled in the program.

Our children are our most valuable resource and early childhood education is crucial for cognitive, social and emotional development. Investing in early childhood education can help close the achievement gap and provide children with an equal opportunity to thrive in school and beyond.

However, this government's lack of planning has led to delays in early childhood centres opening across our province and families are left without essential child care services. Families with young children are paying the price.

This government's failure to prioritize and address these critical issues in a timely manner has had a detrimental effect on families, resulting in many having to leave the workforce, putting their careers on hold.

Speaker, this government must do better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement and join her in congratulating the College of the North Atlantic on its award.

We all win when our public colleges achieve national recognition, and we join the government in commending them for the award.

We call on this government, however, to provide more than words and platitudes to these 600 early childhood educator students by ensuring they are receiving good jobs, benefits and pensions so graduates can make ends meet and set down roots here instead of moving elsewhere.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, residents of the province remained shocked at the bizarre circumstances that led to the discovery of the body of the missing trucker, Brian Lush.

I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier if any of her counterparts have reached out to their counterpart in Ontario to ensure that the family and friends of Mr. Lush get the answers they're looking for.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Member opposite and the stress and our condolences to the family. I assure the Member opposite that I will speak to officials in the department and get that question answered for him as quickly as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Again, Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the answer. It is extremely important now that the coroner's office is involved and the police investigation is over, that the family and friends do get those answers.

So can the minister provide a timeline as to when that might happen?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can't provide that timeline to the Member opposite at this very moment, but I will, as quickly as possible, hopefully sometime shortly after Question Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

In the absence of the Premier who we have learned is in Dubai and Europe, I'd ask the Deputy Premier to commit to keeping this legislation open to introduce and pass changes to the province's Limitations Act .

SPEAKER: Before we move to the response, I just want to remind Members we are not going to refer to Members that are present or absent. It's a long-standing tradition and I will be ruling later on the point of order that was brought forward before.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I think it's very important that we visited Dubai. I know that there has been much success in attracting world-class health professionals and I want to congratulate the Minister of Health as well as the Premier in doing that. I know that there were some 64 nurses from Dubai in various stages of application and coming forward through the immigration process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: That is outstanding. I know the Minister of Justice and Public Safety has been speaking on the issue that the Member has raised. He has tabled legislation in this House and I know that he is anxious to bring it forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I, once again, would ask: Will the Deputy Premier ensure that the Limitations Act is passed in this sitting of the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

The Member opposite will note that the Limitations Act is now before the House. I know that the Member has tabled that legislation. The Minister of Justice and Public Safety has spoken to that legislation. I can say that the Minister of Justice and Public Safety is also responsible as House Leader, so the Member opposite will know that, as House Leader, he will be responsible for bringing legislation forward and I know he is very concerned and committed to the Limitations Act .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, as the Deputy Premier, I would think that the decision would be made that this legislation will be brought forward and will be passed in this sitting of the House. I don't think we need to wait for the Minister of Justice to come forward to do that.

Recently I was in Baie Verte - Green Bay and I met an individual who has lived on their land for 53 years and have been trying to get title to this land. Speaker, this individual should not have to fight with the Liberal government to get title and ownership of their land.

So, again, I ask: Will the Deputy Premier commit to bringing forth Crown lands legislation and have it passed in this sitting of the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know the individual case that he is referring to but if he brings it to my attention, I can certainly address it. But as we know, we've been doing due diligence around Crown lands. Yes, I was in the district as well and spoke to people about it. People are asking us a certain direction to go. We're listening to them, and legislation will be forthcoming, and I will be happy to bring it here and get feedback from all sides of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I am having a hard time getting a direct answer, so let me ask it once again.

Will Crown lands legislation be brought before the House and passed in this sitting of the Legislature, right now that we're in, right here in this session?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

E. LOVELESS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have control in terms of guaranteeing that it will pass, but I will be bringing it forward to this session of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his answer and just to confirm that he is telling us that Crown lands legislation will be brought before the House at this session, to be passed?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

E. LOVELESS: Again, in terms of passed, I don't have control of that, I say to the hon. Member; this House will determine that. But the intent is to bring it here to the House of Assembly, absolutely 100 per cent, in this session. Whatever we want to refer to it, as we're sitting here right now, will be brought to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: I wonder if the minister can do that same thing then for the legislation on the statute of limitations and can he commit to doing that piece of legislation and having it debated and passed in the House of Assembly?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Deputy Premier was clear in her response about the importance of this piece of legislation. It sits on the Order Paper. As well, I think the Minister of Justice was quite clear last week, or the last time we were here in this place, that it was the number o ne priority for the Department of Justice and Public Safety at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, there are lots of legislation on the Order Paper.

I simply ask: Yes or no?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member opposite would realize, there are many facets to producing a piece of legislation and getting a piece of legislation to the House and through the House. That, at the end of the day, remains with the call of the Government House Leader.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, again, harvesters in Baie Verte - Green Bay have raised concern about the upcoming caplin fishery. We all know the Liberal failure when it came to redfish and when it came to mackerel.

I ask the minister: Can you provide an update on the caplin fishery?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I disagree with the Member opposite in terms of saying it was a failure. Because we certainly supported the harvesters on the West Coast in terms of the red fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: And I've chatted with people in the district that you were in this week as well, I say to the Member opposite, Mr. Speaker. We've had good conversations with harvesters and while there are still a lot of challenges in the fisheries, harvesters are saying we're going in the right direction.

I will support, whether it's the caplin fishery or whatever fishery it is, to support harvesters and to support rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, as the minister said, they were all there to support after demonstrations (inaudible). Maybe if he had to commit to those commitments he made when he was talking to people all summer doing a photo op, we wouldn't have had people on the steps of Confederation Building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Now, Speaker, as the crab fishery is in high gear, labour unrest at several of our fish plants threatens to jeopardize the season. And again, we have a challenge on our hands.

Speaker, I'd ask the minister: What happens if harvesters have to tie up their boats because of this pending strike? And I would ask the minister: What communication exactly have you had with the processors and with the union about it?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll say to the Member opposite that I've had more communication than he has.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: I'll say to him to address the

preamble about the photo op: I can tell the Member opposite and tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when we were in here and when I was having serious conversations with ASP and FFAW with regard to the future and sustainable future for harvesters in this fishery he was out taking photos ops with the harvesters, vulnerable situation, just to up his political interests. Nothing to do with the harvesters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, let me tell you again, if he had done his homework they wouldn't have been outside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: It would've been settled long ago. They promised last year to settle it.

So again, I go back and ask the minister again: Have you had any discussions about this pending labour unrest with the plant workers and the processors?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

B. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm a bit perturbed by the question itself, because the premise is completely wrong. We're focused very heavily – heavily – on working with both parties, with conciliation officers, right from the beginning. They're still engaged. We're hopeful that a decision can be made, negotiated between the two parties. We're considerably involved in that. We're going to stay focused on that and we're not going to make politics of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I remind the minister he's not the only one perturbed. Most of rural Newfoundland, especially Baie Verte -Green Bay, are really perturbed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, last week I was chatting with a number of residents in Baie Verte - Green Bay, especially La Scie, who have concerns over access to health care. Speaker, the simple need for stiches may result in hours of driving when a nurse practitioner in their own community could get them back up and running within an hour.

Why is this acceptable to this Liberal government?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've announced Family Care Teams in that region in this year's budget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: Those Family Care Teams are going through the recruitment process by the health authority and as soon as we are able to recruit those individuals and secure space, Mr. Speaker, those Family Care Teams will be open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

The same answer every day is recruitment and trying to get people. We got all these buildings – it is no good of announcing these building if you haven't got people to staff them.

Speaker, a person from La Scie who has to drive over an hour to Baie Verte just to find out the emergency room is on diversion or closed. Because of the Trudeau, Furey carbon tax, gas in rural areas is almost $2 a litre. Seniors on those fixed incomes are finding it financially difficult to drive further and further to access basic health care.

Again, what are the folks in rural Newfoundland supposed to do, Minister?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to address the

preamble, because we've been working hard, as has the health authority, on recruitment of health care professionals. Mr. Speaker, just to update the House, I know in Dubai there are 64 registered nurses who've accepted offers, a pharmacist from Dubai, an X-ray technician from Dubai.

From Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, the recruitment mission there, we have two physicians interested in coming to this province as well as a nurse practitioner. Ireland, we have four international medical graduates who've come here with a return in service, Mr. Speaker, once they finish their residency. We have a physician from Ireland who's come here; 341 registered nurses have accepted offers from India.

All of these people are now going through the recruitment process. I believe we are recruiting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: I guess the premise of my question originally is the minister's avoided to answer the question. Why don't you just provide the nurse practitioner for the people to see, at least provide that much, because that's all they're really looking for. They have no health services, Minister.

Speaker, the Alberta government recently launched a new payment model that will allow nurse practitioners to set up their own practice and get paid directly by government.

Why can other provinces figure out how to pay nurse practitioners, yet, Minister, we cannot?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I know their Conservative partners in Alberta have done this. The reality is that is one province. I believe a second province may be looking at it. We are focused on recruitment for public health, for positions within the health authority, for positions within our Family Care Teams, Mr. Speaker. We are focused on recruiting and retaining our public service health care professionals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: I wonder did the Member speak to the Registered Nurses' Union about their stance on having private registered nurses?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, we care about the people in this province getting access to health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: If that means setting up a proper payment model for nurse practitioners to do that, we're all over it. We will make no apologies, Minister, for standing up for the people of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: We'll make no apologies, Deputy Premier.

The new payment model according to the Alberta government will add more health care capacity in communities across their province. Yet, here in our province many people are forced to pay out of pocket to access a nurse practitioner.

Speaker, why is the Liberal government refusing to allow nurse practitioners to bill government for patient visits?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Member is very focused on private health care with nurse practitioners, as Alberta has done. They also have private X-ray and private MRI. Is he just as interested in private health care as the Alberta government is in that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: There goes the minister with his low shots again.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: There goes the minister with his low blows again. That's not what I'm saying. Doctors bill the government, why can't a nurse practitioner bill the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: At the end of the day, a doctor helps me or you and every other Newfoundlander and Labradorian get well, why can't a nurse practitioner do the same and bill the government, Minister, just like doctors do? What you're saying is not making sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: What he's saying, Mr. Speaker, is privatization of health care like Alberta. What we're saying is we have an organized plan, a plan in place to have Family Care Teams throughout the province where the health authority controls where those Family Care Teams are so that we can ensure every individual in this province has access to primary care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Just one for clarity, Minister. You're saying you're in favour of people having to pay out of pocket to see a nurse practitioner in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is that what you're telling the people of this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

B. PETTEN: We're only asking for the government to pay, just like the doctors pay.

Are you saying it's fine for people to pay out of pocket to see a nurse practitioner because that's what I'm hearing?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community services.

T. OSBORNE: What I'm saying and what he's saying, Mr. Speaker, are completely different things. He wants private health care; we want public health care. We want nurse practitioners working in the public system where they don't have to pay, where their services are covered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

T. OSBORNE: We want nurse practitioners and other services within the public system, not private MRIs, not private X-rays, not private nurse practitioners, we need health professionals in the public system to ensure that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has access to public health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, that's one massive play on words – one massive play on words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: At the University of Toronto, the food insecurity policy research, their report in 2023 gave the percentage of people living in severely food-insecure households. The highest in the country was Newfoundland and Labrador at 8.7; lowest, Quebec. One in 10 children in our province live in poverty and one in five Inuit children, the highest in Canada.

I ask the Minister of CSSD: Will this budget move a significant percentage of our children out of poverty and what is the estimate?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

P. PIKE: Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate the challenges that the high cost of living and inflationary pressures are having on families and individuals, especially those that are living in poverty. Helping lift children out of poverty is a key focus of our Poverty Reduction Plan. Budget 2024 includes $41 million in incremental investments for initiatives under our Poverty Reduction Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PIKE: Mr. Speaker, $30 million is to increase the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit by 300 per cent. That puts us the highest in Atlantic Canada and, also, only behind Quebec –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, every time the government stands up and talks about addressing poverty, they'll talk what dollars they put out into something.

The question was simply: Will we see a significant percentage of our children, as far as being brought out of poverty with this budget, and what is this government's target for doing so? What number? What target?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: Speaker, I can't sit here any longer because I have good news to talk about as part of the Budget 2024 in terms of how we are supporting children in our school systems.

We have allocated $3 million to expand the school food program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: What that will do is it will see children in our K-to-9 schools, first, be provided with a healthy meal throughout the day. We recognize that this is a big problem when we look at the availability of food for our families and productivity of students as it relates to their work in schools.

I've said it before, an empty belly has no ears. So if we're trying to educate our students –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

K. HOWELL: I'd like to give the answer if you could haul this crowd together long enough to let it go.

When we look at our children in our school systems, we most certainly do want to provide –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

K. HOWELL: – healthy meals for them so that this gives them the best opportunities. We know education is a pathway out of poverty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, for the viewers of the House of Assembly in Question Period today, it is clear that there isn't a plan. There is no target –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: – to lift X number of students or children out of poverty. There is no number.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: In the fall, we found out that more homeowners in Newfoundland and Labrador use food banks than anywhere else in Canada. In my home District of Bonavista, we saw an increase in January and February of 30 per cent over 2021.

Is this government's Poverty Reduction Plan going to significantly influence the need for food bank visits, and what, again, is your projection?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

Speaker, 160,000 people are supported through the Income Supplement and we've increased that by 15 per cent. We have some 50,000 seniors – 50,000 seniors have received the Seniors' Benefit and that has been increased 15 per cent. We have also introduced a $10 million Seniors' Well-Being Plan. We have introduced, as ministers have already said, a Poverty Reduction Plan. We've introduced food in schools.

I say to the Member opposite, all of those things we're very focused on in this government to make sure we lift people out of poverty. Our goal would be zero per cent in poverty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: The government has no target at which they're going to lift people out of poverty. There is no target and no plan. It's an investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that's where we are.

Other provinces issued targets and they had benchmarks that we looked for and strived for. This government has none.

It is unacceptable that 20 per cent of children live in food-insecure homes; 25 per cent of kids under six.

Why aren't we having a more focused effort to bring our province's children out of poverty?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

P. PIKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the hon. Member is listening to our plan. I really don't think he's listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PIKE: One of the things that we're also doing, Mr. Speaker, is that we're talking about the Prenatal-Early Childhood program that we're also bringing forward. That will provide funding to a woman on low income during pregnancy and it will also increase the Child Benefit for ages one to five.

Now, that's a big-ticket item. It is something that was asked for, in our consultations, and that would make a real difference to families in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Making a real difference – one question: How many children will be lifted out of poverty by this government with this budget? How many? What percentage?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

P. PIKE: Mr. Speaker, what they're asking for is the number of children in the province that will be lifted. We're streamlining and improving the Income Support Benefits program, Mr. Speaker, to allow greater flexibility and improved benefits for those support recipients. This is in addition to $500 million to ease the pressures attached to the high cost of living, increases to income support and basic income support for youth, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

With the fire season upon us and fires raging in Western Canada, can the minister commit to a full complement of water bombers and pilots for this year's forest fire season?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A very important question as we see what's going on in the western part of this country right now. I certainly, even as early as this morning, had a discussion with staff and in terms of being prepared, whether it's water bombers that are being supplied through TI and staff, the leadership within the department has said: We are ready for the season.

We don't know the unknowns, but we feel, as a department, we are ready, from the human resources perspective and the asset perspective.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, it is crucial we have all the resources required in place for the worst-case scenario. There was an RFQ for the fifth water bomber.

Can the minister provide an update?

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

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Sir, building on the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, we're working very closely with his department to make sure we are ready for the season, and we are. The planes are positioned where they need to be right now and they will move, if and when a fire presents itself.

When it comes to the fifth water bomber, we are still working through the tender results and then we'll be determining, in short order, when we'll award the contract to get that plane repaired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, on January 25, the Minister of Health took to media saying our call for an end date for travel nurses would be problematic and we, as a province, would lose out. Recently, NL Health Services has announced they will do what we've been calling for and set a sunset date on their overreliance on travel nurses.

Will this government direct NL Health Services to create a detailed plan, outlining how they will retain nurses and reduce the reliance on travel nurses to 60 without further burdening the health care workers?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one day the Member wants an end to travel nursing and now he's concerned that an end to travel nursing will create a burden on registered nurses. That's what this government and the health authorities have been saying, that the travel nurses were a necessary evil. We needed them to allow our very valued health care professionals to be able to have time off with their families or time off for family events or vacation or other issues. Also, to keep our emergency departments and our services operating.

I'm interested in seeing a return to pre-pandemic levels of agency nursing, Mr. Speaker. We've worked with the health authority. They've put a plan in place to phase out agency nurses. We stand by that plan. Recruitment is a large part of that. I outlined the numbers a little earlier today on some of the success in recruitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister recognizes travel nurses as a necessary evil. What we are calling for, simply, is a plan. What everyone on this side has been calling for is a plan.

Speaker, we know that when a private nursing contract ended abruptly, nurses in this province were forced to work 20 hours straight.

I ask the Minister of Health: When can we expect to see the plan – the plan – tabled in this House to reach a target of 60 travel nurses in two years? Show us the plan.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think Mr. Diamond, the CEO of the provincial health authority, went through that plan last week in a news conference. I'm pretty certain, as I heard it, he outlined a plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm assuming it will be tabled here as well.

Speaker, I've spoken to workers at Iris Kirby House who tell me they have taken calls from women seeking refuge who have been physically assaulted at shelters. We know that some of these shelters are unsafe.

I ask the Minister of Housing: Would he provide the protocols, the policies, the actions his department uses to ensure the safety of residents in emergency shelters?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Housing.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate reality of our society that some people do have to seek emergency shelter because they are fleeing domestic violence or situations like that – very unfortunate. It is something that we take very seriously at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Our shelter line is in place. In any of our wait-lists, anybody who is fleeing a situation that is in any way related to domestic violence, they are put on priority.

There are places that sometimes are full, I guess, in some instances, and maybe we have to go outside of the transitional houses or the emergency shelters and use specific shelters. I can't speak to the case that specifically the Member opposite is referring to, but I'm happy to speak to him further after Question Period, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister states the obvious. Again, no plan here or protocol, or procedures or anything in place.

Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette shows that the unauthorized use of government property regulations came into effect on Friday, May 3, the same day orange fences went up, followed by police and private contractors moving to remove tenters from the grounds of the Colonial Building.

Wil the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure admit that his decision to remove the encampment was more to do with protecting property than people?

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

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond.

I think the simple answer is that is definitely not the case. We are focused –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. ABBOTT: – and as I've said and my colleagues have said, the officials dealing with the issues around homelessness have said, the community has said, that we need to focus on the individual to make sure that their housing needs are addressed, and that's what we're doing.

When we looked at the tent encampment, we were of the view, unlike the Member opposite, that it is not, was not and would never be a safe place for anybody to live.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Time for one question, no

preamble, please.

J. DINN: Speaker, if this regulation was brought in, there might have been a few people on the other side who camped out here who would have been fined.

I ask the minister this: The fine for each breach of these regulations is $500. How exactly does the minister plan to collect from people? Will it be reviving Victorian era solutions such as debtor prisons and workhouses maybe? How do you plan to get $500 out of people who are already poverty stricken?

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

J. ABBOTT: Again, Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond.

The Leader of the Third Party has certainly made an assumption that I haven't made, which is that those fines would actually be levied. Because we are working on the premise that if we work with the individuals they will not need to camp out on any public grounds and that will always be our focus.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 2024.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion, that notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday, May 22, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for Routine Proceedings and the conduct of Government Business and that, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall then adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 23, 2024.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move the following private Member's resolution. It will be seconded by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WHEREAS the wait-lists for mental health and addictions care are too long, even for youth in crisis; many not finding help are left with few alternatives; abuse of deadly drugs is worsening, particularly in Labrador; the fatal overdose rate is accelerating; the drug-related crime rate is accelerating; up to 87 per cent of inmates suffer from mental health or substance abuse issues, but many are released back into the community without proper treatment or support; there are too few options for drug detox and rehabilitation, too few drug-free shelters and too few options for families in crisis; police are seeing an alarming rise in the number of calls related to mental health crises and addictions and begging for more support; and the communities are afraid; and

WHEREAS the All-Party Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Addictions was announced September 1, 2023, to look at prevention, early intervention, treatment and support with an emphasis on youth and young adults, and the social determinants of health such as housing, poverty and education; yet, the Committee has seldom met since, and some people with lived experience say they have not been properly included.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge government to expedite the work of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Addictions and fully include people with lived experience, relevant government departments, professionals in health care, policing, justice, corrections, education and social work, community groups, Indigenous communities, faith groups and others who can provide insight to help address the wide array of challenges more effectively so everyone in need has somewhere to turn right away.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Are there any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

During Question Period, the Member for Conception Bay South referred to the federal carbon tax and asked, pretty much, what the province is doing about that.

I will remind the Member that our provincial gas tax is now one of the lowest in the country at 7.5 cents, and I will further remind him that during the Conservative government up to 2015, the tax was 16.5 cents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: That motion I just read in will be private Member's resolution, which will be debated by the Opposition on this coming Wednesday afternoon.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Any further answers to questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll read this petition.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to: Amend the Limitations Act to remove limitation periods for civil child abuse claims where the abuse complained of occurred against a minor (

a) within an intimate relationship; (

b) within a relationship of dependency; or (

c) where the defendant was in a position of trust or authority.

And amend the Limitations Act to state limitations periods do not run during any time a defendant (

a) willfully conceals or misleads the claimant about essential elements of the claim – i.e., the fact that an injury, loss or damage has occurred, that it was caused by or contributed to by an omission or that the act or omission was that of the defendant; or (

b) willfully misleads the claimant as to the appropriateness of a proceeding as a means of remedying the injury, loss or damage.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today and present that petition and ask the government for the legislation. Question Period is great to listen to when you follow it and know the rules. Under Question Period, from the Opposition Members, we asked for Crown lands legislation. The minister stood up, and give him credit, he stood up and said it will be brought forth. The legislation will be brought forth.

P. LANE: This session.

E. JOYCE: This session, that was the minister.

When asked the question about the limitations, the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation stood up and said, it's up to the Government House Leader, which it is not. Just that statement putting it all on the Government House Leader, it's not.

I know how it works. Cabinet makes the decision of what legislation is going to be brought to this House. So to take that question from the Leader of the Opposition about bringing the legislation in and saying it's up to the Government House Leader, it's just not and you know it's not. You know it's not, Minister.

So this is why I know it's discussed in Cabinet, what's the priority. If that's not a priority for this government, which the minister has said, the Minister of Justice and Public Safety said it's a priority. It's your priority but you won't bring it in is not true. It's actually not true. It's the Premier. The Premier of this province, in Cabinet, has the authority to say we want this done – we want it done.

So when one minister says I'm going to bring a piece of legislation from my department in, not asking the Government House Leader; when another minister says it's because it's an issue which is very decisive in this House and everybody is pushing to get it done; another minister saying it's up to the Government House Leader, when it's not.

I honesty believe that the Minister of Justice and Public Safety wants this brought in. I honestly believe that, I really do.

So I just say to the Premier, I don't know if the legislation is ready; if not, there's already eight across Canada that's already done . It's not hard to take one and add things that's going to fit Newfoundland and Labrador.

I call upon the government to get this done, for God sake, before this House of Assembly adjourns.

SPEAKER: The Member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

Pre-pandemic, residents of the District of Bonavista could walk into the Bonavista hospital and take a number to wait to be called for lab work. The system worked well and the population were understanding that the pandemic negatively affected many services. Today, residents call into the call centre to book appointments and experience long waits to connect with the attendant. There is much frustration in this process.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the walk-in service, or the booking, directly at the Bonavista hospital as it does in other hospitals. This would increase the efficiency of the department and reduce the frustration experienced by the residents of the region.

Watching today from Elliston is Pam Fleming and Scott Martin and if two of them wanted to book blood work, I would suggest by the stories and the reports from those in the district, it'll take upwards of three days, with much persistence, calling, trying to establish an appointment. The minister will stand and say we have to deal with cancellations. You know cancellations are affecting the broken system.

Imagine someone who wants to cancel their appointment is going to spend three days to cancel blood work at the Bonavista Hospital. They're not going to do it. Who would do that? Thus, we have a technician that would be waiting with a whole lot of missed appointments when they could be serving those people who've got a dire need to get their blood result.

I posted the last petition on my Facebook page, and I had numerous comments stated. But I want to read one which I think captures it really nicely. Listen to the rationale in this one: For those people that have to travel to see their doctor/nurse practitioner who requests blood work, they have double the travel costs as they now need to travel a separate day for their blood work.”

They travel to Bonavista from Trinity, from Charleston only to find out that they need blood work. They go back home, they spend two to three days trying to connect to make an appointment, and then they have to go back. Some will have to take two days off work. Within the past, all they would have to do was walk into the lab.

The people who need the blood work are people who are often sick – non-routine blood work. Because of sickness or whatever other reason, people don't show up as stated to their scheduled appointments, thus leaving an empty slot that could've been filled by a walk-in.

I ask the minister: This is an operational issue; let's fix it for Bonavista.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

Route 10 on the Southern Avalon forms a large

section of the Irish Loop. This is a significant piece of infrastructure and is the main highway along the Irish Loop. This highway plays a major role in the residential and commercial growth in our region as well.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: That immediate brush cutting is required on Route 10, Southern Shore Highway, as large sections of brush along the highway is a significant safety hazard for the high volume of travelling motorists who travel on this highway daily. This work is essential for the prevention of moose-vehicle accidents along Route 10.

Speaker, I've done this petition many times along the way, as the minister knows, before he even got here. We did some brush cutting in the area last year, but we are requesting that there be more done this year.

Just in the question, we submitted a list last year, once that's done, do they continue on with the list? Do you have to submit another list this year? They're some of the things – we can do that. But if they're going to pick off some areas, maybe that's something they should look at.

Along the route, there are large accumulations of brush from La Manche Park to Cape Broyle, from Aquaforte to Fermeuse, down in the Bay Bulls area as well along certain areas. The minister travels them as well when he comes back and forth. He lives in my district and he knows some of the areas as well. There are certainly places further up that he doesn't travel that are needed in that way.

This is the time of the year when the moose are out. We all know moose-vehicle accidents increase in May and June. This is when they're coming out of the woods. So in this time of the year, we should be getting on this and getting this stuff done for, not only my district, every district and put a plan in place.

If you done La Manche up to Cape Broyle this year, in 10 years' time, you could do it again. It's about 10 years' time, probably, it might be grown back and it might not need to be done. But if you put it on a plan and put a scheduled maintenance, then I think it's something we could take care of for the whole province by doing it on a scheduled maintenance.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

J. ABBOTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I will do anything to protect the moose from the Member. What we have done this year is we've increased the budget for brush cutting from $2 million to $4 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. ABBOTT: So the math will tell me we're going to get a lot more done and we'll be dealing with his district and every other district when it comes to brush cutting. We're working a plan as we speak.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to amend the Limitations Act to remove the limitation period for civil child abuse claims where the abuse complained of occurred against a minor; and

Amend the Limitations Act to state limitation periods do not run during any time the defendant willfully conceals or misleads the claimant about the essential elements of the claim; and willfully misleads the claimant as to the appropriateness of the proceedings as a means of remedying the injury, loss or damage.

The above-mentioned legislative changes should be retroactive and apply regardless of the expiry of any prevention limitation period.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended on speaking this. As a matter of fact, the last day that I was going to speak to this, I had it out, and the Minister of Justice stood and tabled the legislation. I was very happy about that, as I am sure a lot of Members were. Took it and stuck it in my desk drawer and said okay, it's going to come before the House and we're going to get this thing done.

I don't know – I'm hoping that's still going to happen, but there is a question raised in my mind. My colleague, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, raised the same issue I did. I have been around politics now for many years, whenever there are any announcements, any interviews or answers in the House of Assembly, I am always listening intently to the words that are being used to answer questions. I am listening intently to the words that are not said and there is a stark difference in two questions that were asked here today.

There was one question asked about Crown lands. The minister stood to his feet, he said: Crown lands legislation will be debated this session. But we could not get anybody over there on that side to say that the Limitations Act would be debated this session. It got referred to the House Leader. It wasn't referred to the House Leader when it came to Crown lands, but it is referred to the House Leader all of a sudden when it comes to this.

That tells me either, (a), it's not going to be debated, or maybe, (b), what is going to be debated is not what we're hoping and anticipating, and that what would come before the House is not what Mr. Whalen and others are thinking is going to come before the House. It could be one or the other. It would not be the first time that there was legislation left on the Order Paper.

So it does concern me and, therefore, I'm going to have to start continuing to deliver these petitions until this session ends, until we see that legislation actually debated on the floor of this House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we move to Orders of the Day, I would like to rule on the points of order raised by the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands on April 30, 2024.

The matters were taken under advisement at the time. I've now had the opportunity to review Hansard and I note that the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure during debate drew attention to the absence of Members during the delivery of the Budget Speech.

I concur with the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands that there is a well-established parliamentary convention regarding the mentioning or referring to a Member's presence in the House. I remind all Members that they should not refer to the absence or presence of a Member or minister in the Chamber.

With respect to attending House Proceedings virtually, I wish to take the opportunity to clarify Standing Order 9.1, which states as follows: “The House may meet in a hybrid of virtual and in-person proceedings and the Speaker, following consultation with appropriate officials and the House Leaders, may determine if these proceedings are required.” Therefore, a decision by a Member to watch proceedings of the House virtually is not in keeping with the Standing Orders.

Finally, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands raised a point of order stating that the Minister of Transportation inferred that he was lying. I reviewed Hansard and while I find no point of order, I encourage all Members to conduct themselves using order and decorum in this hon. House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 10, second reading of Bill 62,

An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 62,

An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 62,

An Act to Amend The Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill 62)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Today we are introducing amendments to the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act ,which govern the sale and handling of liquor. The Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act will be modernized to reflect changes since their introduction nearly 50 years ago.

The purpose of the amendments is to modernize the legislation, which has remained substantially unchanged since it's implementation in the 1960s. These recommendations of modernizing the legislation are aimed at strengthening regulatory oversight to ensure greater public safety through the provision of legal and socially responsible retailing of alcohol throughout the province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, or NLC, is an independent Crown corporation governed by a board of directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. We have a very strong board that is gone through the IAC, the Independent Appointments Commission, process and I have to say, Speaker, it's a very well-governed board of directors.

It is responsible for the importation, sale and distribution of beverage alcohol in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as overseeing the sale and distribution of non-medical cannabis. NLC, Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, returned a dividend of over – well, it was $208 million in fiscal year '22-'23 to the provincial government and total net earnings for the year were $201.2 million, the highest net earnings in NLC history.

NLC enforces regulation to over 1,300 restaurants, lounges and other licensees, as well as 55 licensed cannabis retailers across the province. It has been challenging for Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to regulate a modern industry with dated laws.

The recommendations to modernizing, as I said, the legislation are aimed at strengthening our regulatory oversight. Amendments to the legislation include housekeeping, such as updating language, and making changes that will benefit the overall operations. Corresponding changes will be made in regulations to ensure consistency with the acts and statutes.

While the amendments look abundant, at first glance, please note that to make the necessary changes, entire sections are being repealed and replaced and moved, and in instances where we are moving and relocating, to provide better organization, consolidation and clarity within the legislation. So it looks like pretty thick and all-encompassing changes, but mostly it is these housekeeping and modernizing changes.

I'd like to highlight a few of the changes that are being undertaken to modernize the legislation. There are enhancements proposed to some enforcement provisions; the inclusion of telewarrants – it's very common today to have a telewarrant – will permit officers, which are Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation inspectors, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to obtain warrants outside of regular business hours. Very common today when enforcement of liquor legislation is primarily undertaken.

Inclusion of telewarrants is already permitted under the Cannabis Control Act . So it's already happening under the Cannabis Control Act , but because the legislation has not been modernized, it hasn't been so in today's legislation. So we want to modernize that.

Licensing provisions will be consolidated and streamlined; these provisions are currently scattered throughout the Liquor Corporation Act, the Liquor Control Act , they're in provisions, so we need to modernize, streamline and update. This exercise will result in overall reduction in the number of licensee classes that are required, because some of those licence classes are no longer relevant.

Proposed amendments include adding electronic records and video recordings; again, modernization, because this was passed 50 year ago when there weren't such electronic records and video recordings. We want to add that to the books and records that may be examined and seized, and electronic devices such as cell phones. These types of records would most likely have been included if they had existed at the time the act was initially passed.

Another recommended amendment is to change the offence of consumption in public to possession of opened alcohol in public. Members throughout the House have had concerns about this expressed. This change will allow officers to continue to use their discretion in the application of this provision but would permit them to act proactively to address a problematic situation.

Current legislation provides for the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to issue identification cards for the verification of age. Now, I can't remember, in my lifetime, the Liquor Corporation actually having identification cards. They do not issue these ID cards for many, many years. I can't remember it in my lifetime.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not old enough.

S. COADY: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not old enough.

S. COADY: I'm not old enough. I like that, thank you very much. Sadly, Speaker, I am.

The amendments propose removal of references to these ID cards because they're no longer relevant or issued and an addition of a provision that permits use of identification that is acceptable by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation Board such as a licence. Such identification would include passports, driver's licences from other jurisdictions or a military ID. Those are just some examples. As well, amendments were made throughout to incorporate gender-neutral language. Again, a modernization that is required.

Speaker, as I've mentioned, these are a few of the recommended changes to the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act and I welcome further discussion and debate as we work to modernize these pieces of legislation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

It's certainly a great chance to get up and be able to speak to the Liquor Control Act as well. I listened to the briefing on Friday and just taking out one

section and bringing in another is very confusing sitting down and listening to it and I said we'll get back and be able to have a look at it.

It's a big act, as she said, in changing it, but it's stuff that had to be done. Some of the stuff that was in there called conveyance now instead of vehicles and stuff like that. Removal of some licences that are not there anymore; examples: military messes, taverns, motels, all consolidated, which makes sense.

A number of licences which are reduced to

definitions being removed or consolidated as well. The definition of alcohol is in there. The definition of peddling is being removed, as the minister said, because the offence to come under the general clause is now the act. Definition of an ID card, again, how will that portray and come out. I didn't have no idea about the ID card as well. I certainly didn't have one. You had to use your driver's licence as a way of asking for an ID. So some of that stuff certainly needed to be changed, no doubt.

There have been many changes in the act to streamline the

definitions process and changes to fee structure. Such are, not limited to, removing the provisions of the ID card, changes to the consuming liquor in public and fines and stuff like that. Changes to allow inspectors to approve electronically versus paper. I think that's a way forward and that's just the way society is now, to be able to do applications online instead of having to show up in person and trying to read through a lot of the regulations. Like I said, records can now officially include electronic records rather than showing up, which is great.

Increasing the penalties and fines. When they go through them, we have some questions when we get in there: driving with open alcohol is $150. Hopefully, people are not doing that. Obviously, they are issuing tickets so they are doing it, so increase the fines may deter it a bit more. I don't see anything wrong with that. I mean, yes, you're going to pay the piper if you're going drinking and that's the way it should be. It should not be happening in this day and age.

It is the same as drinking and driving. With all the education that is out there and everything that is happening, people still continue to do that, which is mind blowing in my mind. It is just unbelievable that they would do, but it does happen and hopefully these fines will deter some of this stuff from happening.

When we get into questions, we have a good many questions that we will ask, but I look forward to this piece of legislation and we certainly support it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not going to take a long time here to go through this. I have had a look through the legislation. As the minister said, we're basically just modernizing a couple pieces of legislation that we have here, providing some more clarity, some

definitions and so on. I don't see any big issues here that I would have any concerns about.

I will just take the opportunity, however, while I'm on my feet, just to reiterate my point around the Liquor Corporation, no different than any other government agency, board and commission and so on. I really word like to see a process where we would have the Liquor Corporation, as an example, would be able to come before this House of Assembly and we could start questioning them on how they are spending money.

Yes, they bring in profits to the province, but maybe they could be bringing in more. Maybe they could be cutting back on expenses. Who knows. The point is, we don't know. All we know is the money that shows up from the NLC and that there is an NLC. We know what we see, no different than the general public. But we really have no idea in this House of Assembly, as it relates to the general operations of the NLC and exactly where public money is being spent. That is something that needs to change.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

It's always a pleasure to rise on my feet and represent the people of Placentia West - Bellevue.

The bill to amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act , while we understand, yes, there are profits and they are increasing year over year, because I think it was just in the recent past that we were seeing our profit margin right at about $150 million per year. Now we're gone to $200 million, but I think we all know the reason that we increased that $50 million. The problem with this legislation that was presented to us, cannabis is not mentioned in there anywhere.

S. COADY: No, separate act.

J. DWYER: Well, when we're doing this and we're doing the Liquor Control Act and we're talking about amending the corporation that runs our cannabis retailers, then maybe that's legislation that we can visit here in the House as well, because, right now, the issue with cannabis is the retailers.

The fact that the model is out there, there is a four-tier model, but we're not really exploring the top three tiers. We're only looking at stuff going into gas stations and almost like an agency store for the Liquor Corp. So like I said, I don't think that model is necessarily going to work on the cannabis side because there's no real control for it.

With that being said, we have an opportunity here to really bring more profits forward, if we do it the right way. I would love to see that legislation come to the table because the biggest thing is enforcement. While we want to enforce the consumption of alcohol in public, there's nothing there to say about the black market when it comes to cannabis.

That's where we want to see legislation brought in, it's because that enforcement needs to happen in partnership with the federal government. Even if it's about having dogs at Canada Post, that might help with the enforcement as well, because right now we have great producers and we have great retailers and that in our province that are providing the service that became legal not too long ago, 2016, I believe.

Like I said, it's something that we're seven or eight years into it now and it has kind of been a little bit hush. So I'd like to see some legislation come to floor so we can debate that and really understand how we can profit from the cannabis industry, but also make sure that it's safe for our residents to consume it.

I would understand that to be the modernization. I know it's a fairly new market, but I think that it's time that we bring it to the floor of the House of Assembly and make sure that we can debate it and make sure that we're going about this the right way, because, while we can't live in the past, we have to learn from our mistakes. I want to make sure that we're going down the right path with this and making sure that it's a benefit to the province, it's a benefit to the people of the province, it's self-governing. But, again, I do believe that we should be able to ask questions of all agencies, boards and commissions as well.

With that being said, I agree with the things that are being brought forward here with the Liquor Control Act and especially about the telewarrants because that's a very important piece because not always is there a judge available on a Saturday night at 12:30, type of thing. So I do agree with that.

I think the enforcement officers are doing a great job in our liquor establishments, but we want to also be able to keep the people safe who work in our liquor stores because as we know when the cost of living goes up and people are out of touch with being able to survive, a lot of times they turn to alcohol and if they can't afford it then they're probably going to go in and try and pilfer it.

The thing is, we have to make sure that we're keeping our staff safe, but we don't have to over manage the Liquor Corporation either, because like I said, I think more retailers actually on the floor to help the customers is probably more of what's needed than to always go into a liquor store and see three or four sat up behind the glass barking orders.

But with that being said, it's nice to see that the Liquor Corp. is still profiting, but we kind of can't really pat ourselves on the back too much because it's obviously something that's not always positive in society, but when it's bringing in profits, it is a good thing. Again, we have to make sure that enforcement and the overall look of the Liquor Corp. is being take care of.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, if the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury speaks now, she will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

I appreciate the Member for District of Ferryland, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl - Southlands and the Member for the District of Placentia West - Bellevue entering into debate.

I will say to my colleague, the Member for the District of Placentia West- Bellevue, there is indeed a separate act called the Cannabis Act that was debated before this House in recent times and that will be under review and will be brought back to this House of Assembly, so it is under active review right now. That will come back to the House of Assembly if there are changes that have been brought forward as we look at that legislation.

As Members of the House have pointed out, this really is, I'm going to call it, a housekeeping kind of modernization, really looking at the evolution of the law, if I can use that term. I loved it when it was said to me: the evolution of the law.

Because things have changed in the last 50 years. As the Member opposite just referred to telewarrants for example, and the use of cellphones weren't something 50 years ago. As we move forward, today, I look forward to questions. It is a thick piece of legislation but, again, mostly because we are changing things from one act, modernizing, improving language.

With that, Speaker, I'll take my seat and we can move into Committee.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 62 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

TABLE OFFICER (Russell): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 62)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole?

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 62)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 62,

An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act.

SPEAKER: And a seconder, please?

L. DEMPSTER: Seconded by the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against?

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole is now considering Bill 62,

An Act to Amend the Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill 62)

TABLE OFFICER: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

I don't have these broken out in sections. This might not help us, but I'll start with the first one and see where we go with it.

A piece of identification will be accepted.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Okay.

This could get tricky because it is a big act, but I will say, in general, the policy will be around passports, licences. I think I also mentioned military ID. But predominantly, it will be your driver's licence. It could be from Newfoundland and Labrador or, of course, anywhere in the country. But that's the predominant three pieces. It'll be in policy. But generally, it's your driver's licence.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Most provinces scan your provincial ID when entering a bar so that the fake IDs can't be used. Will this be harder to control for us here?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I'm sorry, you said most scan your –

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Most scan your ID when you're going in, yeah.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Okay, I'm not familiar with that. It will be something that I'll wait for my officials to see if that is something that is under consideration by the NLC. It would take a modernization, of course, of the licence itself. So we'll have to take that away and considerate it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you.

Just will it make it easier or be harder for people under age to enter? So that was just the general question.

How will these amendments and regulation changes to marketing and promotion affect small businesses, sports teams who rely on promotion and sponsorships for some businesses?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Sorry, I'm having some challenges because I don't even know what

section of the act – do you know what

section that is in?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: N o.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I would say to the Member opposite that what we're trying to do is just modernize and ensure that we're aligned with the – we do have a Provincial Alcohol Action Plan. We're trying to align some of what we're trying to achieve with – I'm going to show a copy of it – the Provincial Alcohol Action Plan. We want to make sure that we are aligned in our thinking around that.

I would assume that it would have very limited impact. But it would be something that I'll certainly await for my officials to see if there's anything there that I need to be – I just need the

section of the act.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: That's fine. I mean, listen, if it's in different sections then I certainly appreciate it. If your officials get back to you, then at least we'll get the right answer and you'll be able to report back, so that's perfect.

When will the marketing and promotion amendments be introduced and when will they come into effect?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Again, they'll come into effect upon approval of this House of Assembly. We'll certainly move forward then with the regulations. Once we have the legislative authority under the act, we'll certainly move forward and take it then to the regulation stage and then for introduction.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: How will the changes to the regulations regarding the offence of what was called consumption of alcohol in public to possession of alcohol in public affect policing?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: That's what we're trying to do here – I'm sure the Member opposite is aware that currently in the legislation a police officer would have to actually see someone consume the alcohol. Sometimes when people are imbibing in the public, they have it in their hand, but if they were carrying it in their hand, the police had no reason to interrupt or ask them to not do so.

So we've moved it from the actual physical consumption of it to the possession of it so that police could, as required, intervene. That is something that we've heard around the province is a concern for people, especially in events or in community festivals. It's not necessarily to do more; it's to be able to stop the process if required.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

In regard to open liquor – these are some of the questions that people are putting back to you – if somebody is coming back from a cabin and have a bottle of rum that's open from the weekend and there are a couple of drinks gone out of it and it's in your vehicle, is that considered open?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I would think that that's the Highway Traffic Act , not necessarily the Liquor Control Act . I would think that that would be something under the Highway Traffic Act more so than the Liquor Control Act .

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: What if you're driving along and you have, say, two cans of beer in a case or in your bag, not open now, two cans that are actually there; is that considered – again, it might be the Highway Traffic Act , but just trying to clarify for the people that are asking.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: The only thing I can say is I will go take that back, but it is under the Highway Traffic Act versus the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation Act that that would be controlled.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Will the changes under

section 89 allow for inspectors and law enforcement to obtain a warrant outside the traditional hours of court when needed via a phone, fax or other means of communication?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Will the changes under

section 89 allow for inspectors or law enforcement to obtain a warrant outside the traditional hours of court when needed via a telephone, fax or other means of communication?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Section 89?

CHAIR: I don't even see

section 89.

S. COADY: I'm sorry, I'm trying to find the clauses.

I don't have a clause 89, so I will say that, yes –

CHAIR:

Section 49, we think the Member is referring to.

S. COADY:

Section 49. Okay, just let me go to 49.

Unfortunately, it is confusing because there are so many different clauses, but I will say to the Member, the idea here is that we can have access, and that's the telewarrants situation that I spoke of earlier, to allow liquor control inspectors to have access, if they require it. As you can appreciate, most of these licensees are open during late hours and on the weekends to now being able to access, to allow them to have the warrants.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Minister.

I'll go to the next question, but in dealing with – on Friday when we had the correspondence, I will say, this is me, personally, most legislation – I was in Service NL before – you have months to prepare this legislation, and nothing against the minister or any ministers, we have two days to find out and go through it. You have months to prepare.

If we get in government, I'm hoping we're going to give everybody at least a week to be able to do it, that's just my opinion, but I'm certainly going to speak to this side here, that we would give people an opportunity –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: I'm not saying we didn't have an opportunity, it's Friday morning, but it's a big piece of legislation, as you know, and trying to find answers is not easy. We have to ask these questions. I just feel that we don't get enough time on legislation, not only this piece, every piece that comes in here, unless they're just changing some wording, we don't get a lot of time to research it and do it and get into it.

That's just my opinion on it, but it's something I think we should be looking at as a government as a whole, 40 Members, everybody get the right to be able to spend more time and get more up on the act. As you said, this is a huge piece of changing and certainly something we should look at.

Can you help clarify what defines open liquor in a vehicle now? As I said, would an open box with no stoppers removed be consumption from the vehicle?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Sorry, to address your current concern about not having enough time, I would have been happy to work all weekend with you, if that – so if you ever receive a piece – sorry, I'm not supposed to address Members of the House of Assembly. If anyone ever needs additional time, I'm certainly, for my legislation, very happy to provide it.

At any time, if a Member of this House of Assembly has any questions, concerns, needs additional time, I would ask that just come to me and I'd be happy to work with them on ensuring that they have the information.

To answer your second part of your question, though, there are no changes related to having or carrying open liquor in a vehicle, not under this act. There are no amendments related to having open liquor in vehicles related to this act.

What we're talking about for this act is if you're at a festival, for example, or down on George Street or if you're out and about with alcohol, then the police, instead of observing you drink the alcohol, they can observe you holding onto the open liquor and they can approach you. That would obviously be under the discretion of the police. It would depend on the circumstances, but oftentimes when they're in a circumstance where they see someone who might be openly consuming liquor, might be inebriated, they can't approach them because they haven't seen them, actually, physically consume it.

So the only change in this act is that. So if you're in an open environment – if you're down on the – you know how we have the Pedestrian Mall now in downtown St. John's, if we have someone at the Pedestrian Mall who's consuming alcohol, this would allow the police officer to approach you, rather than have to physically watch you drink alcohol, they can now approach you and say, if it is indeed inappropriate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Allow me to get clarification on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: When can we expect a new regulation around this, what is now considered, alcohol beverages? When is that coming into effect? When can we expect the new regulations?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: After the legislation passes this House, the regulations will be developed based on the legislation itself, so you can't get ahead of yourselves here. So it will be based on the legislation itself. I would imagine, over the next number of months, they'll be reviewing and completing the regulations and bringing them forward based on the legislation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: When it's finished in regulations, do we get to have a look at that before it's actually done? No. That's what I thought. We ran into that in another piece of legislation.

Will this new legislation require an additional hiring of additional inspectors?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

Your regulations can only be based on your legislation so that's the framework. The legislation is your framework. I'll give you an example. Certain classifications of licensees have changed. There used to be a waiter licence, for example. That doesn't exist anymore, but it still exists in legislation. So it is important to have the controls and parameters by which you operate in legislation and then your regulations falling from that, so they can be changed and modernized as required.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Can we get a definition of open liquor versus drinking in public? Open liquor compared to drinking in public: What is the difference?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Up until this point, under the current existing legislation, the officer would have to actually physically watch you consume the liquor. So you would have to have an open beer and you would have to openly drink it, but if you just had an open bottle of beer in your hand and he or she didn't watch you consume it, they wouldn't approach you. So it is the actual physical act of consuming it.

I think I've answered your questions, I just wanted to check.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you.

I've got questions coming into me as well and I appreciate that, too, because sometimes if you don't have the answer, it is better to say you don't have it, then come back and give me the right answer. So that's perfect. I'm good with that.

Page 7 says camp or trailer on private ground, how about having a beer in Pippy Park, as an example? That's in a campground.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: I want to say I do have officials listening in so if there is anything that – because we're going back and forth rather fluidly, I do have officials listening in and can point out as required.

Open liquor, again, I don't want to start getting into defining when the police would interject and how they would interject, that's up to a police officer. What the change is, is that they don't have to physically see you drinking it. They may approach you.

I don't want to say when they'll approach you or how they'll approach you, but they will use their good discretion, as they would today. If you were inebriated, for example, at a park and they needed to approach you because they've had multiple complaints or there's a serious safety issue, they wouldn't have to wait for you to put the beer bottle to your lips; they could approach you before that.

I think, for safety and security reasons, that's important, but again, police would use their good discretion and make sure that they are exercising what I would say the norm would be. Right now – and you've heard this as much as I've heard this – sometimes they can't approach someone because they haven't seen them physically consume it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, again.

In the legislation it shows roads, lanes and highways. I just want to make sure that we add trails in here as well. We have snowmobile trails and ATV trails. So now, we're doing legislation, if something needs to be added there for that, then maybe that's a good time to put that to your people and check it out.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, we're getting a workout here standing and sitting. I know we could sit but I'm enjoying the physical activity but happy to have you sit if you wish.

I'm going to say that a campground site – I'm just going to go back to that one before I get into the trails – is your own space and you have a right to privacy. So I want to make sure that I covered that off in talking about when or when not a police officer can approach you.

Trails are interesting; it's not specifically included. So we're going to go check and we're going to consider that and how we would consider that in regulations, that trails are not specifically included. But it is something that's important.

CHAIR: Any further speakers?

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I'll start with the consumption of open liquor in a public space. Rivers and ponds – all you have to do is go along any pond and you'll see the beer cans and so on and so forth. So if someone is out fishing, whatever else, hot day, I'm just wondering, what would that mean for these people?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Well, as I just alluded to, we haven't really considered trails per se. So that would be something that we'll take away for that, but I'm hearing from Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, that's considered a public roadway, a trail is, so those would be considered.

But again, this is to give police the discretion. Depending on where you are, you may be able to consume because there is – this is to give police officers the opportunity to approach you. If you were in, as I use the expression, a public place, and you were inebriated, right now a police officer cannot approach you unless they actually observe you drinking it, even though you're inebriated, even though you're causing public nuisance or safety concerns.

So this is now allowing a police officer to actually be able to go up and approach you and make sure that you're safe. I'm not saying you. I mean the general public is safe, making sure that the person is safe and making sure they don't have to physically observe you. They're observing you with a bottle of liquor or a can of beer and being able to have that discretion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

Oh, I'm sorry – St. John's Centre. It's a habit.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I taught half of my career up there, so it's very much a part of who I am.

With regard to having that beer on a hot day on the side of a river or whatever else, would the enforcement officers have the ability then to enforce or to report to police?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: We don't have the depth of enforcement officers. The enforcement officers are more inspecting and working with licensees. I think I told you there are like 1,000 or 1,200 of them. They would be focused on the licensees. The RNC, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, obviously, are consumed with public safety, but it is allowing them to go ahead and approach.

Now, I do want to say that the difference in consumption versus possession is sort of like we have today. It's not a big change in that rule.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

With regard to – and I think it's touched on with trails and so on and so forth, but let's say with hunting season and having open liquor or whatever. You may not be riding. You may be walking, but I'm just wondering what the effects would be. Same thing?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I would say it will be the same as what you have today. The only change is the visual clue of seeing you drink versus holding it in your hand. It's the same as it would be today.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I know it talks about replacing motor vehicle, all-terrain vehicle and so on and so forth with conveyance. So what else would be included with that? I guess it's trying to be a catch-all. I'm trying to think, and if I may, Chair, in terms of, like, a bicycle, non-motorized vehicles, canoe and so on and so forth. Is that what we're talking about?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I think you're exactly right.

I mean, if you go back 50 years ago, they would not have had motorized bicycles at that point in time. There could be hoverboards in the future, for example, so it is to try and just do a catch-all rather than naming all-terrain vehicles, Ski-Doos and so on. It's the conveyance.

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

J. DINN: If I can clarify – and I probably already know the answer, but I've got to ask you. So it would also include – like, a number of operations have horseback riding, anything to do with animal-powered sleds or anything like that, it would fall under that, I assume.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: That's a very good question. I would assume so, but I will check on that to confirm.

I would be concerned honestly about the protection of the animal. You know, if you were inebriated on a horse, I would be concerned that that would be covered under some other acts or other legislation as well.

But again, it's the visual, I can see you drinking it versus I can see you holding it in your hand, the open liquor, and I'm observing that you're inebriated, for example.

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

J. DINN: In clause 20, Chair, the bill adds

section 53.1 to the Liquor Control Act , which requires marketing, advertising, sponsorship and promotions related to liquor to follow requirements set in the regulations.

This is a new component of the legislation. We're just wondering what provoked or caused the addition of this

section and what issues are government hoping to address or prevent?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: The Alcohol Action Plan, as I mentioned earlier. So the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has an Alcohol Action Plan, and we're trying to be consistent with the Alcohol Action Plan. As we progress with the Alcohol Action Plan, we want to make sure that we have it covered. That is the purpose of that particular section, clause 20.

It's a new provision requiring marketing, advertising, sponsorships and promotions related to liquor be in the requirements in the regulations, so we'll monitor as we develop as a province and as things develop under the Alcohol Action Plan, whether or not we need something in the regulations.

So we'll consult with Health, for example. We'll consult with others as to what would be appropriate for the regulations.

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

J. DINN: Just when it comes to promotion of local products, whether it's a distillery, breweries, wineries and so on and so forth, what is the role of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation in promoting local products and making sure that they have a fair share of the market?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I always think that the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation should be cognizant and aware of local products. I know that they work very closely with industry, but it is a regulated industry, so they have to make sure that they are respectful of a regulated environment. I know that they do work closely with local industry, making sure that they have product and space for product within their stores, but, again, it is a regulated industry.

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

J. DINN: I've heard from a few, I guess, smaller businesses, the microbreweries, that, in many ways, the NLC will cater to the larger businesses from outside the province, but it's something that has been brought up, Chair.

Clause 62 of the bill updates the fines and imprisonment structure of the Liquor Control Act for people caught purchasing, possessing, acquiring, transporting, storing or selling contraband. The difference between the act and Bill 62 as outlined – we can look at an outline below that I have here – depending on how the imprisonment sentences are interpreted, individuals could be sentenced up to two extra years imprisonment. From a harm reduction standpoint, increasing prison time of individuals purchasing contraband liquor could be detrimental. So maybe not the ones selling it but those who are purchasing it.

Do the changes to this

section then, from the discussion of your department with other departments and agencies, increase the potential of prison sentences people could face under this act? Could an individual convicted of a third contraband offence go to jail for 4½ years?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

There are no changes to imprisonment under this section, it's only the fines that are changing.

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

J. DINN: Thank you.

Clause 81 of the bill adds

section 38.1 to the Liquor Corporation Act , which requires non-NL Liquor Corporation vendors to pay a prescribed amount to the corporation to account for profits the corporation would have made had they sold the alcohol themselves.

During the technical briefing, department staff mentioned this

section was previously included in the act and was repealed. Now it seems we're putting it back. We haven't been able to locate a copy of the Liquor Corporation Act old enough to locate the previous iteration of this section. I suspect it was previously

section 39, which was repealed in 1996.

So the question is: What is the rationale for why this

section is being reinstated and what has changed since it was removed?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I think you're referring to clause 80 and the Liquor Corporation Act it's 38(1). I'm just trying to figure out where you are. Clause 80 – Liquor Corporation Act ,

section 38. It's just moved from 38 to 38(1), okay.

So the purpose is, this clarifies that alcoholic liquor produced by all licensed manufacturers must be sold in containers in compliance with the laws of Canada and is approved by the corporation. It currently only states brewers. Okay, so it currently only states brewers, but we're saying that it must be sold in containers in compliance with the laws of Canada and as approved by the corporation. We're expanding it. And (2) all licensed manufacturers are subject to the penalty for contravention. It repeals provisions related to the gross profit markup, 38.1. It's housekeeping.

I'm just looking here now, 38.1 is the new clause. So 38.1 is the new provision to retain the repealed gross profit provisions. So 38 is now 38.1 and it clarifies that the board may set the gross profit markup and that different rates may be set for different types or classes of alcohol or based upon different production volumes; (2) maintains that a brewer must remit the gross markup on a beer that is delivered by the brewer; and (3) retains – this is unchanged – the penalty for contravention. So it's taking it from 38 and putting it to 38.1. It's a housekeeping change, apparently.

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

J. DINN: That's it for questions, but I would like to echo what my colleague from Ferryland referenced about the amount of time to prepare for a large – and I understand, yes, being able to make contact during the weekend is a generous offer. I won't put words into the Member's mouth, but I will say that, I think, in many ways, it wouldn't hurt to have these well in advance, even at the beginning, so that we have a time to research and when we go to a technical briefing, there's an opportunity to ask some specific questions.

I think that's what the Member was alluding to and it's something that we've noticed. It's one thing if it's just housekeeping, Chair, it's another thing if it's – all you have to do is look at this bill and you'll see here the amount of boldface versus what – it's just an opportunity, especially if you have a small research staff to do that. That's what we're asking, I think it comes down to that ability to do due diligence and to debate effectively.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for a response.

S. COADY: I thank you for that construction feedback. I will say we did consider this, housekeeping and when the briefing was done on Thursday, I think that we had officials there to kind of go through what I'm going to call the housekeeping amendments, like moving it from

section 38 to 38(1), which was the last point.

But I will make the offer to my colleagues that if I ever have a piece of legislation that you have issues or concerns with, I'd certainly be happy to take the call at any time and walk people through the changes that are required and, if need be, even wait a few days and have further conversations about it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

We'll next hear from the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: To the President of Treasury Board, when you look at and you consider a can in your hand; now, since this legislation was amended last, they sell actually single servings, a Tallboy or whatever. If that seal is not broken and you're walking down the road with it in your hand and it's not in a bag, because years ago you used to have it in a bag or you couldn't leave the liquor store, now bags are outlawed, but if the can is not opened, is that still considered drinking in public?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: N o, I don't think it would be, but it's at the discretion of the police. They will make their observations and I would assume that if it's not opened and it's not being consumed, but, again, it's at the discretion of the police. If they're observing you in an inebriated state, causing concerns to the public, they can approach you.

During the initial act, they couldn't even approach you, because they didn't observe you having a drink. Now they can approach you and say, okay, is there an issue here or not. Again, it is at the discretion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

What if the can in the hand of the person – and they're using their discretion and all that. What if they come up on somebody and they got that can in their hand and they just didn't want to litter, but it's an empty can? You know, but they probably did consume it. I'm just trying to make sure that we're not going down a slippery slope.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Again, if the can was not open then we're all okay. But it is at the discretion of the police. I'm being open enough to say that in the past there have been challenges of safety, security, inebriation, all kinds of things happening, but the police had no ability to question a person because they didn't observe them drinking it.

Now, if they observe that there is a challenge, that they can approach and suggest that this is not appropriate. So it is that small nuance, and I agree, but again, you have to rely on your police officer, in their discretion. And if there is nothing untoward, I'm sure all would be fine.

But if you have an empty bottle in your hand and you're obviously causing public disruption, concern, you are clearly inebriated, you're clearly challenged then I think that at least the police can now do something about it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Well, I think just to elaborate on that point, if we look at the discretion of the police officer, then maybe there needs to be something in rules and regulations that has a stop point of how they – at what point do they get to use their discretion. Because, like I said, the way you might see a situation of somebody being inebriated or whatever, might be different for me. Do you know what I mean? So it depends on what kind of facility you're in, if you're at a concert, whatever you're doing. I mean, you could be in a horseshoe tournament, yacking it up with the guys kind of thing.

So I just want to make sure that when we look at rules and regulations, we don't go down a slippery slope of leaving it to only discretion.

The other thing I want to ask: Is alcohol now currently being taxed by the sugar tax? Because, as we know, all alcohol is produced from water, yeast and sugar.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I will say to your first point, being intoxicated in public, it is a different offence. It is a pretty serious offence. But I will say that if you have an open can of alcohol and it is empty, I am sure the police – I mean, it is empty, so there is no consumption of the alcohol that can take place; it is empty. I will say there is a difference between possession and consumption.

Concerning the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, we have not moved that toward alcohol at this point. I'm not saying that we're clearly undertaking this. I'm just saying that at this point, no. You know, you're 19 years of age, you're going into consumption, but on the sugar sweetened beverage tax, I do want to say I look at this similar to I would look at smoking.

There was a lot of debate when cigarettes were first being taxed and it's to just change behaviour, there's no doubt. It's also to make people talk about the fact that you are consuming sugar. The largest consumption of sugar, according to the learned society, I'm going to say, like the Canadian Cancer Society, like the Canadian Diabetes Association and so on, they say that the largest consumption in sugar in people's diets is through sugar-sweetened beverages.

That's why they're supportive of a tax. It does a couple of things. First of all, it makes us all talk about it, which we constantly do, and I appreciate that we are doing that. That was very important when they first put tax on cigarettes. It was part of that conversation that helped to stop and deter people from smoking, and we have to deter people.

In a can of pop today, you got 10-plus teaspoons of sugar, and people don't realize it. They would not eat 10-plus teaspoons –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. COADY: And it can be more, you're right. It's not like you eat it. You drink it and you don't realize it, and that's what the Diabetes Association and the Canadian Cancer Society are talking about.

They're very concerned about sugar consumption, and they are supportive of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax for that very reason. It causes a conversation, and we have many conversations in this House and in society about how important it is to minimize the impact of sugar, and when you're drinking it, you don't realize. I don't know of anyone who would sit there and eat 10 teaspoons of sugar, but I know a lot of people that drink 12 cans of pop a day, right?

It's a long way of saying no, it's not on alcohol at this point, but I will say that we recognize that some of these alcoholic beverages do contain sugar.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: I have one last question, Chair.

I ask the minister if we can bring the Cannabis Control Act back into the House so that we can talk about the retail side, because right now, having four different tiers of stores, it's not working. We have people who want to invest, but it looks like government only wants to stay on tier four, where we put it into a gas station or anything.

The problem with that is that you can't advertise; you can't talk about it. There are things there that needs to change in the rules and regulations but there are some amendments that could be made as well to make sure that the people who want to invest can invest, because it's actually a little bit too spread out right now with the way we have it situated kind of thing. From my example, I'm saying, let's say the people in Arnold's Cove would have to go to Clarenville or Whitbourne in order to safely purchase any cannabis or anything like that.

They're not able to get a stand-alone store but there's no other space that they would be able to utilize for tier four stores. So I think that legislation would be really relevant to bring back to the House, because it's a new industry and I think that we need to really nail it down where we make it our own. While it is overlooked by the federal government, it might be an opportunity for us to make it our own. We are an island and there are a lot of things around here, especially when we talk about enforcement.

Right now, I mean, you can go on the Internet or whatever and you can order it and have it shipped through Canada Post, show up at your mailbox and nobody is none the wiser, yet that is a black market.

I would like to see that legislation brought forward and I'd really appreciate your due diligence on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

Of course, that is the Cannabis Control Act and that's separate from this legislation, but I can say to the Member that that act is now currently under review and if there are any proposed amendments, we'll certainly bring it back to the House. But I will say to the Member, always good to have a conversation about the concerns and my team is listening and heard your remarks and we'll take that under advisement as we go through that five-year legislative review.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: I would make myself available to be part of any kind of deliberation for that, because I do have experience with the Liquor Corporation and understanding how it was introduced and everything. I would make myself available for any of those deliberations.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Seeing no further speakers, shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): Clauses 2 through 86 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 86 inclusive carry ?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 86 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.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 62)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On 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 hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 62 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 62.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion,