PDF Version

November 3, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 62

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Lake

Melville, Stephenville - Port au Port, Mount Pearl North, Labrador West and St.

John's East - Quid Vidi.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR.

TRIMPER:

Mr.

Speaker, when the Goose Bay Air Base opened in 1941, it completely changed

society across Labrador. Indigenous and other residents relocated to the head of

Lake Melville to join allied personnel at the great trans-Atlantic airport, all

in support of RAF Ferry Command. Over 24,000 aircraft passed through Goose Bay

during the war.

In a remote corner of the base lies Commonwealth

Cemetery. Here lay 32 aviators and soldiers from Canada, the United Kingdom and

Australia killed when their aircraft went down.

Just as poignant as the Lest We Forget Cemetery, and

buried alongside are many civilians – including their children, who were also

involved in this epic struggle.

On each 11th of November, our community gathers here

for an emotional ceremony. Military personnel stand at each war grave while

remarks and prayers are offered by the wing commander and base padre. The Act of

Remembrance is read by the Royal Canadian Legion. Relatives and community

supporters gather in support while the three national anthems and “Last Post”

are played.

Please join me in thanking those in the service of our

country at 5 Wing Goose Bay, and those who gather annually with them at this

special place, to remember this ultimate sacrifice.

Lest we forget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Dave Rex is a very familiar name in the Stephenville -

Port au Port area. When it comes to volunteering, Dave's dedication and passion

in the community are obvious and he is certainly looked upon as an exceptional

community member who always goes above and beyond the call of duty.

As a testament to his volunteerism, Dave has been

recognized with a number of distinctions over the years. In both 1999 and again

in 2007, Dave was awarded Stephenville Citizen of the Year. In 2016, Dave was

named a Senior of Distinction by the Department of Seniors, Wellness and Social

Development to acknowledge and celebrate the meaningful contribution seniors

make to our society.

Dave has been a member of the Stephenville Lions Club

for the past 30 years and has held a number of offices within the club,

including serving as president. Under Dave's leadership in 2013, the

Stephenville club was named a top five club in Canada. In 2016, he also received

the Lions International President's Award.

To quote Dave: Service to others is the rent we pay for

our place on earth, and of that service, the greatest is to our youth.

Please join me in recognizing and congratulating Mr.

Dave Rex as an outstanding citizen and volunteer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pat O'Keefe Sr. has made many great contributions to

the community of Mount Pearl.

Pat began coaching hockey in 1975 when he coached the

Mary Queen of the World hockey team. From there, he continued on to coach

numerous all-star teams and served as vice-president and president of the Mount

Pearl Minor Hockey Association. Pat also coached soccer with the Mount Pearl

Soccer Association and was a Cub leader and a Scout master at Mary Queen of the

World. As well, he served on the PTA of two Mount Pearl high schools.

For many years, Pat served as a grand knight of Knights

of Columbus Father John B. Kent Council and is still a member today. He held the

position of president of Mary Queen of the World parish council for several

years, served as director of the Children's Wish Foundation and was elected to

the Mount Pearl council for two terms. Additionally, Pat has received numerous

awards and recognition for his outstanding work in volunteerism, including

Citizen of the Year and the Queen's Jubilee Medal.

Pat O'Keefe has contributed to the success of many

supports and community organizations within our community. Please join me in

recognizing Pat O'Keefe for his outstanding contributions to the community of

Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to give recognition to the Labrador West

Search and Rescue team. The Labrador West Search and Rescue team was formed in

1982 and currently has 35 members. Even with their near-total shutdown because

of the pandemic this year, they have been on standby or in action for 11

call-outs and about 2,400 hours spent in the field, collectively.

The Labrador West Search and Rescue team trains for

hours in every weather condition so they can be prepared to deploy at any

moment's notice to give help to those who are lost or may be injured.

What some don't realize is that they are also at most

community events, volunteering to help with traffic control, first aid during

parades, marathons and hockey tournaments. These volunteers provide their

service to ensure that rowers are safe during our Regatta. They also educate our

residents on how to enjoy outdoor activities safely and give presentations to

all the schools.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking the

Labrador West Search and Rescue team for all the work they've done to keep our

community safe and educate everyone year-round.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS.

COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I recognize the life and work of the Right

Reverend Dr. Geoffrey Peddle who was the bishop of the Anglican Diocese of

Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador since 2014 and was ordained in the ministry

for 33 years.

Geoff served in parishes across the province: Lake

Melville, Cartwright, Arnold's Cove and Mount Pearl. He was the author of

From Mount Pearl to Mount Sinai ,

The Atonement of Jack Fowler , a

history of The Church Lads' Brigade

and The Church of England Orphanage in

Newfoundland: 1855-1969 . He was outspoken in his support for same-sex

marriage, better treatment of prisoners and interfaith dialogue. He did not back

away from difficult topics.

I know I speak for all hon. Members as I send my

condolences to his wife Kathy, sons Benjamin and Adam, daughter-in-law Magdalena

and his new granddaughter Josefina. The family has asked that we give gratitude

for Geoff's life by enjoying time with loved ones, walking in nature and being

kind to one another.

I ask the hon. Members of this House to join me in

celebrating the life and work of Bishop Geoffrey Peddle. May we all aspire to

follow his example of kindness, inclusion and mercy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, today I participated virtually in the Maritime and Arctic Security and

Safety Conference – MASS20.

This event has attracted a global audience and is

showcasing the significant capabilities of the aerospace, defence and security

industries in Atlantic Canada. Despite a challenging year, industry leaders have

been quick to adapt to the rapid pace of change and take advantage of new

opportunities.

Aerospace, defence and security all play a role in the

growth engine of the Atlantic Canadian economy, accounting for almost 23,000

jobs and an overall economic impact of nearly $3 billion.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, companies and researchers

thrive on solving the technical challenges of operating in a cold ocean

environment with innovative technologies, such as subsea imaging and radar

technology, as well as aerial and satellite ice management. By establishing

world-class technologies, academic and research facilities and developing highly

skilled workers right here, our companies and institutions are competing

globally.

I would like to congratulate the Atlantic Canada

Aerospace and Defence Association for changing course while keeping everyone's

health and safety top of mind and putting together the virtual MASS20

conference. I look forward to continuing our partnership to help advance the

opportunities that exist to enhance our international profile.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I join the minister in

recognizing Atlantic Canada Aerospace and Defence Association on their virtual

conference, MASS20.

Mr. Speaker, as COVID-19 continues to reek havoc on our

global community, more and more conferences and workshops are transitioning to

the online format. While many participants miss the face-to-face interaction,

the online nature allows more individuals and businesses to participate,

especially smaller firms and start-ups.

I am pleased to hear that through MASS20 our

environment and local industry has been showcased. Our province offers the

unique ability to do research and innovate in cold-water climate while Labrador

also provides the ability to work in a northern and remote landscape.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy

of his statement. I, too, congratulate Atlantic Canada Aerospace and Defence

Association on a successful conference in these difficult times.

We have a gem here in Newfoundland and Labrador when it

comes to research and technology sector and we have the responsibility to

nurture and grow this industry further. I'm proud that we can continue to be a

world leader in Maritime and Arctic safety, so let's continue to grow and

support these industries.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR.

LOVELESS:

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to highlight assistance provided through the Department of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture Seafood Development program to help support

the recent launch of Waspu – a new Indigenous brand seal oil capsule developed

by the Qalipu First Nation. Waspu is the Mi'kmaq word for seal.

Funding of up to $25,000 will be provided to the Qalipu

Development Corporation to help launch the Waspu brand into the domestic market

materials.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the leadership of the

Qalipu First Nation for recognizing opportunities that exist in our commercial

seal fishery and pursuing the development of an Indigenous branded seal oil

capsule.

The provincial government is pleased to support such an

initiative that only helps promote the health benefits associated with our

seafood resources but one which also sends a clear signal that the seal fishery

remains active and an important component of the fishing industry here in the

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Qalipu Development Corporation has partnered with

Newfoundland-based retail grocery chain Colemans to carry the product where it

is hoped it will be welcomed by consumers here locally and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, opportunities to access new quotas of

valuable fish species adjacent to our shores are anticipated in the near future.

We look forward to continuing our advocacy on behalf of Indigenous communities

and, indeed, all those living in our coastal communities to ensure rightful and

fair access to future quota allocations is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. Mr. Speaker, we would also like to commend and congratulate the

Qalipu First Nation on this new venture. We should be promoting all our seafood

resources.

The seal industry is, in particular, often forgotten. I

know that it's ignored and completely misunderstood by the current federal

government, given that they continue to do the inaction addressing the growing

number of seals and the poor judgment it showed just last month giving $80,000

to the IFAW to do work in this province. That is why it's important to educate

people about the valuable resource and the benefits it can offer.

Mr. Speaker, we're very pleased to see the seal fishery

be promoted in this way. We wish the Qalipu First Nation every success with this

venture. We look forward to seeing expanded markets for this and other seal

products in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement and compliment the Qalipu Development Corporation on the launch of its

Indigenous brand, Waspu seal oil capsule, of course, with funding from the

provincial government. It's a truly local and made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador

initiative that utilizes Indigenous ingenuity, a renewable seafood resource and

partners with local businesses such as Colemans to promote the product.

If there's a path to economic prosperity for our

province, it is in partnerships such as these.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and

Recreation.

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I acknowledge in this hon. House two gentlemen who

recently passed away, both of whom recorded impressive achievements and made

exceptional contributions to sport in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Enshrined in the Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Hall

of Fame, the provincial athletics Hall of Fame and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Soccer Hall of Fame, Ben Dunne was an integral member of our provincial sporting

community for over 50 years.

A contributor as an athlete, a coach and a builder, Mr.

Dunne was well known mostly for his impressive list of competitions within

athletics and on the soccer pitch. From winning the Tely 10 in 1973, to

participating in the prestigious Boston Marathon several times, he coached at

the 1988 World Junior track and field championships, as well as the Canada Games

and provincial games. On the soccer pitch, he led multiple teams, including the

2002 and 2005 squads at the national Jubilee Trophy for women's championships

and the provincial entry at the 1993 Canada Summer Games.

Mr. Speaker, another pillar of provincial sports who

recently passed was Dave Barrett.

In the days when top athletes typically played a couple

of sports, Dave Barrett excelled in two sports during the winter and two sports

in the summer. An all-round athlete who thrived in the sport of track and field.

He led St. Bon's to three overall championships, medalling in shot put, discus,

javelin, high jump and relay. In his brief tenure on the soccer pitch, he earned

an MVP award and played for the St. John's All-Stars. Mr. Barrett also had great

success on the ice with his beloved St. Bon's, where his squad won the Boyle

Trophy five of the six years he played hockey.

But, Mr. Speaker, it was on the hardwood where Mr.

Barrett's star shone the brightest. Winner of numerous city league MVP awards

and scoring titles, he was inducted as an original member of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Basketball Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

acknowledging the life of Ben Dunne and Dave Barrett, two pillars in our

provincial sporting community.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the minister for an

advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, sports in our province recently lost two

more sport legends and hall of fame members, Ben Dunne and Dave Barrett.

Mr. Dunne's contribution as an athlete, coach, builder

and educator in this province is well known. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment

was the young athletes and students who he aspired to reach their full potential

either on the track, the pitch or in the classroom. Dunne was an athlete

extraordinaire who competed at the Boston Marathon and won the Tely 10.

Mr. Barrett was an all-around athlete in multiple

sports but best known for his on-ice exploits and five Boyle Trophies. He was an

original member of the Basketball Hall of Fame for his excellence on the court.

Barrett also found time to serve his community as city councillor for a number

of years.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, I send my sincere

condolences to the Dunne and Barrett families on the passing of these two sports

legends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy

of his statement.

We here in the Third Party caucus send our condolences

to the family and friends of Mr. Ben Dunne and Mr. Dave Barrett. The

accomplishments of these two gentlemen have left a huge impact on the sporting

community in Newfoundland and Labrador and their contributions will continue to

inspire thousands of generations to come and do their best.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During his leadership campaign, the Premier promised a

chief economic recovery officer. The economy needs recovery and jobs more than

ever, but this is another promise with no action.

When will action be taken on economic recovery and

jobs?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have already announced the Premier's Economic

Recovery Team and they're working diligently currently. We've also made good

progress on moving towards a chief economic recovery officer that will last

beyond the Premier's Economic Recovery Team, beyond this Legislature and

hopefully for years to come so that person can give updates regularly on the

economic situation of the province well into the future.

We're continuing to work hard to create jobs and

economic opportunity for the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

thank the Premier for that, but he's had six months now to think through and

work on the economic recovery officer and all he has to show so far is good

progress.

He says he talks to Ottawa every day. When did he last

talk to Prime Minister Trudeau about the jobs crisis in this province, and did

the prime minister promise any additional help for industrial-based jobs,

including Come By Chance and the offshore?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, the math from the Member opposite is once

again wrong. Nevertheless, we continue to have open discussions with Ottawa on a

regular basis. My last conversation with the prime minister was a first

ministers' call, which occurs every two weeks or so.

We discussed, in particular, the Atlantic region and

the impact that COVID is having. We discussed this at the Atlantic premiers'

conference recently as well and how the region itself is suffering in particular

with respect to the crisis in oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador. The

prime minister is aware of the situation and is currently working through all

solutions for all Canadians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, if I could respectfully suggest, if the Premier spent less time in the

Trudeau fan club and more time fighting for us, he might get results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

CROSBIE:

The

Premier's government has rolled over on equalization, failed on fiscal

stabilization and rate mitigation has been a total disaster.

Given that our six Liberal MPs have disappeared, when

will the Premier use his supposed leverage to get help from Ottawa?

PREMIER FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we wouldn't be in a rate mitigation scenario

if it wasn't for the Members opposite and then we're in this (inaudible) that

we're currently facing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER FUREY:

The

fact that they burdened the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and their

children with this untold economic and fiscal crisis is something that we're

working through currently as a government.

That said, the Member opposite may want to rip down

flags, I want to build relationships so that we can work through this time of

crisis, not in war, but to work together towards a solution for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, the flag I want to raise is the flag of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

CROSBIE:

might modestly suggest to the Premier that if he spent less time focused on the

past and more time focused on the future, he could get some good ideas about

Muskrat Falls from his friend John Abbott. A previous Liberal government under

Clyde Wells used legislation to repeal collective agreements for economic

reasons.

The Premier says attrition is not enough, so will he

clarify whether he intends to use legislation to tear up collective agreements?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER FUREY:

Mr.

Speaker, thank you for that question.

Raising flags – we're all interested in raising the

Newfoundland and Labrador flag. We do so every day. I'm not interested in

tearing down the Canadian flag.

We're part of Canada; we're part of a solid federation.

This is the benefit of being part of a Canadian family so that we can have open

discussions with our federal colleagues to advance the Newfoundland and Labrador

agenda in the face of an acute rate mitigation crisis that's been laid on our

laps by the previous governments.

We will continue to work towards solutions with the

Canadian government as part of that federation, which I know that all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud to be a part of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Premier, I think we heard a pile of platitudes from the Premier about collective

bargaining, which amounts to no comfort for hard-working public servants. The

hospitality industry says 7,000 jobs will not survive another year without a

plan, and they need the plan now.

Can the Premier tell the industry what the plan is?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

MR.

DAVIS:

Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much for the question.

Obviously, I think it's the first time the hon. Member

actually brought up the tourism and hospitality sector in this House, which is

excellent because it's a major economic driver in our province.

We've worked very hard on developing relationships with

our colleagues in the hospitality industry. HNL has been with us along the

entire way. We've developed a Tourism and Hospitality Support Program which has

been greatly successful in reaching out. Obviously, we're working very hard with

our federal colleagues and the Minister of Tourism. We're looking at

opportunities that we see to extend those programs, to ensure that those

operators have continuity because they've done substantial work over the last

number of decades and we want to continue that success into the future for that

industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

PARDY:

Mr.

Speaker, just to remind the minister that he needs to be probably a little more

attentive because we brought up tourism many times in this House and in this

Question Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

PARDY:

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Education committed to consultation in January of 2021

with the child care industry about the $25-a-day program that he announced two

weeks ago.

Why did he not engage in a meaningful way with

home-based operators before rolling out the program?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The consultation process that I announced would have a

formal start of consultations in January is toward the statutory review that is

supposed to be in 2022. We decided that we would have that early.

Mr. Speaker, we are always open for consultation. We're

always open for feedback and for dialogue with those in the early learning and

child care industry. In fact, I have a meeting with home-based workers tomorrow

morning at 9.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

PARDY:

Mr.

Speaker, it reminds me of the roll out of the school re-entry plan on August 17.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

PARDY:

Mr.

Speaker, operators continue to speak out about forced cuts to their rates. In

order to provide a $25-a-day child care they will be forced to lose money or cut

nutritious snacks and healthy meals.

Why is the minister forcing operators to choose between

going out of business or a quality, healthy meal plan for our children?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like the Member opposite's bosom buddy, he was also

calling for half-day school, Mr. Speaker, or half-time school. Have one-half of

the class in on Monday, the other half in on Tuesday. I think our back-to-school

plan has worked far better than the suggestions from that Member, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, the $25-a-day child care plan is a phenomenal plan for parents in this

province. It makes early learning and child care affordable for families in this

province. Like any new program, as it was rolled out for the centres in 2014, it

came with road bumps. I am fully prepared to work with our partners in early

learning and child care to ensure that we have a good future for early learning

and child care in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

PARDY:

Mr.

Speaker, if they had done homework when they rolled out the schools re-entry

plan, they would've known that the largest school district, the Toronto school

district, had that same idea. So it wasn't something new, it was something that

a jurisdictional scan would've highlighted for the minister.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from operators who are

devastated as they consider how to feed the children on $2.50 a day for meals

and 50 cents a day for snacks, which is outrageous.

Will the minister commit that he will fix this mess

before the $25-a-day child care starts in January?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will remind the hon. Member across the way that in

Ontario they have considerably larger numbers of COVID cases than we do in this

province. Maybe they needed half-day school in that province, Mr. Speaker, but

we don't in this province. I will gladly listen to the advice of parents in this

province who want their children in school full-time, as opposed to the advice

of the Member who wanted them in school half-time.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of early learning and child care,

the concerns raised –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order, please!

MR.

OSBORNE:

by home operations are legitimate concerns. I've got a meeting with them at 9

o'clock tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker, the plan for centres in this province, the

subsidy for centres is about $1 or $1.50 more than we're offering home based.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

PARDY:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, Mr. Speaker. If we were back on August 11, there

was a different perspective on our school system and what we would face here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of these home-based

daycares are female entrepreneurs who are struggling to provide an essential

service and make a decent living.

Again: Why is the minister forcing the operators to

choose between quality of care and keeping the doors open?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, the plan that was rolled out in 2014 for our centres saw that 70 per

cent of centres today are involved in the Operating Grant Program, which means

about 30 per cent are not. So the 30 per cent have the ability, the freedom to

charge what they wish. They still have children going to those centres.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is forcing a home-based centre to

join the Operating Grant Program, so nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

We are willing to sit and speak with the home-based operators to find out what

their concerns are and see if there are areas, red tape or other areas that we

can make it easier for these operators.

I am meeting with them 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, Mr.

Speaker, to hear their concerns. As I said, some of the concerns that they're

raising are very legitimate concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2016, the sitting administration announced its

intention to implement regional governance and sharing of services. It has been

four years.

I ask the minister: Why has it been so long to see no

action?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for my first opportunity to answer a question. I'm sure

my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, is more than

delighted that I finally got my question.

As the Member opposite knows, and like so many in this

department, regionalization does take a significant shift in government.

Since I've been in this role for the last eight, 10

weeks, I took the opportunity to meet with MNL and PMA to discuss

regionalization. We set up a committee that has been working very actively to

tackle forms of regionalization. Right now, there are a lot of success stories

going on with regard to regionalization within our communities and that. We will

continue to work on that and build on that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Mr.

Speaker, we just heard that this sitting administration has set up another

working committee.

What mandate will this new committee be given and what

results does the government hope to achieve?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think in order to do justice to this regionalization

and shared services, we have to fully involve and be engaged with MNL and PMA

and other stakeholders. I don't think, as a government as a whole, that we can

make the decisions that are going to impact the residents and communities of

Newfoundland and Labrador without the involvement of these organizations.

We're not going to rush this, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it has

taken some time and we're working through the process. We're analyzing the

public consultation that took place and we'll continue to do so. We're not going

to rush it. We want to make sure we do this right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Mr.

Speaker, we just heard that the minister does not think government is capable of

making decisions.

Mr. Speaker, government has already held consultations

on regional government back in 2017.

Number one: Will they release the findings? Number two:

Has this Committee been struck because they're afraid to make the decisions

necessary?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not sure if the Member opposite heard my comments.

No, we're not afraid, as a government, to make the decisions, but I think it's

unfair for a government to make decisions without the key stakeholders involved.

PMA and MNL are partnering with us. They're supportive

of the action we're doing. They're fully engaged in the process to date and they

will continue to be engaged, Mr. Speaker. We have a great working relationship

and we want to continue on that working relationship.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Mr.

Speaker, for the municipalities in this province, particularly the smaller ones,

compliance with the new federal waste water regulations is practically

impossible.

What is the minister's plan to address the financial

impact these requirements will have on municipalities across our province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a good question. It is a concern that has been

addressed at various levels of government. Our government is committed to

working with our federal colleagues to work on the waste water management plan.

We did support MNL and their federal colleagues to ask

for an extension. The federal government did come back and commit that they will

reconsider the time frames that are put into place.

As a government, we take this very seriously. We'll

continue to work with municipalities through our different funding programs to

achieve the goals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Mr.

Speaker, there are approximately 200 communities across the province with

boil-water advisories. These municipalities are more concerned about having

access to clean drinking water and waste water concerns are secondary.

What support does the minister have for these small

communities that have unsafe drinking water?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.

The Member opposite should be – and I guess everybody

should be – made aware that as of November 13, we've had applications open for

ICIP funding. That's funding for municipalities for waste water, for water, to

treat their waste water and the boil-water advisories.

We put out an early call last year in which we didn't

have a big uptake on it. I think it's about 160 at any given time that are on a

boil-water advisory in this province. A lot of towns have chosen, just made the

choice, not to turn on their infrastructure. We made an application available to

these towns.

If the towns don't take up on it, we cannot force it

down their throat, Mr. Speaker. We can lead people to the water but we can't

make them drink. We have a program in place to help the towns out there to

address the needs that will address their boil-water advisory issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. Member for Exploits.

MR.

FORSEY:

have been getting calls from constituents who have been waiting up to three

weeks for an appointment with Motor Registration in Grand Falls-Windsor. We are

also hearing that there are very long wait times to get a response on the

phones.

What immediate action will the minister take to improve

service delivery for those residents?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since we had the global pandemic this year, our staff

at motor vehicle registration have completely changed how they deliver services.

While you used to be able to walk into a branch, now you call; you make an

appointment online. There are drop boxes where you do things. You do the

transactions online.

My understanding is in Grand Falls-Windsor in

particular, residents are able to get an appointment within the next day or two,

so I don't believe there is an issue in Grand Falls-Windsor.

We are working on a new phone system that will allow us

to share capacity around the province so that residents, when they call in, they

don't have a wait and they can get services right away. We are trying to make

things better for residents, and it's a very important priority for me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR.

FORSEY:

This is particularly concerning for seniors and others who are unable to access

service online as they have no Internet access.

What are government's plans to address their concerns?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we are putting services online, our services in

person will not change. Residents can continue to call. They can use a drop box.

They can make an appointment to come in to a motor vehicle registration branch.

We are not changing the services. If anything, the online services will help

alleviate capacity so that we can provide better services to those who do them

in person and on the phone.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MS.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, that doesn't give any assurances to our

seniors who cannot access services online.

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Premier. We're in

an economic crisis. I've heard from many people in my district and throughout

the province, including seniors and people on fixed incomes, about the rising

cost of groceries.

I ask the Premier of the province: What specific steps

are being taken to ensure that consumers are protected from the rising cost of

food?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In our department we have the Consumer Advocate. In

terms of complaints from residents and food, particularly on price gouging,

during COVID-19 we did have a few complaints around price gouging, but they were

all investigated and found that no one was actually price gouging in terms of

the price gouging rules. We don't have any concerns about this at this point,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main,

MS.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have any concerns,

but our constituents who are calling our offices every day have serious concerns

about this problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the cost of living in this province is

increasing, making life unaffordable and stressful for so many people. We are

hearing from constituents with worries about not only the rising cost of

groceries but other basic household essentials.

Once again, I ask the Premier of our province: What

specific steps are being taken to protect our people from the rising cost of

essential goods?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very important question. These are difficult

times for people, we recognize that. That's why we have a very stable budget in

very unstable times. There's $123 million allocated in this budget as the Income

Supplement, as well as for the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit.

There's $12 million towards adult literacy programs.

Mr. Speaker, there is plenty of programming available

for seniors, including through the Seniors' Advocate. If there's anything that

we can do to support a senior, we certainly will. These are challenging times.

We'll do absolutely everything we can to assist people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has identified a

“catastrophic shortage” of family physicians in my district.

Recently, I received an email from a lady who lost her

family doctor and she needed a prescription filled. She called the 811

HealthLine and, sure enough, they gave her a refill on her prescription, but

then they told her that if she wanted to refill that prescription again she

needed to get a family doctor or go to the emergency room the next time.

Minister, what would you suggest I tell this woman?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's an excellent question. It is ironic that at a time

when we have more physicians and more family physicians in this province than we

have ever had, access to those individuals seems to be more challenged.

The Member opposite should know that we work with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. We actually provide them with

funding of $4.5 million a year for them and their family practice renewal

project. We have worked with them on collaborative arrangements to look after

orphan patients, as they refer to them, from time to time, and a team-based

approach that we have come to agree on will be a major pillar of our

negotiations going forward with the NLMA.

In the meantime, we have mechanisms in place for

episodic non-urgent care and we're looking to expand those as well, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer but, again, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Medical Association have identified over 100,000 people in our province

who do not have access to a family physician. It's not just in my district. It's

in the St. John's region, it's in the Central region, it's all over the province

and it's time that we do something because it's not working. While we say we

have more physicians than we've ever had, it's not working.

Mr. Speaker, for over a year and a half the Sir Thomas

Roddick Hospital in Stephenville has been without an internist and a surgeon.

Now we are hearing that the second surgeon is leaving. Surgical services in the

hospital have obviously been impacted and continue to be impacted. Clearly,

there's a problem with recruitment, not just with family physicians but also

with specialists.

Again I ask the minister: What is specifically being

done to address the catastrophic shortage of doctors in the Stephenville region?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, the challenge is distribution. We have, I

think, the second highest per capita number of doctors per 100,000 of any

provincial jurisdiction. It is of no comfort if they're all working in St.

John's. We have, with the Medical Association, begun discussions as part of

negotiations around a provincial strategy for recruitment and retention. We will

look forward to those rolling out once the negotiations have been completed.

Again, as it is part of negotiations, I think it would be premature for me to

say much more about that, Mr. Speaker, but it is a priority for us to get

physicians in the right places.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent press release NAPE reported

that staff were working 12-, 16- and 24-hour shifts. Seniors' rights groups are

calling for a staffing ratio of 3-1. It was good to see a conference between the

regional health authorities, NAPE and the Government of Newfoundland took place

last week.

I ask the minister: What was the staffing plan for

long-term care facilities that came out of that conference?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to 24-hour shifts, the department has

had in place mandatory reporting of 24-hour shifts of any health care worker

well prior to COVID. We are aware of maybe half a dozen over the course of the

last six months. That seems to be a very infrequent – fortunately – situation.

With regard to the discussions with Mr. Earle and NAPE,

as well as the other unions, we have agreed a process to look forward to this.

We have increased enrolment of LPN and PCA courses through the College of the

North Atlantic by 80 per cent and we are working with the unions about improving

the working conditions of those who remain.

I'm pleased to report to this House that the average

hours of nursing care in long-term care has gone up to well above the national

average. It's gone from 3.4 hours per day, which is above the national average,

to over 4.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. Member for St. John's Centre.

MR.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been receiving calls from

constituents who are seniors and have no place to live. They are depending on

the kindness of neighbours and friends who will board them for the night.

Currently, there are 87 empty units in St. John's with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation and over 900 people on a wait-list.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation: What is the plan to ensure that seniors are not

homeless this winter?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MR.

WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial and federal government

signed a nine-year multilateral agreement back in 2019 that provided $270

million in funding to preserve, renew and expand social housing and community

housing here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to bring new housing solutions to

the people in core housing needs.

The first of three three-year action plans, Mr.

Speaker, was agreed upon between Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation

and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation in March of 2020. This action

plan outlines our targets moving forward with regard to social housing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We still need to address the 87 empty units and the 900

people on the wait-list.

Mr. Speaker, a common practice I see is outpatient

services sending mental health patients, some to homes owned by private

landlords, many of which are not properly maintained. The substandard and often

unsupported homes exacerbate the mental health conditions of people who live

there.

I ask the minister: Where is the plan to support our

most vulnerable neighbours across the province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Again, a very important question and very timely.

During COVID, we, through the Department of Health and with my colleague from

CSSD, put together a vulnerable persons working group. This is co-chaired by our

director of Mental Health and Addictions in recognition of the mental health and

addictions challenges, as well as the representatives from NLHC.

This has become such a valued resource that it is

actually practically involved on the ground in finding policy solutions, as well

as operational solutions. This we have undertaken to continue regardless of when

the pandemic ends, and that will then feed into our mental health and additions

strategy, as well as CSSD's housing plan, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

J. DINN:

Mr.

Speaker, I invite both ministers to walk through our communities and recognize

the reality we are dealing with, which is basically a rise in violence, crime,

drug addition and mental health complexities. Both ministers are welcome to

speak to the people who live in our neighbourhoods and communities from St.

John's to Labrador West to see the reality for themselves.

I ask the Minister of Health or the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development: Where is the plan to address these

issues that we're facing right now?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MR.

WARR:

Mr.

Speaker, again, I thank the hon. Member for his question.

There are, I guess, a whole list of complexities that

the hon. Member has outlined and we continue to work closely through our

interdepartmental approach to poverty – if I may use that word, Mr. Speaker. I

know with regard to our Premier and our government, poverty reduction remains

high on our priority list.

Just last week, we took the opportunity in our SPC

meeting to address the issues that the Member is talking about today and we'll

continue to ensure that this working group makes this a priority going forward,

Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR.

SPEAKER:

accordance with subsection 44(1) of the

House of Assembly Act , I am tabling a report of the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards entitled: Joyce

Report , November 3, 2020.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. 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, November 5, 2020.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to clarify, in Question Period we talked

about price gouging. It was a mistake for me to say we don't have any concerns.

I feel sick about that, I should not have said that. I just want to clarify that

obviously we take the concerns of the people of the province very seriously,

especially with the price of food.

We have a Consumer Protection department within Digital

Government and Service NL and we investigate complaints around price gouging and

the price of food. I would encourage anyone in the province who have concerns

that they're – not necessarily from an overall inflation perspective, but if

they feel like the price of food is disproportionate or inappropriate according

to regulation, then they can certainly contact our office and make a complaint

and they'll be investigated. We take those very seriously.

I just wanted to apologize, I shouldn't have said that,

and clarify the role of consumer protection legislation in the province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Any more answers to questions for which notice has been

given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS.

EVANS:

I'm

presenting this petition for fairer electricity rates for Labrador Indigenous

communities.

The reason for this petition is: We, the undersigned,

are concern citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure

that fairer electricity rates be provided to Torngat Mountains residents of

Northern Labrador Indigenous communities of Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale,

Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet.

The rates charged to Northern Labrador residents are

cost-prohibitive to using electric heat. Therefore, rates are cost-prohibitive

to adequately heating their homes. The rationale for this petition is to bring

electricity rates more in line with what our neighbouring residents of Lake

Melville region pay.

For the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountains

residents are charged the same rate as neighbouring residents of Lake Melville

region. However, above the ceiling of 1,000 kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountains

residents pay six times the rate of Lake Melville residents; six times the rate,

jumping to 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The 1,000 kilowatt hour ceiling prevents

many residents from being able to afford to heat their homes with electric heat.

Low-income families and households that don't have the manpower to haul wood are

the greatest impacted.

Poorly heated houses often result in damage, creating

expensive repairs for frozen pipes, moisture damage and mould. Poorly heated

houses also create social and mental health issues that can be long lasting. We

strongly believe that changes to electricity rates are needed to be made for

Northern Labrador residents of Torngat Mountains.

Therefore, we petition this hon. House of Assembly as

follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the life block to 3,500

kilowatt hours when applying the Northern Strategic Plan subsidy to electric

bills of Northern Labrador residents of Torngat Mountains.

Just looking at my petition now, on the North Coast, as

was stated, if you go over a thousand kilowatt hours the rate jumps up to 18.5

cents a kilowatt hour. This is the highest rate charged to residents in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, 18.5 cents is cost

prohibitive to anyone being able to heat their homes, let alone the most

impacted, which is our elders, our children, single mothers and low-income

families. They are the greatest impacted by the inability to heat a house, heat

a home. In actual truth, everybody is impacted. Even people who have two large

incomes in a household really can't afford electric heat because the bill gets

up around $800, $900.

Just looking at that, I already talked about elders

spending all their pension cheques on heating oil. I talked about cold houses. I

talked about condensation because of the heating and cooling of not being able

to provide a constant temperature in the household. I talked about mould damage,

the cost of those repairs. All of this hits at the heart of the families on the

North Coast of Labrador. This impacts not just low-income families or our

seniors, our elders, it impacts all families.

Until we find an alternate source of electricity to

this greenhouse gas-producing diesel that we rely on, we're asking that the life

block be increased to 3,500 kilowatt hours. We're not asking for the world,

we're asking for the life block to be increased.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MS.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons for this petition are that:

Whereas individual residents, municipal leaders, including the Conception Bay

North Joint Council have spoken to the deplorable road conditions in the

District of Harbour Main. The district is made up of many smaller communities

and towns like Holyrood, Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South

River, North River, Roaches Line and Makinsons.

These towns and communities have roads in desperate

need of repair and paving. These roads see high-volume traffic flows every day

and drivers can expect potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many

washed out areas along the way. We petition the hon. House of Assembly to

immediately take the necessary steps to repair and repave these important

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

basis.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is not the first

time I've raised this petition in the House of Assembly. Last June, for example,

June 16, 2020, I raised this petition; yet, Mr. Speaker, we're still waiting. We

see inaction by the government. In the past 17 months since my election, one of

the biggest issues I hear about from my constituents are the conditions of the

roads. The roads in many areas of the district can only be described as

deplorable. They're horrible. Many people, not only in my district but other

motorists outside the district who have to travel on these roads, are concerned

and have reached out.

Primarily, they're concerned about safety issues.

They're concerned about hazards caused by the roads. People, motorists,

residents are getting increasingly frustrated by government's inaction to

address these concerns. We hear in our offices about these issues, but it's not

just individuals that are upset, Mr. Speaker. I have letters here from

Conception Bay North Joint Council, from the municipal leaders in these councils

who have contacted the previous minister of Transportation and now the current

minister, expressing their frustration and their concerns.

Let me say in particular, the area in South River is

horrendous. We're talking about large potholes that are dangerous and difficult

to avoid. Not only there; I'll just highlight a couple: Roaches Line, Mr.

Speaker. This is a well-known road in my district. It's Roaches Line. Many

constituents and residents travel this road. It's a popular thoroughfare for

travellers and commuters from neighbouring communities like Makinsons, Cupids,

South River and others.

Again, these roads need to be addressed. They need to

be improved. I've heard from council members that the patching work that goes on

is totally unacceptable. The quality is just inadequate.

Mr. Speaker, please, we ask the government, we ask what

action will be taken to improve the conditions of these roads in the District of

Harbour Main.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2018, Eastern Health announced that the services

offered at the Portugal Cove Community Health Clinic will be relocated to

Major's Path centre, with the transition expected to be completed by September

20, 2018.

The Portugal Cove Community Health Clinic has provided

public health services for decades and is the only clinic in Portugal Cove-St.

Philip's, a town of nearly 10,000 residents. The clinic provided direct health

care programs and services to the town on a daily basis and addressed the vital

growing needs for the community's health services, particularly for the increase

in youth and aged population of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to ensure that

the services that were offered at the Portugal Cove Community Health centre be

reoffered at the same level as they were prior to the closure.

Mr. Speaker, in 2018, in conversations with Eastern

Health in trying to justify the announcement to close a clinic that had been

there for decades, and keeping in mind it was established based on the needs

that communities needed to be or could be better served by having the health

dynamics of that community. The community at the time was probably 3,200, 3,300

people. A community now hitting 10,000, the eighth largest municipality when you

compare it to the over 200 in our province.

To me, it would dictate that you would not only

continue the services that you have been providing, but you would find ways to

expand them and offer other ones that normally or previously weren't the key

issues that had to be addressed. That would be around mental health; it would

have been around addictions. Not counting all the primary care provided services

that were necessary, those related to new babies, those related to young people,

inoculations, all the things relevant to that and the needs of seniors.

Mr. Speaker, not only was it taken away, it was done

based on what they call a financial exercise. When we sat down and analyzed it,

and I sat with the chair of Eastern Health, I sat with the CEO, I sat with their

chief financial officer, and at the end of the day I showed – coming with all

the monies that had been put into it and what it would cost now to run Major's

Path and still have nurses or nurse practitioners or any other health

professionals drive to and from Portugal Cove - St. Philip's on a daily basis,

losing anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half of direct provided service in

travel time, which also was a cost, which also added to a potential danger and

some of the road conditions in the wintertime and that particularly.

At the same time, with no public transportation it

limited the residents of that community to be able to get to Major's Path – of

which we don't own. Government doesn't own it. They pay rent there. The rent for

a facility in Portugal Cove - St. Philip's was minimal in comparison, and most

of the health professionals lived in that community because for decades when

they found employment they relocated to there. It made no sense in a time when

we're making communities to be more based around health care that we change it

(inaudible).

I ask the government to lobby to get back to what was

working. You fixed something that wasn't broken. Let's not only add to it, let's

bring it back and let's make sure people have access to the service they

deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Mr.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 11.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House

not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved and seconded by the hon. Government House Leader, pursuant to our

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

November 3.

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to know we had full support from the Member

for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

HON. MEMBER:

Fulsome.

MR.

CROCKER:

Fulsome.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 7, Bill 49.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 49 – this is a bill we've already started?

MR.

CROCKER:

No,

no.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Okay, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I moved, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure, that Bill 49,

An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits

Eligibility Modification Act, by now read a second time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 49, entitled

An Act To Amend The Other

Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, be now read a second

time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.” (Bill 49)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased this afternoon to have an opportunity to

sit in this hon. House and introduce

An Act to Amend the Other Post-Employment

Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.

This measure will be put in place for non-bargaining

unit employees, similar to the measures we've put in place with recent

agreements with NAPE and the nurses union as well, Mr. Speaker.

These changes we are making today here will affect the

– I will use OPEBs – other post-employment benefits for non-bargaining

employees. A group that includes executive management, non-management,

non-unionized, House of Assembly Service employees and Statutory Officers and

employees and their offices.

I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, these changes are for

employees hired on or after April 1, 2020, and will apply to group insurance

benefits in retirement. Government currently maintains a blended group insurance

program for both active employees and retirees.

Today's proposed amendment, in combination with other

OPEBs changes, will work toward curbing the potential liability for applying

changes to OPEBs for non-bargaining unit public sector workers, similar, again,

to those recently agreed to by NAPE and the Nurses' Union. Mr. Speaker, this

will mean that all current employees, as of March 31, 2020, will qualify for

50-50 per cent premium sharing in their retirement. All employees hired after

March 31, 2020, will share a 60-40 per cent premium sharing in their retirement.

During bargaining, we have also ensured that

government, as an employer, maintains its rights to administer and modify

post-employment benefit and insurance group insurance programs.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of public sector plans

maintain the same level of benefit premiums for both the bargaining and

non-represented employees. It is important to note, this legislation falls in

line with that for NAPE and the Nurses' Union.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of these proposed changes, in

combination with other changes to OPEBs in 2018, we anticipate that over a

30-year period, we will achieve approximately $2.2 billion in savings. We are

committed, as a government, to addressing the province's fiscal situation

through planning.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is committed to

addressing the province's fiscal situation through delivering for our workforce

planning and remains committed to other financial management through amendments

to the other post-employment benefits, such as the ones introduced here today.

I will now actually take my seat and allow the debate

to proceed.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as we move forward in this sitting of the House

of Assembly, there's another piece of legislation that's important to ensuring

that people have access to services, or the legislation is updated to protect

the individual. In most cases, it's the consumer and the citizen. In this case,

are those who would work collectively within our civil service to a certain

degree, depending on which bargaining unit they're part of.

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to a period of time when

there had been a number of changes in our pension plan processes and our

services or our access to provided services after one leaves a government within

the realms of the civil service, depending on which bargaining unit they are.

It's clearly about trying to bring everything in line with the other parts of

the bargaining process here.

I remember a number of years ago, when we first talked

about provided services and, at the time, there was some challenges around the

pension plans being stable and ensuring that all of our retirees had equitable

income and sustainable income, but it was also about the services, particularly

health services that would be provided afterwards. I must give credit to the

unions of the day and the leadership of the time that looked at: How do we

equitably do this? It was one of the first times that I really saw a

collaborative approach by all the leaders of all the bargaining units to sit

down and have a discussion about how we best address this.

I remember one of my colleagues, the premier of the

day, saying: The best way we can solve this is ask the people who are most

effected by it. I remember having a conference call with all the unions and

telling them this is where we need to get. How we get there, that has less

impact on you guys or protects the interest of your members and also covers off

things in the long term would be the best way to go.

I remember the debate and the discussion and over the

course of a couple of months, the unions and their leadership going away and

talking to their membership and coming back with suggestions and alternatives,

realizing we all had to find a common ground, financially, for stability of the

funds and the services after retirement but also for the betterment of every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian from a debt load and keeping our debt in check.

I do give credit. I do remember one time, months after

at a social event, running into one of these leaders who complimented us around

the process that was used. I think it should be a template for anything that we

do now. Before we get into a negotiations, before its called negotiations, let's

have collaboration. Let's go to the stakeholders, those most effected by it and

say: Here's where we need to go. Here's the reality. Here's what we need to

achieve. How can you best help us get to that level and still, at the same time,

minimize the impact or make sure that certain gaps in services are covered off

by what we negotiated?

That was an example there. Where we're moving to now is

ensuring everything is in line so everybody is protected on an equal field here.

Some would think it's simple but if you're talking

about the cost of your health insurance after you retire, that may have a

dramatic effect from 70 per cent to 50 per cent is a big difference, depending

on the reality of what your ailment may be or the interventions that you may

need as part of that whole process.

The fact that the legislation, presently, is currently

on a sliding scale where a retiree would pay 50 to 85 per cent of their

insurance premiums based on their length of service. For example, an individual

with 20 years of service would pay 70 per cent of their premiums. An individual

with 30 years of service would pay 50 per cent of the premiums.

We're trying to make it equitable. We're trying to say

if you've committed to a certain period of time to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador that we owe you the respect and the support, that we valued you

agreeing to provide those services for a period of time.

We've gotten to a point where we couldn't just let

people come in off the street for six months or a year and still reap all the

benefits of everybody else, but there had to be an equitable and a fair timeline

for commitment to the civil service because people come in with the civil

service at all different ages, Mr. Speaker. I was fortunate enough to come in as

a young man, so I knew had I continued through the civil service that I would

have been entitled to a pretty good package at the end of it with a pension

plan, a bit of security as part of that.

If people come in later in life there are maybe some

challenges in what they may be entitled to. At the same time, the taxpayers

can't be on the hook for people who come in a year prior to them retiring, and

then all the costing be related to every other taxpayer in Newfoundland and

Labrador. That wouldn't be fair also.

We did come up with an equitable recommendation at the

time. I'm glad to see now the legislation moves it to the next level. All the

other bargaining units that were sort of left out of that or weren't put in the

same vein as what was normally negotiated by the larger stakeholders at the time

will now be put in line.

Everybody coming in to the civil service, when they

know exactly what level they are with years of service, they would know, when

they're ready to leave, exactly what they're entitled to and would have a little

bit of security to ensure that their quality of life after retirement also

covers key things like health coverage and insurance coverage.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, we look forward to

supporting this and ensuring that our civil service, when they retire, do have

all the equal services as they would and their counterparts for their years of

service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further speakers?

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell

Island. I found his speech quite interesting. It was interesting to hear the

background of it and his support for this legislation.

For the people who might just be tuning in, we're

discussing legislation that basically speaks to amending the

Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility

Modification Act to cover non-represented public sector employees not

subject to NAPE or RNUNL membership and negotiated agreements.

I wanted to bring it forward because it's a little bit

– so the people tuning in can understand what we're talking about here. Mr.

Speaker, people in the audience, people who are listening may remember that NAPE

and the Registered Nurses' Union recently finished negotiations and signed

agreements with the provincial government on changes to Other Post-Employment

Benefits. I recognize their leadership in helping to negotiate what I consider a

strong settlement and a strong agreement. I think Members opposite agree that

the leadership within NAPE and the Registered Nurses in moving forward here, I

think is supporting not only their membership but also the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

What this basically does is it blends a group insurance

program that's post-retirement. In light of the recent agreements with NAPE and

the Nurses' Union, we've made changes to legislation to enact similar

compensation and benefits changes for most of the non-unionized employees.

Government currently maintains a blended group insurance plan for both active

employees and retirees.

These amendments set out new rules for benefits

applying to employees hired after April 1, 2020. These changes will apply to

group insurance benefits in retirement. All current employees, as of March 31,

2020, will qualify for 50-50 per cent premium sharing in retirement. All

employees then retired after March 31 will share a 60-40 per cent premium

sharing in retirement. That is to equalize those employees that are not covered

by NAPE and the Registered Nurses' Union.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that post-employment benefits

– as the Member opposite and as my colleague, the President of the Treasury

Board, alluded to – are very important to people, obviously, and form part of

their post-retirement benefits and ensure they have the medical and health

insurances they require. What we've basically done is made the changes to

equalize between executives, managers, non-management and non-union employees,

House of Assembly service employees and statutory offices and their bargaining

unit office staff. So we're applying what was provided to NAPE and the Nurses'

Union, now we're applying it to others. That's what the changes to this act do.

As a result of these proposed changes, though, which is

important to all of us here in the province, is that over a 30-year period – and

I know it's a long time, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that it will take that

amount of time. It is a big benefit to the people of the province. It will

result in about $2.2 billion in potential savings. By just making this change

from the 50-50 to the 60-40 will maintain about $2.2 billion in savings and the

other things that we've been able to do.

I listened intently to the Member opposite because he

was talking about some of the changes that were brought in previously, Mr.

Speaker, that were brought in prior to this government. In terms of the pension

plan, I know those pension plan savings are also making sure that people have

both a pension plan going forward but also ensuring it is sustainable.

I will say again, this is employees hired on or after

April 1, 2020, that at retirement they'll qualify for pension benefits. They'll

qualify for what they call OPEBs, as long as they're pension eligible, have a

minimum of 15 years pensionable service and retire and commence receipt of a

pension immediately upon ceasing active employment. Upon retirement, those

employees who will become entitled to this will pay premiums of 60 per cent of

the required premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for us to

recognize how important our civil service is to the effective management of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to recognize employees for the amount of

effort they give. We want to recognize how important it is to have these

post-retirement benefits continue. Current, existing employees, again, will

maintain their 50-50 cost-shared arrangement. For new employees it will be

60-40. It allows us to continue to offer these benefits, albeit at a slightly

more premium but, again, they will be eligible.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, in the private sector a lot of

people don't have these benefits. We all wish they did because, of course, these

post-employment benefits are important to people as they retire. Health and

dental and prescription drugs are very, very important.

Again, I'll say to the President of Treasury Board and

my predecessor, the Minister of Finance, for bringing forward these amendments

to the legislation to ensure that they are in line with the recently ratified

and signed collective agreements with NAPE and the Nurses' Union. I think this

is important to the people who are currently working in the civil service but

it's also important to all people and all residents of the province for us to be

able to offer these post-employment benefits but at a rate that is sustainable

for the province. By saving that $2.2 billion over the next 30 years, it will

certainly ensure that we fiscally responsible, that we are addressing our fiscal

situation in the province and ensuring that we can offer post-employment

benefits.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I'll turn it over to others to

bring forward their comments on this very important piece of legislation. But,

again, congratulations to the President of the Treasury Board for bringing this

forward and to NAPE and the Nurses' Union for reaching an agreement to ensure

that we are not just fiscally sustainable, but also making sure that we have the

right employment benefits and the right employment contracts to ensure we have a

robust and strong civil service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the rationale for this but I

do feel a need to speak on this issue.

When we are talking about our responsibility for

post-employment benefits, I've done a fair bit of reading on the Public

Accounts, from the Auditor General, as well as budgets and a consistent theme

throughout the Public Accounts as well as the Auditor General's reports is the

ever-present and growing existence of an unfunded liability associated with

post-employment benefits.

The reason we are in the situation that we are in – and

I note in particular the Auditor General's report has a particularly good

diagram showing just how much our unfunded liabilities have grown in recent

years. If one was to have a look at that, group health and life insurance

liability has been added to unfunded pension liability and our net borrowings

and it has increased from a little over $10 billion in 2013 to a little over $20

billion this current year.

Now, it is a little bit reassuring to know that the

group health and life insurance liability seems to be almost consistently the

same amount, but that amount is going to grow over time. Now, I'm just looking

at a picture so that can't give you the exact numbers, but our liabilities here

come from the fact that we have not funded our obligation to help individuals

receive health and life insurance once they retire. If one wants to look at what

a wage package or a salary or employee contribution package is, when we look at

salaries and benefits, post-employment benefits, including pensions as well as

health insurance, is part of a larger employee compensation regime or scheme, if

you will.

When we take on those obligations with individuals,

part of our obligation is to put money into the accounts so that we can pay

those group health and life insurance liabilities well before they come due. We

put money into those accounts so the dollars will be there and we do not fall

back into the very inappropriate pattern of doing things like paying pensions

out of general revenue, which is what we have been doing since about 1981 when

we went to a group pension plan.

We have been recognizing the need and the importance of

including group health and life insurance post-employment as being a key part of

an employee compensation plan; however, we have not been managing our fiscal

obligation towards that employee benefits appropriately. In fact, if one was to

read the Auditor General's report or the Public Accounts, we will have seen

that, time and time again, the unfunded liability in these post-employment

benefits has not been addressed.

What we have seen now is this has come to such a head,

has becomes such an important issue that a lot of our responsibility to these

individuals, who when they signed onto – and I believe this was an argument made

for some other pension plans, an inclusion into a previous pension plan – these

obligations, we promised that this money would be there for these individuals

once they retire. By not recognizing and paying into those funds, we have

increased our unfunded liability.

What's now happened is in recent rounds of collective

bargaining, not only are we not looking at increasing our salaries – our

salaries are not being increased by, say, the cost of living – we are also now

downloading some of the responsibility of these post-employment benefits onto

the individuals who we are hoping to compensate for that. We've not really

acknowledged our responsibility to our previous commitments so this unfunded

liability has grown and grown and grown over time. That's somewhat

disconcerting.

I am somewhat buoyed by the fact that collective

bargaining has resulted in a reasonable solution for those who are engaged in

the collective bargaining process, where everyone has agreed to pay a share of

their post-employment benefits.

Reflecting on the fact that these post-employment

benefits are part of our larger compensation for employees, we now need to

recognize that our compensation for employees is effectively decreased. That's a

concern and that's perhaps not something that was considered as this agreement

was being put in place. Remember, we are also imposing a collective bargaining

solution on our non-bargaining employees here. Wonderful that we are levelling

the playing field, but we also must recognize what the consequences of our

actions are.

I want to also reflect on the fact that quite often our

budget is a point-in-time document. So it looks at a particular year and the

circumstances in that year and says have we balanced our budget in that year.

One of the key things that I have spoken about on numerous occasions is we need

to look beyond the one-year snapshot and look at what are the implications of

our decisions five years down the road or 10 years down the road, or perhaps

whenever we all come to retire, might that be 20 years down the road.

What we have effectively done now is, if we are moving

towards a defined benefit plan – reasonable. If it's a defined contribution

plan, I'm going to be a little bit more concerned because in both of those

plans, a defined benefit or defined contribution, you still end up with what is

going to quite likely be a fixed income. That fixed income will be somewhat

lower than what individuals are making prior to retirement.

Thinking ahead a little bit, what we see is people are

going to be on fixed incomes; they will be lower incomes. They will be older. We

all know that as we age we have more medical requirements. We have a higher cost

of life insurance; we have higher health benefit costs. Now, we are imposing on

future generations or on future employees and retirees, fixed incomes, higher

costs associated with some of those post-employment benefits that must also come

out of those incomes. We know that these individuals are going to be accessing

health and life insurance at higher rates.

This is a concern that I do want to have entered into

Hansard just to officially recognize

that our decisions today will have consequences well into the future. We need to

be very, very aware of this.

Now, I'm not going to vote against this bill. What I do

want to say is I think this is a very, very good reason why we need to advocate

for universal pharmacare and we need to advocate against the continued

privatization of some of our health care services. I say that when I talk about

we have private individuals doing blood collection, we have private individuals

doing some scans, we have dentists, which is part of our health care system,

that operate in a private manner. When we talk about our health care system and

the importance of it being there, I think we need to recognize that we do need

universal health care and we do need universal and fair access to all of these

services.

If we are making decisions, like we are today, then we

need to also recognize that some time in the future, and what I expect will be

the very near future, we are going to need to make offsetting decisions to

ensure that the unintended consequences of what we are doing here are mitigated

so that we are not seeing individuals with reduced income requiring additional

health care services having to pay more and more of that lower amount of income

to take care of their health because we have chosen to make this decision.

The other part of this that I think is also important

is when we manage our health benefits it's important to ensure that those

benefits themselves are not eroded. When we talk about how much dental will we

pay for: Are we going to pay for 80 per cent of our dental? Are we going to have

one cleaning a year or will we have two cleanings a year?

Well, when we start making those decisions in the

management of our health care and life insurance plans, the more we reduce those

services – we are still paying for them out of that fixed income. You're paying

for those services, you're receiving reduced services, those costs are coming

out of a fixed income and because you have less services, then you are going to

have to find more money to pay for the services that are not covered on your

insurance plan.

I just want to ensure that the House is very aware of

the implications of the decisions that we are making and if any or all of us are

here in 10 years, or five years or 20 years when this all comes to fruition, I

hope we have the good sense to be able to address these in a comprehensive and

sensible way to ensure the safety and health of everyone who is being impacted

today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 49.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate what my colleague from St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi is saying. I don't disagree with a lot of the points

she's making, but I do look at it a little bit differently. First of all, I

think it's important, once again, to realize where we are as a province fiscally

with a huge year-over-year deficit and a crippling provincial debt that we have

to try to manage our way out of. I do agree with her – absolutely agree with

her, a hundred per cent – on the points of how we got to this place in terms of

our government pension plans, our other post-retirement benefits.

Certainly, I have many people in my district, retired

public service employees and so on, who I've had conversations with over the

years and have raised concerns about the state of pension plans and

post-retirement benefits, which, quite frankly, was caused by years and years –

and you can't tag any particular administration. I'll say right back in Joey's

day and onward, red and blue, of where money which should have been invested in

pensions and post-retirement benefits was not.

Not only was money not invested, but the funds were

raided, from what I can gather. Funds were raided by governments of the day to

take that money and spend it on roads and everything else. Whether they were

good expenditures or bad expenditures, whether that was required or not, we will

leave that up to the historians, I guess, to figure that one out. It happened

nonetheless.

I do know there was a point in time, even since my time

or just prior to my time – I believe under the Williams's administration, I want

to say – where they actually did put some significant money back in to pension

plans. In the billions, if I'm not mistaken. There was a lot of money put in.

Now, I know a lot of money got lost because of stock markets went, but there was

$2 billion, for sure, went in to one of the pension plans to try to right the

wrongs that were done.

Regardless of that – I'm just going by my memory now. I

know there have been efforts made to try to right some of those wrongs, but the

reality of it is, as I said, we are in a lot of trouble financially and I think

the public expect us to do what we can to try to get expenses down. This

probably would be viewed, I think, by many people as a responsible thing to do.

It is worth noting that this basically is – as has

already been said, this is just basically being consistent with non-bargaining

employees to the things that bargaining unit employees have agreed to. I think

it's an important point to make that bargaining unit employees and their unions

have actually agreed to this, and all that's happening here is simply applying

it to non-bargaining unit employees. It's kind of fair and square across the

board.

I think it's also important to note, based on what I'm

reading here in the bill, that this really is only applying to I'm going to say

new people or relatively new people. It says here you would be required to pay

50 per cent of the premiums for employees that were hired from June 1, 2018 to

April 1, 2020, and then after April 1, 2020, it would be 60 per cent of the

premiums into the plan would be paid by the employee.

I would have major concerns with this, Mr. Speaker, had

we been going back in time and saying to someone who's been here for the last 20

years, guess what, we're going to change the rules on you now 20 years into your

career, and whatever plans you had made or whatever – when you decided to take

the job and work for the public service, we're going to change the rules

significantly through your career when you're getting close to retirement or at

least significantly into your career. I would have a concern with that.

That's not the case. We're talking about, basically,

new employees. These people, at this point in time in their life and in their

working life, they have lots of opportunity and time, if you will, where they

can either say, you know what, I don't like these benefits and what I'm

receiving and I'm going to move on to somewhere else and find another employer

who's going to do better, or I know where I stand and now I'm going to judge

myself accordingly and I'm going to invest in my own private plan in addition to

this one. I'm going to put money away or I'm going to invest in RRSPs or

whatever I'm going to do, so that when I do retire I'll be in a better place.

That comes down to personal responsibility, Mr.

Speaker. There's lots of time here, in particular, new people, they have a

career ahead of them where they can make decisions today so that in 25 years or

30 years from now they won't be in the situation that the Member, my colleague,

has alluded to.

Now, I understand you could argue there are people in

the public service that are not – not everybody is making – depends on what you

do in terms of what wages you make, what you can afford and so on, but the point

is, you do have an opportunity, lots of opportunity, to plan for yourself.

This is only applying to people who work for the public

service. This is something we have to recognize as well. God love the public

service, they do fantastic work. We all support them, we all do, but the reality

of it is that it's the collective taxpayer that's paying for all this, it's not

just people in the public service. We're asking every taxpayer in this province

to fund these pension plans and post-retirement benefits and so on. That's who's

picking up the slack – the taxpayer.

There are all kinds of people in this province who do

not work for the public service, they work in private industry and so on; a lot

of them don't have any pension plan at all, or medical benefits, they have

nothing. So if they want to have a good retirement or benefits and so on, they

have to go out and buy a private insurance or they have to go and invest in

RRSPs, whatever they need to do, when they retire.

You have to remember, every time we sweeten the pot

here, we're asking the regular taxpayer to subsidize and pay for this. That's

not saying that we don't treat our public service well and provide them with the

benefits that they've bargained for and so on. Not saying that at all, but there

are two sides and we have to try to find a fair balance all at the same time,

recognizing the fact that we have such a huge provincial debt that we have to

tackle.

Again, the fact of the matter is: Are these changes

somewhat of a downgrade to the people here that this applies to, from what it

would have been? Is it going to cost them a little more? Yes, it is. Is it

consistent with what all the other unions agreed to? Yes, it is. Do these people

have ample opportunity to adjust their retirement plans accordingly? Yes, they

do.

With all that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I will be

supporting the bill.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader, if he speaks now he'll close the debate.

Sorry, there's one more, the hon. Member for St. John's

Centre.

MR.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to say a few words on this for sure. I

remember years ago when I served on the executive of the Teachers' Association

and the question before the membership was: Do we raise premiums or do we cut

benefits to the teachers' plan? I remember asking that question to a member on

the staff and his comment to me was: Raise premiums because you'll never miss

anything until you need it. For the most part, you want to have the services

there when you need them.

Insurance and that, as another friend of mine used to

say, it's a little bit like betting on a horse; you hope it's not going to win

because if you have to call upon it, you're sick or you're dead, one or the

other; if it's life insurance or health insurance.

Basically, what we're doing with insurance is we're

paying for peace of mind is what it comes down to. That's what we're paying for.

That's worth an awful lot to people. Certainly, to me, it's something that I try

to instill in my own children. It's not just the salary; it's the benefits that

go with it.

If you look at the Loblaws workers, the Dominion

workers, it's one of the things they are looking at, the benefits that go with

it that allow them to live with some peace of mind.

Insurance these days –I can only speak to the teachers,

some of the things we wrestled with. It's one thing to have years of the – it

will come to me in a minute. Anyway, some drugs are generics and others have a

patent on them, but once the generics come on stream, you can lower the cost.

The patented ones are – that's an increase. It gives the drug companies a lot

more profit for a lot longer, but, on the other hand, they make it very

expensive for plans to cover.

Now you have the advent of biologics, which are

significantly more expensive. It can range anywhere from $100,000 to

$130,000-plus a year for one person. Plans struggle with the – you look at

benefits as to how do you manage this. I know one of the things we attempted to

set up was reserve funds. In many ways, I think we look at putting it on to the

backs of the individuals in government. I think there needs to be, in some way –

my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, too, said – a national

pharmacare program. I think there has got to be some collective action by

government to start finding some way to put pressure on drug companies to lower

what they're charging.

I don't know if you remember in the news a little while

– it was last year – the businessman who took over the insulin manufacturing

company and immediately jacked up the prices up to several thousand dollars,

but, basically, made it very difficult for people who are diabetic to be able to

purchase the drug; a drug that they depend on. Gouging was what he was engaged

in.

I can tell you it's interesting, in 2006, I think it

was $1.98 billion that was put into the teachers' plan to stabilize – not the

health plan, that was the pension plan. That money got evaporated. That money

disappeared in 2008 with the stock market crash. At that time, the plan was

totally owned by government. What they didn't do at that time was to change the

asset mix. Since the plan was just about fully funded and requires a different

asset mix to make it work, to make it sustainable, that wasn't done and we were

back to square one and now, lo and behold, it's finally stabilized.

But there was a cost to that because, at that time,

there were drastic changes to sick leave for teachers – a huge change. I was

fortunate enough to retire from my career with my sick days intact. As it is, I

guess it indicates that I was privileged, lucky and fortunate enough to have a

rather healthy life during my teaching career. That's what it came down to. They

didn't need to pay it out to me or anything like that, it meant that I retired

in good health. But for some teachers, the change in sick leave is putting

tremendous pressure on them, especially if they have families and so on and so

forth.

I can only speak to what our bargaining unit, what the

Teachers' Association bargained for. As far as I'm concerned, everyone is

entitled – I don't care – to some sort of health care drug plan, health plan or

retirement plan. I think that's got to be something we've got to strive towards

because that's towards a more just, healthier society.

Where I'm going with this is this: One of the things –

and I was talking to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands about this. I

noticed, certainly when I was going around campaigning, the number of people,

some in the public service, who didn't retire necessarily with a great pension

plan and found themselves in that position because now they're living on a

reduced income. Mind you, they don't pay the union dues and CPP but still their

income was shrinking, for two reasons: Prices were going up and there was really

little or no cost of index living that was part of it.

The cost would go up in some of the places they were

renting. They could never afford to own their own home, so they were renting

apartments or renting places and the rent would go up in some of these buildings

by $10 a month every year. Now, $120 a year doesn't seem like much, but after a

while the cumulative effect is to drive the people out of their home. Where I'm

going here is that looking at 60 per cent, that change, that doesn't seem like a

lot. I would rather pay the premium and keep the benefit, but sooner or later

the cumulative effect it's going to have on people is it's going to make life a

little bit more difficult.

The other thing, too, I can tell you from bargaining is

that often the two are connected because the benefit we get in one, in terms of

when it came to the $1.98 billion, resulted in the loss of other benefits;

sometimes that's taken into the pay. So if you get a benefit, there are

sacrifices people make to keep certain benefits. Yes, their pension plan they

agreed to might very well be one they've already paid a price to attain and then

it's reduced in some way. I realize this is a sliding scale here, but my one

caution with this, my one concern, is that people who are already on the edge,

or pretty darn close to it, will find themselves teetering, if not falling over

as a result. It is death of a thousand cuts, if you will.

That's my one concern with this. To maintain the plan,

I'd rather have a plan than no plan at all. That much I would be certain, just

to pay for the drugs. The older you get, the more likely you are to depend on

pharmaceuticals to keep you ticking along until you gradually fade into

oblivion.

I do believe, for the most part here, this is something

that people seem to agree to but I think we really have to start looking at, how

do we ensure that people who are affected by this will not find themselves in a

position where they're unable to afford other necessities of life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

If he speaks now he'll close the debate.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Members that took the opportunity to speak

this afternoon. I'll just quickly go through some of the things I heard.

The Opposition House Leader made some good points. He

referenced this is just a continuation of the 2014 agreement. I know it was

Minister Johnson of the day who signed that agreement that actually lets us get

at the unfunded liability in the Public Service Pension Plan, which was an awful

unfunded liability.

I stand to be corrected; the Minister of Finance can

certainly correct me. I think every year on April 1 we have to invest some $300

million into that plan just to make it stable over a 30-year period. That was

one step that was taken. Again, this is just another one of those steps that we

need to follow for stability and stabilization of our plans.

To the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, he actually

made some really good points. A person that will be affected by today's change

would actually be retiring somewhere around 2049 and given lots of time now to

plan.

Today, we currently have 28,000 active members on this

plan that won't be affected by today's change, and we have 18,000 retirees who

won't be affected by today's change in the legislation. I think there are 17

people in management that have been hired since April 1 of this year.

It's unfortunate to have to make changes to plans, but

this is really about stability. That goes to the things the Deputy Premier and

Minister of Finance were pointing out as well, that these are steps we need to

take. They're incremental; they are slow going but they bring substantial

stability. Because the reality is, if we don't make a move like this, in 2049

we'll have an unfunded liability of nearly $6 billion in OPEBs. This change will

allow us, by 2049, to bring the liability in OPEBs back to somewhere around the

$3.84 million. This does not solve the challenges in OPEBs but it will stabilize

the program as we go forward, and that's important.

The Member for St. John's Centre made some points. I

get the drug costs and how that affects people – the catastrophic drug costs –

but this is the premium, this is not the copay. This is the premium that a

person would pay. Thirty years from now they would pay a 60-40 split.

Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour the point any further. I

will just rest and move into Committee.

MR.

SPEAKER:

the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 49 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility

Modification Act. (Bill 49)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House?

MR.

CROCKER:

Now.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Other

Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act,” read a second time,

ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill

49)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 49.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 49,

An Act To Amend The

Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment

Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.” (Bill 49)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

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

Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.

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 Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report

Bill 49.

CHAIR:

it the pleasure of the House for the Committee to rise and report Bill 49

without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR.

SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters

to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 49,

An Act To Amend The

Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, without amendment.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

the matters to them referred and has directed her to report Bill 49 without

amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR.

CROCKER:

Now.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR.

CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered

read a third time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 9, Bill 52.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Bill 52,

An Act Respecting Tourist

Accommodations, seconded by the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved and seconded that Bill 52,

An Act Respecting Tourist

Accommodations, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting

Tourist Accommodations.” (Bill 52)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very excited to have the opportunity; I'm sure

everyone in this House is waiting with bated breath to hear this bill come to

fruition in this House of Assembly. I'd just like to take this opportunity to

thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to do this today. I'm

pleased to bring forward Bill 52, the new

Tourist Accommodations Act .

Mr. Speaker, the original

Tourist Establishments Act was established in 1970, some nine years

before my birth. The act and regulations providing a definition of the tourist

establishment, the condition to obtain a tourist establishment licence, the

requirement of a minimum one-star Canada Select rating and the obligations of

licensed establishments to submit monthly occupancy statistics and maintain a

list of their guests.

Since that time, the accommodations market has changed

quite a bit, not only in this province but throughout the country and around the

world. Collectively and collaboratively we need to adapt to it. Online

accommodation marketing platforms such as Airbnb have become increasingly

popular with travellers seeking a unique non-traditional accommodation and

experiences. Local hosts are capitalizing on the demand by listing their income

properties, vacation homes, condos and trailers on these marketing platforms,

creating an increase in the number of short-term rental accommodators, which is

creating an increase in the number of unlicensed short-term rental

accommodations.

Mr. Speaker, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and

many licensed tourism accommodation operators have been very vocal about the

short-term unlicensed accommodations and requested that the provincial and

municipal governments work on a solution to establish a more level playing field

for tourism accommodators. The proposed Tourism Accommodations Act represents a great step in a broader

government approach to supporting business equity across the accommodation

industry and better reflects the mix of accommodations provided to travellers

that desire that in this public.

In addition to hearing from the tourism industry, in

September of this year, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation

and the Public Engagement and Planning Division administered an online

questionnaire to inform the potential changes to the

Tourist Establishments Act , with the majority of respondents

supporting the proposed changes. Based on the outcome of the questionnaire

results, there is support for tourist accommodations, including short-term

rentals, be registered at a rate of about 73 per cent of respondents, with 60

per cent of the accommodation operators should not be required to have a Canada

Select rating and pay that annual fee. In addition to that, there's also a room

fee that goes along with that for every rental room.

The new bill is a modernization of the current

Tourism Establishments Act , with

changes substantive enough to repeal the current statute and replace it with the

Tourism Accommodations Act.

The definition of a tourist accommodation in the new

act is broadened to be more in line with the modern range of available

accommodations throughout our province. The new act removes the licensing

requirements and it is replacing it with a mandatory registration for all

accommodations including short-term rentals. There is no fee to register.

In addition, the new registration requirements will

replace the Canada Select rating requirements in the regulations when the new

act is proclaimed. This will mean a decrease in the cost for tourism operators,

as they will not have to pay the Canada Select rating fee. These changes

considerably reduce red tape for licence providers and remove barriers for hosts

to encourage registration.

Offences to the act will carry a minimum fine of $250

with a maximum fine of $2,000. The act will also include inspection powers and

the authority for the minister to designate inspectors to enforce the act.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the new act amends the

City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act

to reference this new act, to clarify that all tourist accommodations are

required to pay the city's accommodation tax.

Officials have investigated the successes and

shortfalls of approaches that have already been implemented in other

jurisdictions across the country, and this new bill brings it more in line with

provinces right across our beautiful country.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments alone do not address all

the issues of levelling the playing field for the accommodation industry;

however, it is an important step in confirming that the government is aware of

all the operators offering overnight accommodations and will treat them

similarly throughout the act.

With mandatory registration, appropriate provincial and

municipal regulatory bodies can access compliance with applicable legislation

and take the action as required.

This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. This is a positive

change in the tourism industry especially during the unprecedented time due to

the COVID-19 pandemic and the devastating effects to the tourism industry.

As a government, we encourage and foster conditions

that support small business growth in the tourism industry. We feel that this

new act will enhance the continued growth in the sector.

I encourage all accommodations in the province to

ensure they are registered. We look forward to working with them through that

process. I ask all hon. Members in this House of Assembly to join me in

supporting this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

HON. MEMBER:

What a member.

MR.

TIBBS:

I try my best.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you very

much to the minister for bringing this bill forward. It is a very important

bill, you're right, Minister.

The first thing I want to do is congratulate Ms. Brenda

O'Reilly for taking on chair of Hospitality NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

TIBBS:

They couldn't have picked a better person for that job. Her passion came through

for many, many years now. I'm sure she will do great and I wish her the best of

luck, as I'm sure we all do.

Like I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this is a very

important bill. One of the greatest things that I think is going to come out of

this is the liability issue for anybody who is going to register their business,

their accommodation. A slip and fall, a house fire, heaven forbid, anything like

that. We all know we need certain insurances as we all go through life and it

should be the same thing for any accommodation that's out there.

Basically, what it's going to do is it's going to cover

them in the end and make sure that their accommodation, business will be

profitable moving forward. That's something important that we have to get on the

record and, hopefully, the accommodation sector sees that as that, for what it

is.

The other thing, of course, is the privacy of these

accommodations and who is going to get this information. I'm sure we'll touch on

that as we go forward here with our questions. The information that the

department is going to get, who that information is going to be shared with and

whatnot, the state of these accommodations and who owns these accommodations.

That's something we're going to have to touch on as we move forward.

I won't take much time. Like I say, it's a great bill,

1970, for a province that prides itself on tourism. I think it's definitely

about time that we take on this bill and make the appropriate changes as our

tourism industry evolves, and I'm glad the minister has brought this forward.

A couple of things, talks should include Hospitality NL

when it comes to different regulations moving forward for the accommodation to

become registered. I'm sure that will be done, but also a collaboration with the

owners of these accommodations to see where they sit and see what they need in

supports from the government to make their accommodations registered and make

sure they can move forward in a manner where they can still make a profit.

That's the other thing, affordability. We're not sure

what the regulations are going to look like. I'm sure that's going to be hashed

out, but we don't want to become a roadblock for these people as well. These

people right now, we've talked about COVID. Everybody is trying to do the best

they can, trying to make a profit. So I just hope these regulations are not

stringent to the point where they handcuff a lot of these people.

I'm sure the government wants to work with these

owners. These accommodation owners, I'm sure, are going to want to work with

government but, of course, when it comes to red tape and roadblocks, we've seen

it for a long time now. I just want to make sure these guys have a fighting

chance as they move forward, if they want to register their business and have a

profitable business for years to come. I'm sure we all want the same thing.

When it comes to the changes for the regulations or the

changes for the accommodations themselves, you're going to have accommodations

with character homes or an experience involved in that. We hope the government

works with these accommodation owners to ensure that stays in there, because a

lot of those places, pretty much that's their selling point, a character home or

an experience that you can get within the community.

I just hope the conversation continues and it's a very

open dialogue with government to see where they can go from there and help these

homeowners or these accommodation owners. That's what we're here for at the end

of the day, is to help business get off the ground, create new business and make

it as easy a transition as we possibly can for them all.

The tourism industry must be collaborative as they

network as well. I think this is actually going to help. We've seen the boat

tours with my colleague for the District of Ferryland – the two boat tours

companies in Bay Bulls. They might have been rivals at one time but, of course,

COVID brought those two companies together. Guess what? I'm sure they did better

this year than they would have done if they had to have d