PDF Version

November 15, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 34

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Before

we get started, apparently the tally lights for some Members are not working.

They're in the process of trying to get it fixed. They are for MHA Joyce, MHA

Lane, MHA Wall, MHA Forsey, MHA Dwyer and also the Clerk. Once you get

recognized if your light doesn't come on, just give it a few seconds and

Broadcast should be able to pick it up.

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear Member's

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Placentia - St.

Mary's, Humber - Bay of Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands and Ferryland.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

today I would like to recognize the volunteer efforts of Arthur W. Langdon of

Botwood.

Mr.

Langdon has dedicated most of his life to volunteering in the Town of Botwood.

He has devoted 37 years to the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 5 in Botwood and to

the Botwood Lions Club, where he has served as president on three occasions,

along with several other executive positions. Art has also spent 10 years

volunteering with the Masons.

November of 2020, Arthur was awarded the Melvin Jones award by Lions

International, which recognizes outstanding individuals for their exemplary

service to his club and the community for which it serves. This is the highest

honour a fellow Lion can receive.

Speaker,

I would like for all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in thanking

Mr. Arthur W. Langdon for his many years of volunteer service and congratulate

him on his honour.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Speaker, 14 years ago, after

a solider served and lost his life in Afghanistan, his photo proudly looks out

at visitors to the Private Kevin Kennedy Memorial Garden in St. Vincent's.

The

garden is meant to be a place to visit, to reflect and be at peace as one

remembers those who served with ties to the St. Vincent's, St. Stephen's and

Peter's River area. It is where people gather to pay their respects on

Remembrance Day and a site that is toured by many visitors. Established by the

Fisherman's Museum Committee, it has become the focal point of the community.

Private

Kennedy was 20 years old when he was killed by a roadside bomb, with five other

soldiers, on Easter Sunday in 2007. He gave his life – the ultimate sacrifice –

trying to make the world a better place for others.

The

garden is home to a memorial plaque bearing the names of 38 soldiers; benches

dedicated in memory of loved ones; memorial items, flowers and shrubs. As you

walk through, you feel a serene sense of peace and pride.

encourage all who visit St. Vincent's to embrace the opportunity to visit the

Private Kevin Kennedy Memorial Garden.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

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

E. JOYCE:

Today I recognize an athlete

from my district, Simon Park of Meadows.

Simon

recently competed in the Eastern Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press

Championships held in Sydney, Nova Scotia. More than 100 athletes from the four

Atlantic provinces took

part in a three-day event with hopes of qualifying for

the National Championships which will be held in St. John's in March 2022.

Simon

started training in powerlifting about six years ago and has competed in three

competitions, two before COVID-19 and now the Eastern Canadian competition. His

goal has always been to compete at the national level and with hard work and

determination his goal is coming true. Simon's final score at the championship

was 529.1 pounds qualifying him for the nationals.

What

makes this accomplishment more impressive is that Simon does not have a coach.

He trains in his family's garage which has been set up as a gym with the

necessary equipment. When Simon is not training, he's attending Grenfell Campus

completing his final year of the Bachelor of Nursing Program.

I ask

all Members to join with me in congratulating Simon on his success and wish him

the very best in all his future endeavors.

Great

job, Simon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Speaker.

While

Mount Pearl may be known for its tremendous programs, services and top-notch

infrastructure, it is actually its amazing sense of community that makes it such

a wonderful place to work, live and raise a family.

This

sense of home and love for community is so evident in many of our citizens.

Today I wish to acknowledge the contribution of two such individuals. This

husband and wife team, Chantelle and Dave Keene, created a true Halloween

spectacle within our community known as A Haunting on Whiteley, at a time when

we all needed an escape from the tough realities of living with COVID-19.

This

spooktacular display contained everything you could imagine from a creepy

graveyard, zombies, ghosts, ghouls, a tribute to Tim Burton's

The Nightmare Before Christmas , as

well as a life sized Headless Horseman.

Not only

did this amazing initiative bring smiles to many faces of all ages and provide

for plenty of photo opportunities for those wishing to get into the Halloween

spirit, but it was also was used as a means to collect non-perishable food items

for local food pantries in the community.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating this amazing couple on this wonderful

initiative.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I want

to recognize and congratulate the organizers of the 11th Annual Calvert Masters

Charity Golf Tournament. The event was held on August 18 at The Wilds and was

organized by a great group of volunteers.

The

event was a huge success with a total of 120 participants this year. The first

five years the charity of choice was the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care

Foundation, and the last six years have been the Janeway Children's Hospital

Foundation.

This

year, the committee raised $47,085 in total; $45,085 was donated to the Janeway

foundation and $2,000 was donated to the community of Calvert for community

projects. The last 11 years have been a great success; organizers have raised

over $612,000 since the beginning of this annual event.

Thank

you to the community of Calvert for choosing to support children's health care

and cancer care charities in this province. The committee is hopeful that this

successful fundraiser will continue for years to come as golfers compete for the

coveted green jacket.

Speaker,

I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the organizers of

the Calvert Masters Golf Tournament on another successful tournament.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

on November 4 representatives from municipalities across the province gathered

in Corner Brook for the 71st Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador Annual

Conference and Trade Show. It was a huge success. There were many important

discussions. A highlight for me was, certainly, the women's leadership summit.

There were great networking sessions and an opportunity to remind municipal

leaders just how important they are to their communities and to the province as

a whole.

During

the conference, delegates also gathered for the annual Premier's Forum on Local

Government and we discussed regionalization. The overwhelming sentiment is that

regionalization and increased sharing of services are critical to ensure

communities are sustainable and take full advantage of economic development

opportunities and to attract new residents. I look forward to receiving

recommendations from the Joint Working Group and to develop a plan of how we

move our communities forward.

These

are exciting times for municipalities, Speaker, not the least of which is Come

Home Year 2022. At the MNL Conference, Premier Furey announced over $4 million

to help communities and cultural partners prepare for the celebration. This will

support municipalities, the tourism and arts and culture sectors as well as

community organizations as we celebrate everything this province has to offer.

We want to energize Newfoundlanders and Labradorians no matter where they live.

We want to welcome them home and we want to invite newcomers to visit, perhaps

inspiring more of them to make this beautiful province their permanent home. I

encourage everyone to take full advantage of the funding that's available.

Speaker,

congratulations to MNL, its new executive and all municipal leaders on a

tremendous conference. I ask all hon. colleagues to join me in this recognition

and also help spread the word about the funding that's available under the

Municipal Come Home Year Celebration Grant and the Cultural Economic Development

Program.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Thank you, Speaker, and I

would like to thank the hon. Minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Speaker,

I was pleased to join the minister in Corner Brook for the annual Municipalities

Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Conference and Trade Show.

MNL are

to be congratulated on a first-rate conference with many educational

presentations. It was certainly a very informative and enjoyable weekend.

Speaker,

MNL provides a unique opportunity to come together to discuss the many issues

facing municipal leaders. Having attended these events in the past as mayor of

my hometown of Pouch Cove, I can speak first-hand to the benefits of joining

with other municipal leaders from around the province to discuss matters of

mutual concern and regional solutions.

Regionalization, as the minister does note, has been talked about, Speaker, and

I am looking forward to seeing this definitive action come forward as we all

work towards the betterment of our communities.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement.

I, too,

congratulate MNL on their 71st annual convention – that's a huge milestone. With

the continued discussion on regionalization of services, we must also make sure

that this discussion also involves the supports and tools that regions will

need. We can't download services onto regions without the tools to keep the

regions going. Rural communities deserve a fair shot at success so we must

discuss that, too.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

First, I

would like to welcome the Premier back to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

It has now been 17 days since

our province was rocked by a cyberattack that wrecked havoc across Newfoundland

and Labrador. I know many health care workers and IT specialists have been

working hard over that time and I wish to thank them for their service to our

province; however, thousands of tests and procedures have been cancelled and the

list grows daily.

I ask

the Premier: When can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect a 100 per

cent return of services in our health care system?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Member opposite knows, the hard-working women and men behind the scenes are

doing everything they can to get the systems up and going as fast as they can.

And I'd echo his sentiments, frankly, and thank them for their hard work and

their extra-long hours that they're putting in in the face of adversity to get

the systems up and going as fast as possible.

The real

answer is we don't have a definitive answer because, as it's been explained, as

the systems come online there may be issues, and to give a definitive date when

things will absolutely return to normal would be irresponsible. We also have to

make sure that we're being incredibly balanced and nuanced in our communications

on this. I'm happy with where we are right now, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

recognize that this is an extraordinary situation, but the people need for

health care doesn't stop and wait. These disruptions are expanding the already

large wait-list for tests and specialists in our province.

What

specific initiatives will be introduced to help the health care system deal with

another increase in wait-lists?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

realize the stress and strain that is currently on the hard-working women and

men in the health care system, in addition to the IT sector, are under right

now. This was an unanticipated event and I can appreciate the strain that

they're under. I know many of them first-hand. I have worked with many of them.

I have worked with some of them just recently. They are doing their best to

maintain the system in these troubling times.

We are

looking at all options to see exactly what impact this will have and how we can

affect making that up, Mr. Speaker, but right now it's premature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

already have a health care system in crisis and the thousands of procedures that

have been cancelled are playing havoc with the citizens and their need for

health interventions. The health care system in Ireland is still experiencing

some disruptions six months after a similar but less sever cyberattack on their

health care system.

Based on

what government have learned over the past two weeks, can the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador expect a full return to services in weeks or in

months?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Mr. Speaker, again, we're not

sure exactly when things will return to absolutely normal, it would be wrong to

suggest otherwise. I'm not sure how the Member opposite would know it was less

or more severe than some other attack, Mr. Speaker.

Right

now, we have to be incredibly balanced and measured in our approach to this,

given the security issues for the province, Mr. Speaker. We have committed and

we will continue to commit to get the system back and running as fast as

possible, as safe as possible and as confidently as possible.

As to a

definitive timeline, I think it would be irresponsible to give an exact one. I

know full well that hard-working women and men in that system are doing their

very best and we are as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

people of Newfoundland and Labrador who rely on our health care system need some

reassurance that everything is being done to ensure that they have access to

proper health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Every other jurisdiction in

the world who have experienced a cyberattack have provided greater public

disclosure than this government. Ireland called it a ransom attack on day one.

It has been over two weeks and we still don't exactly know what happened, who

may have our personal health information and how many people may be involved.

Why is

government refusing to be more open?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you for the question.

Speaker,

this government have been very transparent about this cyberattack issue as we

gather information. We committed last week to advising the public when we have

the most accurate information available to us. We did press briefings on Tuesday

and Wednesday. Our investigation revealed some additional facts that we were

able to reveal to the public on Friday.

What

this government is not going to do is guess and speculate as to what's going on.

We want the cyberexperts to continue to do their investigation and when the

information is confirmed that is when – and only then – we provide that

information to the public.

Facts

are important; guesses are not going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

It has

been confirmed that personal information was taken in the cyberattack.

I ask

the Premier: Why wasn't the data encrypted?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I think,

in line with comments the Premier made earlier and in line with my previous

comments, the nature of data, the architecture of the systems are not a subject

for discussion in public. I do not think any answer to that question would do

anything except give the next hacker a guidebook as to how to do it better.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

people of the province need a fully functional health care system. Yes, this is

an extraordinary event, but the need for health care doesn't stop or wait.

Because this is an extraordinary event it needs to be understood in full.

Will the

Premier commit to launching a full commission of inquiry into this attack within

the next 12 months?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we've

already said, we need to be very balanced and nuanced in our approach here with

respect to language. There already is an active RCMP investigation, Mr. Speaker.

The Privacy Commissioner has also agreed to do a third party independent

investigation. We will have plenty of time in the rear-view mirror to see what

went wrong and what we can do better and to install more robust systems moving

forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

October 21 the minister stated that 193 people were waiting for critical cardiac

surgery in the province.

With

additional surgeries cancelled in the past two weeks, how long is this list

going to grow, and what is the plan to catch-up?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

The

impact on wait-lists for surgery is yet being quantified through Eastern Health.

Restoration of cardiology services, in full, is dependent on background activity

in lab areas and in diagnostic imagining. As yet those are not completely

restored within Eastern Health to the point where the clinical care team in

cardiology feel confident that they can resume routine operations.

Each

person on that list is being examined by their clinician to determine whether or

not it is safe to wait and they're being done at a reduced rate in the priority

determined by the physicians themselves. When I have an update I'll be happy to

provide it to the House.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, on October 21 the minister said there were 193 people waiting, yet it's

not quantified.

Speaker,

cancer patients and their families are on edge as appointments and treatments

continue to be cancelled. How many chemo treatments have been cancelled since

the cyberattack and how will the health care system catch-up?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I'd like

to thank, again, the people in Eastern Health in the cancer program, as well as

the IT support from various sectors, for being able to work so diligently to

restore chemotherapy. Chemotherapy services across the province have resumed.

Again, the full capacity will be determined by laboratory work, particularly in

Eastern Health, that has yet to be completed.

The

priority of who's getting treated in what order is solely determined by

clinicians. They are working extended hours into the evening and into the

weekends, and once capacity increases that will deal with the backlog. An exact

timeline awaits restoration of complete services in Eastern Health. I'm happy to

provide it to the House when I have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

We have

heard from couples whose IVF cycles out of the province have been stopped

because critical appointments and ultrasounds have been cancelled. Families are

now out thousands of dollars in travel expenses and medications, and couples

have been waiting for a travel package for months.

Will

government be compensating these families?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

In terms

of diagnostics that have been deferred, this again is due to circumstances that

were outside our control. Priority is and always will be determined by the

clinicians looking after those patients. Ultrasound has been available for

urgent and emergent cases.

In terms

of the specifics mentioned by the Member opposite, if he has information I would

be happy – with consent of the parties concerned – to look into the specifics.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

It would

be wonderful if the minister had the information to start with, rather than

depending on myself over here.

Speaker,

November is Diabetes Awareness Month. Last year, MUN medical students presented

to me on the health benefits and cost savings from continuous glucose monitoring

devices. Government says you want solutions – they've presented a real solution

to health care.

When I

questioned the minister on the potential financial assistance for residents to

access these devices he agreed to have a staff review and report back to the

House. Twelve months later: Can the minister provide the results of that review?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

The

Insulin Pump Program had significant increment in funding. In budget last year,

I believe, we added $3 million a year to that and removed any age criteria

around it. We certainly altered, significantly, the way it was structured and

over the course of this year we have been looking, with clinical direction, at

how best to source the equipment.

With

respect to clinical decisions about what kind of equipment and what kind of

glucose monitoring, we have not received a recommendation to change the nature

of the equipment and the nature of the glucose monitoring from the clinicians.

Should that change, we'll be happy to look at it again, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

Minister of Digital Government and Service NL stated that people should

regularly update security questions and passwords, which is something that

government employees are asked to do regularly. An engineer with Microsoft has

called this practice an ancient and obsolete mitigation of a very low risk.

I ask

the minister: What is being done to bring the government's IT security into this

century?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

ask the Member to indicate when I said that. It doesn't sound like something

specifically, exactly that I would say. I, myself, use a password keeper, Mr.

Speaker, which I would recommend that everyone use, and have a one-time password

for each thing that they use, which is long and has a range of characters in it.

So that's certainly what I recommend to everyone in the province to do: have a

password keeper.

We are

looking at our systems, we are implementing two-step authentication across our

systems and I'd recommend that everyone at home do that as well for any system

or online service that they use.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Speaker, is this actually

going to work if you just change passwords? I can do that today. Is it actually

going to work? That's the question.

Speaker,

it's been revealed that data taken by malicious actors in our health care system

was unencrypted.

I ask

the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL: Has she directed a review of

core government to determine how much of the public's data held by government is

unencrypted?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't

speak specifically to the situation at the moment, but as the result of the

attack that occurred recently, we are monitoring our systems very closely. We

have a lot of national experts helping us do that and making sure that the data

that core government has for the people of the province is protected. But this

is always a threat; threats are ongoing.

We take

our responsibility very seriously, Mr. Speaker, and we have a range of services

and products in place to do our best to protect the information of the people of

the province.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Speaker, we're not asking for

specifics, we're just asking: Has there been a review? Yes or no? That's what

we've been asking since we started here two weeks ago.

It was

reported by the media this morning that motor vehicle registration in Mount

Pearl put a sign on their door this morning saying: On break. The gentleman who

raised the issue stated that he arrived at 9:45 for a 10 a.m. appointment and as

of 10:25 he was still waiting with 20 other people standing outside.

When

will the minister show leadership and finally address the mess at motor vehicle

registration?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

Member's

preamble, we review our cybersecurity practices regularly. That's an

ongoing practice, Mr. Speaker.

In terms

of MRD, we were alerted of the issue this morning. That was a mistake. That was

an error on our part. There should not have been a closure of that office during

a break. Some of our smaller offices that might have one or two staff do close

for breaks or lunches, but our larger branches should not be closing for a

break. I apologize to the resident and residents affected.

We've

corrected that across the province, Mr. Speaker. I am working to improve

services at Motor Registration.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

We've

asked many questions on this and it still seems to be the same issue. We have to

get those doors open and get the public back in there to get this straightened

out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Speaker, the next appointment

available in Mount Pearl to get a licence plate replacement is December 20. We

were pleased to see the minister this morning make an announcement to unveil a

new Come Home Year decorative licence plate for 2022.

While

this is good news, I ask the minister: When will she address the long wait times

to access services at motor vehicle registration?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms

of improving services, we have a range of options available at different

branches across the province. I agree the wait is too long in some of our

branches, but in more than half of our branches, Mr. Speaker, you are able to

get an appointment the same week.

We are

adding more digital services, we looking at efficiencies. We're looking at

improving workflow at our offices, including ticketing systems or getting a text

when you're in your vehicle waiting, Mr. Speaker. We also have kind of a mix of

the appointment model with –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. STOODLEY:

– but also dropping in. We're seeing 30 per cent to 60 per cent of walk-ins

across the province.

Our

doors are open. We had a mistake this morning. That was our error. Doors are

open and we are working to improve things, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

not even three months into the school year and the NL Teachers' Association have

spoken out today about crowded classrooms, inadequate resourcing and challenging

class composition.

Speaker,

when is the long, long, promised review of the teacher allocation model going to

take place?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Speaker, and I

thank the Member for his question.

The

Independent Appointments Commission has provided names to government. The

appointment of those names, that committee, will happen in the very near future.

The process, Mr. Speaker, for a review – and a proper review – of the teacher

allocation model will start shortly thereafter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Speaker, the review has been

promised for years, but will not help teachers struggling in the classroom as of

today with teacher burnout and exhaustion.

Will the

government add additional student assistants to relieve the crisis in the

classrooms?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

government has done quite a bit to improve the teacher allocation in schools,

through the Premier's Task Force on Education. We've added 350 permanent hires

over the last three years, Mr. Speaker. We've added term contracts for

substitute teachers; we've added additional administrators and additional

guidance counsellors.

Mr.

Speaker, we've taken this issue very seriously. The next step in this is a

review of the teacher allocations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

Premier said recently that tough decisions need to be made and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador want us to keep making them.

So I say

to the Premier: Now is the chance to be honest with the people of the province.

What tough decisions are coming? When will you provide the public of the

province with the analysis you've done to support them?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

appreciate the question. The people of the province are fully aware of our

fiscal situation. I know that they are supportive of us making sure that we

address the financial concerns.

As the

Premier's Economic Recovery Team indicated, we are about $47 billion in debt

across all the different entities within the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We do need to get that under control.

We have,

in Budget 2021 , laid out a course and

a path of modernization and transformation of government. We've laid out a

course of getting our fiscal house in order. We've put before this House of

Assembly balanced budget legislation and the development of a future fund.

I think,

for the Member opposite, our course and our path is clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

I still don't believe, Speaker, that the people of the province are fully

informed of exactly what those, quote, tough decisions are.

Last

week, the minister named the assets she's going to be selling, including Marble

Mountain, oil and gas equity shares and the Liquor Corporation.

I ask

the minister: How did you decide which assets to sell?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

I'll remind the Member opposite again, we wouldn't be in such a financial

devastating effect if it wasn't for Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

I will say, in

Budget 2021 , we laid out to the people of the province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

Sorry, Speaker, I will –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I will

say to the Members opposite and to the people of the province, we did lay out a

path and a course in Budget 2021 where

we talked about some of the assets we could possibly look to review. We are in

process of reviewing those assets, of considering the reward of so doing and the

benefit or not of so doing of asset monetization.

Should

we move –

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

I just

have to say, if the minister wants to make political jabs from 2012, that's

fine. But I can tell you the people in my district and the people of this

province are more concerned about access to health care, getting a family doctor

and getting their cancer appointments than they are about political jabs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

I'd like to focus on the oil

and gas assets. The Minister of Finance very specifically referenced selling our

shares in Hebron, White Rose Extension and Hibernia Extension. Yet, on June 15

the Energy Minister said: Right now, there are absolutely no decisions that have

been made. One minister is lining up buyers while the other is saying take a

wait-and-see approach.

Who is

in charge of selling our assets?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say to the Member opposite, if we didn't have $16 billion in debt because of

Muskrat Falls, we wouldn't have as many challenges in this province to provide

the services that the people of this province so need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. COADY:

I will say to the Member

opposite: What we said in Budget 2021

is that we're going to consider the selling of assets, to monetize those assets,

to pay down some of the debt that we have in this province. I said that we are

going to do a review – which is currently what we are doing – to consider some

of the assets that we have.

We'll

continue to look at those; we'll continue to add to the analysis. I didn't say I

was selling them, Mr. Speaker. I said we were considering looking at what's in

the best interests of the people of this province, unlike what they did with

Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, if the minister

spent half her time on her portfolio worried about that as she does on petty

political jabs, maybe our province would be in a better place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, I'm concerned that

the minister may sell assets for short-term cash instead of yearly cash flow.

These assets are public assets. They are not owned by the minister or the

Premier, they're owned by every single resident of this province.

Will the

minister commit to holding a public debate in this House on the sale of any

assets worth more than $50 million before they're sold off?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I will

say to the Member opposite and I'll say to the people of the province that I

think it is prudent and responsible for this government to consider what assets

we have, what assets may be working on behalf of the people of the province and

what assets may be better if the timing is right. If the circumstances are

right, Speaker, we'll consider selling those and taking that money and paying it

down on debt. Or on making investments so that we can improve the situation in

the province economically.

I will

say to the Member opposite we have had the Premier's Economic Recovery Team; we

have had public consultations on that. There was a lot of discussion in that

report. We're reviewing those consultations and we'll continue to do so as we

analyze what assets we may monetize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I'm

keeping track of the time for Members.

The hon.

the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Equinor is revamping its development plan for the Bay du Nord Project

and is now looking to proceed with the conceptual work for the FPSO.

Given

this positive news for Bay du Nord and given the framework agreement between

Equinor, Husky and the province was agreed to in 2018, I ask the minister: Are

amendments to the framework agreement being considered?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

absolutely happy to speak to this question, which is indicative of good news in

our industry or, certainly, optimism in our industry.

What I

can say is we have not progressed to that point. We still haven't seen Equinor

reach a decision point on that. But he is correct in that the decisions that

have been reached previously were prior to changes in development. So what I

would say is that as we move forward there will be further conversations with

the partner to determine the province's interest, how we proceed and how the

benefits agreement between everybody would shape up, depending on the changes in

the amount that is out there and how they plan on proceeding.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

I'm just looking for a simple

yes or no, Minister: Is the agreement from 2018 the plan to move forward right

now?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

I appreciate the question

from the Member, but I will point out that it is absolutely up to me how I

answer it and, certainly, I'll take my time in answering the question that's put

forward to me. Because the reality is that it's not simple yeses or noes to a

lot of this stuff. They're just not that simple.

I would

point out to the Member that right now the answer is just not known because

we're still dealing with the prospect that, as exciting and optimistic as it is,

we still do not know where it's going to go.

I would

point out that the head of Equinor was in the office last, has met with us, I

spoke to the VP –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

A. PARSONS:

– and, again, we look forward

to further conversations in ensuring that this resource that does belong to the

province will be developed to the best interests of our constituents.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm

going to repeat a question here. Earlier today, NLTA President Trent Langdon

held a news conference to address the teaching and learning conditions in our

schools. You might remember that I've asked questions earlier about the EAL

supports for refugee and immigrant students. Large class sizes which ignore the

composition and diverse needs of students are contributing to burnout and having

an impact on the ability of teachers to meet the needs of their students.

Now, we

know what the minister has invested so far, but I'm asking specifically: Will

the minister, as has been requested by the president of the NLTA, exercise his

discretion to provide additional allocations to address large class sizes,

additional instructional resource teachers and student assistant time in

schools?

SPEAKER:

The Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Speaker.

I think

it is important to point out what we have invested over the last three years and

that is 350 permanent positions, Mr. Speaker. Positions such as additional

administrators, additional guidance counsellors and additional in-class teacher

positions.

It is

important to point that out, Mr. Speaker, because it's a reality and it's what

this government has done to respond to the teaching positions in the province.

Even though we've had a declining student enrolment we've added additional

teacher resources. The Independent Appointments Commission has recommended

names. We will be doing a teacher allocation review which will determine whether

or not additional positions, in addition to that, are required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is

that regardless of resources if you're not taking into account the composition

of the class it does not make for a constructive, conducive or effective

learning environment and teaching environment.

Mr.

Speaker, the recent cyberattack on our health care system has shaken the

confidence of the public and we understand the sensitivity in releasing too much

information at this time. It's why last week we called for an inquiry into the

cyberattack when we're past this immediate crisis. We're glad to see that the

Official Opposition has joined us in this request.

I again

ask the Premier: Will he commit to an inquiry at a later date to determine what

led to this breach in cybersecurity and identify the measures to make it more

difficult to happen in the future?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you for the question.

As the

Premier said earlier this afternoon, there is an ongoing investigation by the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner has committed to doing his own investigation. There will be

investigations done that will review what, if anything, could have been done to

prevent the cyberattacks.

course, as I've said publicly, we do choose our words carefully in this

situation. If we say certain things that aren't true or if we jump to

conclusions or speculate there will be unintended consequences of that. I'm sure

the Member can appreciate that the public safety is more important than

political jabs here in the House of Assembly this afternoon.

Thank

you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, asking for an

inquiry is hardly a political jab.

Recent

massive salmon die-offs at Mowi aquaculture sites since September due to low

dissolved oxygen levels and sea lice infestations have raised grave concerns

about the viability of the industry. The measures employed by Mowi aren't

working. Other than announcing the establishment of an advisory committee for

the aquaculture industry, the silence from government has been deafening.

I ask

the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture: Will he bring in meaningful

measures, such as sea lice limit protocols, penalties and fines, effective

protocols relating to maximum stocking densities and location of sea pens?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

Thank you, Speaker, and thank

you for the question.

It's a

great opportunity to bring some great notice to that industry, the aquaculture

industry, to the South Coast and the Southwest Coast of this province. It's

vitally important, Mr. Speaker.

We are

working with industry, Mr. Speaker, to do everything in our power to mitigate

anything they have when it comes to these issues. We have an expert staff that

we go out and we meet on a regular basis. We're out, we're doing what needs to

be done.

It's

unfortunate what happened to Mowi right now, Mr. Speaker. They had an oxygen

situation and they had a sea lice situation, which is being monitored. The fish

are being harvested, they're being processed right here in the plants of this

province. Every fish that's harvestable comes out of the water and is done right

here in this province and we're proud of that because it's giving much-needed

work to the South Coast of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

SPEAKER:

I do have one.

accordance with

section 214 of the

Elections Act, 1991 , I hereby table the

2021 Provincial General Election Report .

Any

further tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Provincial Court Act, 1991, Bill 44.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I give

notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1),

that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 2021.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I give

notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion:

THAT

notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with private

Members' Day on Wednesday, November 17, 2021, but shall instead meet on 2 p.m.

on that day for routine proceedings and to conduct government business;

AND THAT

if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER:

Any further notices of

motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

background to this petition is as follows: As a result of the need for

additional energy generation in Southern Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro examined several options for consideration by the regulator, the Public

Utilities Board.

As the

PUB seeks the lowest cost alternatives, the option identified is a regional

diesel plant to be built at Port Hope Simpson. This proposal would exceed $70

million in capital construction costs and provide electricity to Southern

Labrador.

WHEREAS

Labrador is rich in both existing and potential hydroelectric wind and solar

energy; and

WHEREAS

there is growing alarm about the climate crisis facing the world and the need to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to this most serious

problem; and

WHEREAS

our communities want to move away from diesel generation and towards renewable

alternatives; and

WHEREAS

the Public Utilities Board seeks only least-cost solutions when identifying

energy solutions;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon this House of Assembly to urge the

government to revise the Public Utilities

Act so that the cost of pollution is included when evaluating energy

solutions. In the meantime, we are asking for the rejection of the super diesel

plant option.

Speaker,

this has taken and attracted a lot of attention in the media, particularly in

Labrador, which is trying desperately to move our communities off diesel. But as

a result of the way the PUB is structured right now, the only option that they

can entertain is the cheapest, or as my mother in law would say, the least

'expenseful.'

What I

really want to point out here is that we have to start considering the

environmental consequences. As per the PMR that I recently tabled, I've

calculated that the annual cost – the five million litres of diesel that would

be burned there – would represent some $2.2 million-plus worth of pollution at

$170 a ton. This is not even being considered. We are just racing ahead to a

very backward program.

I look

to the Premier and others. He was just at COP26 talking about the importance of

trying to find a solution for future generations. Here we are stuck with the

situation that's allowing us with no other option other than to continue to put

diesel into our system, continue to use diesel and continue to shorten the

generations that are to come after us in terms of a habitable environment and a

habitable planet.

For a

place like Labrador, where we are facing in just 29 years a temperature increase

in Nain alone of 7.3 degrees, in the community where I live, of six degrees

warmer – it's going to be warmer in Nain than it is going to be in St. John's.

But right now we are watching the PUB proceed with an option that's going to

contribute to this problem, not solve it.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

reasons for this petition are as follows: Many families and residents of the

province are struggling with increased costs of living in the province, as

demonstrated by the September 2021 customer inflation rate of 4.4 per cent.

Gasoline prices are at an all-time high. The cost of home heating oil has

increased to the point that some seniors are forced to choose between heating

their homes and buying groceries. Food prices continue to increase, resulting in

an increase in food bank usage in our communities.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon

the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

study and implement a plan to address the rising cost of living experienced by

the residents and families in the province, including the rising cost of

essential goods and services such as gasoline, home heating fuel, groceries and

essential dry goods.

Mr.

Speaker, we have a big problem here in Newfoundland and it's boiling down to

what people can afford to do and what they can't afford to do. Last week, we

listened to the Premier say people are ready for the belt tightening and adding

that people are ready for the tough decisions yet to come.

Well,

I'm not sure that the Premier understands the tough decisions that the average

man and woman in this province has to make. He doesn't understand that people

make a decision on whether they're going to turn their heat on or go to the mall

to stay warm. He doesn't understand that they make a decision about going to a

waiting room for eight or 10 hours, waiting to see a doctor, or going home and

continuing to be sick. He doesn't understand the choices that are made between

healthy food and junk food.

Yet, we

still tend to implement sugar taxes; the cost of fuel has gone through the roof.

The unemployment rate in this province right now is twice the national average –

twice the national average, think about that. Yet, we don't hear a peep about

jobs. Mr. Speaker, something has to be done. Government has the power to look at

a way to empower people to do better. Instead, all we do is talk about the

increases in taxes.

You look

to the Greene report. They talk about an increase in personal income tax; they

talk about the increase in HST. They talk about the increase in the gasoline tax

by 1.5 cents per litre; the provincial government should increase payroll tax by

0.5 per cent; and the provincial government should increase tobacco tax by 5.5

cents per cigarette.

Mr.

Speaker, government doesn't get it. It's time for the government to do something

about the cost of living here in this province and implement a plan to get us

out of this hole.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development for a response.

J. ABBOTT:

Speaker, just briefly, I

thank the Member for the petition. We'll certainly be looking at the issues he's

raised.

In terms

of my responsibility as minister, we – and our department – are monitoring all

the factors impacting the cost of living here in the province. We are compiling

the information to allow us, as we review the Poverty Reduction Strategy, to

consider all of those components and to make recommendations to government at a

future date as to how to address those factors.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

background to this petition:

WHEREAS

in the District of Harbour Main there are many residents who are concerned with

the deteriorating cell service that they have been experiencing in recent

months. There has been a significant decline in the cell service throughout the

district, where calls are being dropped and residents are unable to get their

calls to go through for no apparent reason;

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 work and partner with the various cellular

providers to stabilize and improve the cell service within the region so that

citizens have a reliable service that they can count on.

Speaker,

modern telecommunications are fundamental to economic prosperity. They're

fundamental to the residents of the District of Harbour Main, as well as I'm

sure throughout the province. We do know that many constituents have been

contacting our office with very much levels of frustration. We've heard from

constituents across the district.

One

constituent from Conception Harbour said the cell service had been fine and then

it started to decline over a short period. It appears from reports we've been

having it's been since the spring. One constituent had thought it was her

cellphone. She purchased a new phone thinking it was her device – not the case.

She still had the same issues with the new device. She made complaints to her

service provider – no resolution, no success. Another constituent from Colliers,

the same thing. Nature of the problem: Calls are being cut off and disconnected

for no reason.

I've

heard from so many throughout the region; in fact, one of the constituents

started an online petition. I have the petition, Speaker. In the petition, they

had indicated that many of the residents are feeling the same frustration; their

calls are being cut off. They're having dropped calls and terrible cellphone

service. I've heard this from constituents in Holyrood, CBS, Avondale,

Conception Harbour, Harbour Main-Chapel Cove-Lakeview, Colliers, North River,

Marysvale, Georgetown, Brigus and Cupids. Those are just some of the areas.

Some of

the comments say – one, for example: I just decline the calls until I get out of

the area I'm in, in Harbour Main District. Another said I pay almost $400 per

month for a cellphone and it sucks, the service sucks. This affects their daily

life. We need better service for the big bucks we pay. These companies, Speaker,

are making a lot of money. They're very successful; they're very profitable. If

they're going to provide a service for their customers, then they have to invest

in the infrastructure.

We call

upon government – they have made, I believe, it was $25 million for broadband

and cellular over the three years, that was indicated in their last budget. They

have to ensure that this is being addressed. People need adequate cellphone

service.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The Member's time has

expired.

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

reason for this petition: Newfoundlanders are very proud of the personal

sacrifices, heroic commitment and contributions of the Blue Puttees, otherwise

affectionately remembered as The Fighting Newfoundlanders. There is never a time

when we should relax in our remembrance of their sacrifices and harrowing

experiences. We, as Newfoundlanders, are ever so proud of The Fighting

Newfoundlanders, the only army unit in World War I to receive the distinction of

Royal.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to enact legislation in the creation of veterans'

vehicle plates, starting with the Blue Puttees to further highlight the

accomplishments of these and other veterans henceforth.

I think

this was spearheaded by David Gill. I think, first of all, we do need to

acknowledge that we do commemorate the veterans with plates, and I think great

plates in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. His intent in this petition

is to include the Blue Puttees when there is a change in them that we can

highlight some of these distinctive groups that we remember for their

outstanding sacrifice going forward.

attended the Remembrance Day ceremony in Trinity Bay North and I think there

were hundreds spaced out on Thursday, safely, in the rain and, yes, maybe

surprising, but it was cold as well. But it was a great service of remembrance.

Several

conversations that occurred there like Albert Taylor, who was a well-decorated

veteran in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. We had a councillor in Little

Catalina whose father distorted the truth of his age so that he was able to

enter into World War I. We have a great history in our province; the Blue

Puttees are a significant part of this history.

I would

say that if the plates – and we looked at rejigging the veterans' plates that we

could have the Blue Puttees – this is what Mr. Gill and the signees that are on

this petition would like to have. We can start with that and when we do make

plates henceforth and new plates to come in, then we can certainly look at

acknowledging some of those groups in addition going forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

residents of the Exploits District have a great concern from the result of the

24-hour emergency service cut to the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre in

Botwood. All residents feel that 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. does not adequately and

efficiently address the emergency requirements of this district, affecting both

patients and residents to receive adequate care when needed.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to restore the 24-hour emergency service to the Dr.

Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre immediately.

Mr.

Speaker, this is still an ongoing issue in the district. It's been there ever

since 2019 when the previous premier promised to open a 24-hour emergency

service – looks like it was based on election promises again because the

minister himself has committed to opening the 24-hour emergency service only in

the 2021 election again.

The

candidate for the Liberals in the 2021 election went on

NTV News and told everybody they will have their 24-hour emergency

service. He put pamphlets out in the mail, announcing that they will have the

24-hour emergency service open.

Mr.

Speaker, that has still not happened. The minister has promised to match service

to needs. Well, the service that they need is their 24-hour emergency service

and we expect the 24-hour emergency service to be given to them, as promised.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

We, the

undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our

leaders to ensure that Labrador high school students will not have to continue

to sacrifice their in-class lecture time in order to attend Centre for Distance

Learning and Innovation (CDLI) courses online.

Our CDLI

students in Labrador are burdened with the loss of Atlantic time slots – that's

our local time zone. A decision was made to offer all CDLI courses in

Newfoundland time slots only. We feel that is unacceptable because this decision

was made without ensuring that Labrador students would not have to sacrifice

their in-class lecture time in order to attend CDLI courses.

It is

unacceptable because now our Labrador students have to leave their in-class

lectures 30 minutes early to attend their CDLI online courses and arrive 30

minutes late for their next in-class lecture.

As our

students' reliance on distance education grows, we only fear that having to

juggle two schedules, offset by 30 minutes, will deter many Labrador students

from enrolling. Our Northern Labrador students are already burdened with slow

Internet speeds averaging approximately 0.2 to 1.9 megabytes per second. We feel

that the additional burden of sacrificing one hour of class time for each CDLI

course is not acceptable and must be addressed.

Therefore we call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

School Board to ensure that Labrador students have access to CDLI courses that

line up with their in-class time slots.

Speaker,

I'm just going to actually read a quote from Brianna Wolfrey in Rigolet – a CDLI

course – regarding what's happened to her with the removal of these time slots.

I quote her. “This isn't fair to those who have to leave their in-class classes

a half an hour early and miss important instruction just to log onto their CDLI

courses. It also means that we miss half of our dinner breaks which isn't fair

either. Hopefully some changes will be made to accommodate for us Labrador

students! Not acceptable at all.”

I just

have to say in this House of Assembly, in what world, in what universe is it

acceptable that they would switch the time slots so that Labrador students would

not have access to their full lecture? Right now, Labrador students, when

they're doing online courses, they have to leave their in-class a half an hour

early so they can do the CDLI course, then they have to show up to their next

in-class –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sit

here today to present a petition on behalf of the residents from Humber - Bay of

Islands, Corner Brook, Massey Drive, from all the way up to Deer Lake and down

the coast to Pasadena concerning the regulations concerning helmets for

factory-sealed vehicles, Mr. Speaker.

These

petitions – 100 of these people signed this again. This was just last week;

delivered at my house. This issue is very real. This issue is still a concern

for a lot of people. I know the minister made the commitment that she will give

it serious consideration, very serious consideration when it comes to the

regulations, but these people have asked me to keep this issue alive with these

petitions. I'm presenting them all today. There are more to come. My

understanding is the House may close later the week, but there are more to come.

So I'll present them hopefully in the spring session.

This

issue is a major concern to a lot of people. I would give the minister credit

for making some friendly amendments in the bill that address some concerns that

people had, mainly with the size and also reaching the floor itself. So there

was movement in it and the minister has to take credit for that for

understanding concerns.

As I

mentioned before, I understand the concern that the minister has is that if you

don't put the safety part with the helmets in the regulations, if you need to

make a major change for some reason, you would have to come back to the House.

That's cumbersome and that takes time. So if it's in the regulations and there's

a need for a major change she can make the change – she or he, whoever – very

quickly in the regulations.

So I'm

calling upon the minister; here are hundreds of people who have concerns about

it. This is a real issue. I ask that when the consideration is given that

factory-sealed vehicles will not be required to have helmets used. I present

this today on behalf of the people who have major concerns.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

background to this petition is as follows: Eastern Health has recently

repositioned one of the ambulances from the Trepassey area to the Cape Broyle

area. This has left only one ambulance in the Trepassey area. Residents of

Trepassey and the surrounding area are at least two hours from the nearest

hospital.

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

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

ambulance in a time of emergency by repositioning a second ambulance back into

the Trepassey area to ensure the safety and the well-being of local residents

and to meet the national standard for response times.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm after presenting this petition probably three or four times and I

think it's time for the government to start listening to what the people want.

This is not about money; this is about geography where this ambulance. It left

Trepassey; it went to Cape Broyle. They call it Ferryland.

So last

weekend or the weekend past I had a resident call me. They had called for an

ambulance, and the ambulance – the only one they had in Trepassey – left and

went to Ferryland. In Cape Broyle, 20 minutes away, there are two ambulances. I

guess they might be gone, not responding, or whatever the case, but the

ambulance actually came from Trepassey. So now they're left without an ambulance

and it's definitely six to eight hours.

Another

call today of an ambulance needed in Cape Broyle, a thousand feet away from them

is an ambulance just sitting there, not manned – two ambulances gone and a

gentleman had to wait an hour and a half for an ambulance to come get him.

It is

time for the government to start looking at this ambulance situation and start

listening to the people and get this rectified. It is not acceptable what's

going on here with this ambulance issue. It is not acceptable and it is time for

the minister – I'd like to know who's running this department; is it the

ambulance owners or is it the government? Because it is not acceptable what's

going on and it's time for the government to get down and look at it.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

just like to respond to a petition that was read into the House earlier today

about the diesel plant in Mary's Harbour. I want to thank the Minister of IET

for meeting with the Town of Mary's Harbour a few days ago. I want to thank the

CEO of Hydro who has met a number of times and who has agreed again to meet with

all of the communities in the area. The PUB have agreed, based on Hydro's

request, to hit the pause button as we move forward with further consultations,

Speaker.

I just

want to say I was really, really taken that the unaffiliated Member for Lake

Melville would bring a petition to the House with three signatures from Topsail

Road. That is not representing or on behalf of the people of Labrador.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

Motion 1.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Speaker, I move, seconded by

the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) that this

House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Monday, November 15, 2021.

SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 6, third reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The

Corporations Act, Bill 24.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 24 be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Corporations Act. (Bill 24)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass as its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Corporations Act,” read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 5, third reading of

An Act To Amend The Automobile

Insurance Act, Bill 23.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 23,

An Act To Amend

The Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I just

wanted to make a little comment here and it's a bit of a personal one. I think

there are at least three Members of this House of Assembly who will recognize,

but during second reading I spoke to the team and the staff that have been

involved in this bill coming forward and a lot of people need to be thanked, but

there's one person I overlooked and I did want to introduce her name to the

record and that's Madonna Pitcher who served as the administrative assistant to

the minister through all that. I would say her calm demeanor and her

professionalism through some very challenging times actually contributed greatly

to the success of this bill. I wanted to introduce her name to the record.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, is

it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 23)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act,” read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 4, third reading of Bill 24.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 22,

An Act Respecting

Off-Road Vehicles, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to speak for a few minutes on this, on the off-road vehicles. I've been

asked by the constituents I represent to bring it up as many times as I can, and

this is another opportunity speaking in third reading.

I won't

take the full hour to speak about it, but I'll just again raise the concerns. I

just presented a petition to the House on behalf of the residents. It's not just

the Humber - Bay of Islands; I have petitions here from all over Corner Brook,

all throughout Pasadena, all through Deer Lake, down the Northern Peninsula on

this also.

This is

just not an issue concentrated in the Humber - Bay of Islands area; it's an

issue all throughout the province. Their concerns, two of them have been

addressed but the third one, they asked me again as I presented a petition today

with hundreds of names on the petition saying yes, they are from the Humber -

Bay of Islands – you don't have to go check them, but they are from the Humber -

Bay of Islands.

The

concerns that they have is more of a safety concern when you have a helmet on.

Their vision is obstructed, the heat, noise, the hitting off the top of the

roof, Mr. Speaker. What you find is there are a lot of people, older people –

some younger people but mainly middle age and older – went out and bought these

vehicles just for that reason, for safety. That's why they went out and

purchased those vehicles is to be safe and to get the safest vehicle.

I'm not

sure, and I don't know if the minister can respond to this, but I had a couple

of emails to this. Mainly with the factory-sealed vehicles, they started coming

out in 2015-2016 and they advanced on from there. In the minister's statement,

the minister was saying that a lot of the review went back to 2015-2016 when, by

that time, a lot of these vehicles – the improvements had been made over time

for these types of vehicles.

That's

something that was brought to my attention. They asked me to bring it up in the

House of Assembly and I will. I'll let the minister respond if she feels there's

a necessity to respond to it, but they asked me to bring it up and I will.

I'll

just end there, Mr. Speaker, just to again reaffirm that there is a major

concern with the use of helmets throughout the province in factory-sealed

vehicles. There are safety concerns that were brought to the government's

attention. I know the minister has received many emails; I know the Premier has

received. I was copied on a lot of emails and I know the Members opposite on the

government side received a lot of emails also on this, as I was told by numerous

people who sent emails.

It is a

major concern. As I said before, if it's in the regulations I take the minister

to the word that she said she will give it serious consideration in the

regulations not to include the helmets. The most you can do is take that and

trusting that the information that was brought forth and with the number of

people who have concerns about it, with the factory-sealed vehicles as a safety

feature. This is why a lot of them bought these vehicles. A lot of these

vehicles aren't those fast vehicles that you see in the movies; these are

slow-moving vehicles.

Like

they said they purchased these vehicles, very expensive vehicles, which is great

for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. They purchased these vehicles to

be safe.

I just

take the minister to her commitment that she will give it serious consideration

in regulations. People ask me – and I can only give a timeline; the minister can

answer this if she feels – when do they expect to have the regulations completed

because it is an extensive bill. Like I mentioned to people, usually in a

smaller bill – regulations, but this is pretty comprehensive. As we all, on this

side of the House – I know myself, except for that part, it's a great piece of

legislation. There was a lot of work done on it.

I just

wanted to recognize that there was great work done on this bill. It is very

extensive; it will make it safer for the people of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, except for those helmets that were raised on numerous occasions.

So I

don't know if the minister can, or if it's possible to give any timeline when

the regulations will come in. But I did tell the many people who asked me about

the timeline for the regulations that it will be hard to determine because of

the size of the bill and how extensive this bill was. I usually say it's six

months to a year, somewhere in between or later, because of – and it depends on

how extensive the bill is. This is an extensive bill.

I don't

know if the minister can shed any light on that now or we'll just wait for the

regulations to come out. I thank the minister for her serious consideration of

removing the helmets from the factory-sealed vehicles.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, is

it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting

Off-Road Vehicles. (Bill 22)

SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and it's title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles,” read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 16.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 16,

An Act To Amend

The Securities Act, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Securities Act (Bill 16)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act,” read a third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 18.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 18,

An Act To Amend

The Lotteries Act, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm

really pleased to be able to speak another time with respect to this important

legislation. I'm only going to speak for a brief period of time, but I do want

to – just by way of

summary and review – indicate a little bit of the history in

the last couple of weeks, how this act has worked its way to where it is today.

We, in

the Official Opposition, in particular the Member for Stephenville - Port au

Port, who initially started in response to the Minister of Finance's

introduction of the bill; he made some comments. As well, the Member for

Conception Bay South and I, as the particular critic for Justice and Public

Safety, had some interesting, I think, points that we had to make in debate with

respect to the concerns about this legislation.

This Act

to Amend the Lotteries Act, some of the themes throughout this act that were of

real concern to us in the Official Opposition primarily involved the limiting of

rights that the bill could impact, the rights of individuals with respect to

class action suits. With respect to that concern, we don't like to see

individuals and groups of individuals who want to access the courts, have their

right to do that being limited as it was. That was one of the big issues for us.

I know

in response the Minister of Finance had indicated each individual has rights to

sue. To me, that's really a limited right because many of the individuals who

are impacted by this particular amendment are people of limited means because

they suffer from gambling addiction. They don't have the ability; they don't

have the funds to launch an individual lawsuit. As we know, it can be very

expensive. That really isn't a legitimate response. Now, I know there's also the

avenue that an individual could go after the manufacturer. That, again, is still

of limited ability.

That is

one of the biggest concerns that we had but I guess what really, in addition to

restricting individuals' rights in the courts, we know that there is a judiciary

that has already addressed this issue. The judiciary with respect to the

Babstock case, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of the land, has

already addressed that issue and stopped it basically in its tracks, so that

there was no means for this class action to be certified.

With

respect to the government saying we had to protect the rights of the taxpayers,

that they could be exposed financially, I'm not sure that really is a persuasive

argument, given we know that the lawsuit was stopped. Now, maybe there may be

other means by which other lawsuits could be launched, but I'm not sure, I'm not

an expert in terms of class action lawsuits. Maybe that's a risk but, again, we

don't know what that is.

As the

act started to move through in debate and everything, we, as the Official

Opposition, were concerned and said: Well, we need more information about this

and we need to understand this just in terms of that piece. That's just with

respect to the legal piece. We're a Legislature, we are legislators; we're not

the judiciary. The judiciary has a very important role to play in our

government. There are three branches in our government: it's the judiciary, it's

the Executive Branch and it's the Legislature. So let's let the judiciary do

their job. Let's not try to intervene or interfere in that. We have our role to

play here as legislators and I think that's what we should be doing, what we're

doing now, debating the legislation.

One

other really important piece that was brought out, it was initially raised by

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port and then the Member for Conception

Bay South, with respect to the impact that this kind of legislation, the

Lotteries Act , has on individuals in

our community. That's what we want to understand better and that's why we need

to have more public education and more debate. Let's involve the public, let's

involve other stakeholders, whether they be people that work with individuals

who are suffering from gambling addiction. Let's hear from all of these

different people in our society who can better inform about this legislation,

the Lotteries Act , and that's what our

concern was.

We're

rushing through, almost, this legislation without really having a careful

analysis, a critical analysis. We don't expect every piece of legislation to

have that kind of rigour in terms of debate; that's not what we're asking for.

But when we're asking for a piece of legislation, like the

Lotteries Act , that impacts so many people – we know in the Babstock

case there were 30,000 individuals who joined in that class action suit. These

would've been individuals that were impacted by gambling, that perhaps suffered

for gambling, that perhaps lost their livelihood and lost their savings. If

nothing else, people in that situation deserve to have us, as legislators, look

at this very, very carefully.

recognize what the Minister of Finance said, you know, the majority of people

can game, they get involved in gaming and they can do it responsibly and perhaps

they're not impacted. But I don't know what that statistic is and if we look at

this closer we'll find out, we'll find out really what the impact is. We're not

saying that gambling is not something that can occur in our society responsibly.

I mean, there are many people that enjoy it and want to have that choice, but we

need to ensure that there are safeguards and ensure that there's help there. I

know we have helplines and there are mental health supports out there. But,

really, what's there for gambling? I mean, I think there's a lot more that can

be done here for people who suffer from gambling addictions.

I know

that perhaps every one of us, the 40 of us here as elected Members in the House

of Assembly, have been impacted and knows someone – if it's not in their family,

their friends or neighbours – that really, really are left very destitute and in

a very bad way because of gambling. We owe it to them and we owe it to the

people that we represent that we really do a good analysis. That's why we in the

Official Opposition are very, very pleased that the government has agreed to

look at this and agreed to an all-party Committee.

I think

that really needs to be emphasized. It was our suggestion here in the Official

Opposition: Let's look at this, let's really look at this and let's get all

parties, the unaffiliated Members, Members from the Third Party, Official

Opposition and government, all representing our province. They can each bring

their own perspectives, the people that they represent and the experiences that

people have had as a result of gambling to better enhance and better improve

this legislation.

We were

really pleased and I think that's one of the things I, as an MHA, am very

pleased about throughout this whole session. If there is anything to be proud of

is that we were able to work together to come to a common ground as people that

represent individuals in our province and we were able to agree on that. I think

that's what the people we represent want to see. They want to see more of that.

That's

not to say that we in the Official Opposition – we have a very important and

necessary function as critics to challenge government. That's why we have

Question Period, to ask the important, legitimate questions and to keep the

government's feet to the fire, if you will. That is a very important role. It's

one that we have to and do take very seriously here in the Official Opposition.

But there are times, and especially in these difficult times, when we see in the

health care and what's happening with our health care crisis that I think the

public and the people in our society want to see us work together to improve the

conditions of people that we represent.

This

amendment to the Lotteries Act , I

think it was really good to see something very positive come out of it because

now we will have an opportunity as an all-party Committee, and there will be

representatives from all of us, to inform on this, to educate and we will have

an opportunity to hear from people that are affected and that suffer from

gambling addictions. They are the best people, perhaps, to tell us. I mean, I

spoke to someone just this week, while I was at constituency week, who told me

about VLTs. I've never played a VLT in my life; I don't know what it's about.

But they explained to me how addictive and some changes have been made over the

last number of years that are not good. We can hear from people, not only

experts, but people who experience the machines to try to improve so that we're

helping people that are negatively impacted by gambling.

Again,

in conclusion, I just want to say I think it's a step forward because I know a

lot of work goes into an all-party Committee, and so we're really pleased that

the government agreed to that. A lot of work is going to go into that. But you

know what, it's going to mean that we are performing the function that we have,

the democratic process of having a Committee where we're working together. It's

not as adversarial as it sometimes is. It's working together, collaboratively,

to make something better, to make legislation more responsible, worthwhile and

representative of the needs of the people that we represent.

On that,

I'll close and thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm glad

to have the opportunity to speak to this bill again today. I would also say that

it is good to hear that there are some plans for what has been referred to as an

all-party Committee. I certainly hope it will be a Select Committee, given the

fact that there are actually twice as many unaffiliated Members as there

actually are in the Third Party. No offence to my colleague, but it is what it

is. I certainly hope that it will be a Select Committee and that there will be

some independent representation.

With

that said, Speaker, I just want to again reiterate some points that I did make

during the debate a week or so ago. While it is fine that we're going to look at

this issue, going to look at possible changes and concerns as it relates to

gambling in the province – and that is a good thing – it does nothing to change

this particular bill.

cannot, in good conscience, support this bill, given the fact that when you look

at the damage that has been done by gambling to so many people in this province

– including Mr. Babstock, who I know personally. He was a former constituent of

mine and long-time family friend, I would say.

There

are many other people like him that found themselves in desperate straits as it

relates to gambling, particularly as it relates to VLTs. Again, I have to say

for the record I find it very hypocritical of us to support a measure that would

strip away the rights of somebody with a gambling addiction while, at the same

time, we are party to a class action lawsuit of our own against tobacco

companies for creating an addiction.

Just

think about the irony, Speaker, around that. We're saying that tobacco is an

addiction. It is causing harm to our people and it is creating a cost to our

health care system. Therefore, we're going to jump on board a class action

against that. But at the same time that we're doing it, we're going to have

another group of people who likewise have an addiction that is doing them

irreparable harm – no different than cigarettes is to smokers – but we're going

to shield ourselves because, in this case, we are the tobacco company. We're the

ones who are making all the profits from this, so heaven forbid we can't have

anybody who becomes addicted to this and their lives are ruined and we can't

have them have the right to participate in litigation in the form of a class

action, but we can be involved in it against the tobacco companies. It's total

hypocrisy – total hypocrisy. I just can't be part of it. I can't be part of it;

I won't be part of it.

understand the minister talking about trying to protect the public and that's

what makes it somewhat of a moral quandary. I do get that. But I look at the

harm that has been done and will continue to be done. I also look at the fact

that people's rights are being stripped away. I know my colleague from Harbour

Main talked about it and we talked about it last week or week before last, the

minister's commentary that individuals still have the right to sue. And they do;

I accept that. I accept that they do, but the reality of it is they may have the

right to do it on paper, but do they have, from a realistic point of view,

somebody who is down and out now, who's lost their house, who's racked up all

kinds of debt, where are they getting the money to pay for a lawyer to sue on

their own. Someone could say maybe they'd do it pro bono or whatever. What

lawyer out there is going to take on a case with one individual trying to sue

Atlantic lotto when you look at the returns that that lawyer will get?

The

reason why lawyers take on class action is because then they can sue for

millions and millions and millions of dollars and then their 30 per cent or 40

per cent is substantial and it's worth their while to be tying it up with the

courts for two or three or four years, however long it takes, because the reward

at the other end is great, the money they will receive, their share. But no

lawyer is going to take that on for years, to sue on behalf of one individual

pro bono. It's not happening. It's just not realistic. That's why I find it so

difficult and I can't support it.

I will

say this as well – and this is a new point because one of the things that got

kept thrown out the last time we were talking about this: repetition,

repetition. This is something now that I didn't raise before. I don't think

anyone did, which I feel is absolutely new and relevant, by the way. That's the

fact that right now that ability is there to sue in a class action – albeit,

it's been tested by the courts and the court said that Mr. Babstock's class

action was thrown out, didn't meet the criteria or whatever it was required to

do. It was thrown out by the courts. I understand that maybe if there was

another attempt and it was worded in a different way or there was different

information, perhaps the fear is next time it could go through.

But one

of the comments that were made and the minister did respond to is the fact that

we talk about fair gaming. The minister talked about these fair gaming practices

that are being used. I think there's an argument to be made whether how fair is

fair gaming. But let's just say that by whatever standard, whatever that

yardstick is, we have fair-gaming practices and that there are warnings about

the addictiveness of gambling. I don't play the machines, so I don't know if

there is or not. I never saw anything. I had suggested there should be a big

sign there, warning you the same as the black lung on a cigarette package. But

someone did say, oh, they do warn you. So maybe there's something pops up on the

screen for a second that says that this is addictive. I don't know if there is

or there isn't. Maybe there is.

But the

point is, regardless what is in place right now – and I heard the minister, I

think, talk about the limits, like $2.50 is the maximum you can bet at a time or

whatever. Fair enough, right? But if we removed the right for class action

lawsuits – so let's say that happens. Let's say this gets passed; it gets moved.

So what's to stop, then, the lottery corporations who maybe – I'm just saying

maybe because I don't know – in the past said, well, we have to adhere to these

fair-gaming practices or these responsible-gaming practices because if we don't,

we will cross that threshold where someone like Mr. Babstock would be successful

in his lawsuit.

But now

that we've put in legislation to remove that deterrent, what's to stop Atlantic

lotto, then, six months down the road saying, you know what, instead of $2.50 a

bet, let's up it to $5 – nah, let's do 20 bucks a bet. Instead of having the

games going for four hours a night or at a time or whatever the rule is on it,

let's go 24-7. Instead of having four machines in the club –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

P. LANE:

– let's have 104 machines in

the club.

I'm not

saying they're going to do it, but the point I'm making is that one of the

arguments that was presented was the fact that Atlantic lotto has responsible

gaming practices in place and my only point is if you remove the deterrents of a

class action lawsuit and now you can't sue them, then what is to stop them in

six months from now to change those practices and start having more machines;

having the machines operating longer periods of time, allowing you to bet more

often, taking any warnings that might be on the machines, removing all that and

having a free for all, given the fact that we know that no matter what they do,

we can't sue them anyway?

I'm not

saying that's what they're going to do. I'm just saying that that's being

removed. Unless I'm missing something. Perhaps there's somebody here – the

Minister of Justice over there is listening intently. He's a lawyer, so he

understands all this stuff. I see him nodding his head in agreement and very

engaged in all this. So perhaps he might be able to comment on that.

But I

think it's a fair point. I think it's a fair point to say that if we currently

have fair gaming practices in place, which may indeed be due to the deterrence

that exists that somebody could sue and be successful in their lawsuit, if it

was shown that fair gaming practices were not in place. Well, if we remove that

deterrence, what is to stop them after the fact to say: Do you know what? We

can't be sued; we can do what we want, and make them even more addictive.

Because,

again, I heard someone talk about you could sue the manufacturer. Now, I'm no

expert on these machines, I'm really not. Again, I could be wrong, I stand to be

corrected, but my understanding is that the person who's making the machine can

program that machine whatever way you want it programmed. They're not the ones

who are programming it, for example.

I can't

say for certain how it works here in Newfoundland and that, but I know, for

example, I can remember I was in Las Vegas a couple of years ago and talking to

one of the guys there at one of the places we stopped into and asking him about

it. They had the machines at the bar, built in to the bar top, type of thing.

Buddy was telling me, at least down there and it might be different here, that

they could program those slot machines or whatever to allow you to win more

often.

So some

places, in order to keep people drinking at the bar, they could program that

machine so that you're winning more often. You lose in the end because the

machines, obviously, they wouldn't make money if you were winning. Obviously,

the house always wins, ultimately. But they could program those machines so that

you could win more often or you would lose more often.

Certain

businesses, depending on if they were trying to – if it was a wildly popular

location and there are lots of people coming in gambling and whatever, they

would have it so that you wouldn't be winning a whole lot, as long as people

kept on going. But then you had other places where business was slowing down or

whatever or they were kind of off the beaten track, they could program their

machines so when you played you would win more often than you would lose;

therefore, the locals would keep going there to that bar buying drinks because

they were winning a bit of money or not losing as much money.

That

wasn't the manufacturer who made the machine like that. That was them being able

to program the machines, to adjust them in terms of wins, losses and so on. I'm

assuming that that same idea would apply to Atlantic lotto machines in terms of

those things.

course, we know that there have been all kinds of studies done on these machines

in terms of the flashing lights, the bells or whatever that go off. Sometimes

you hit the button and you think you're winning because the machine makes a

(inaudible) kind of sound, which makes it seem like you're winning and you

probably did. You bet $2.50 and you won 50 cents, so you actually lost $2. You

didn't win anything but the machine gives the impression by the bells and the

flashing lights as if you're actually winning something, when you're actually

not winning.

These

are all things that are in these machines and are done. There have been people

who studied these machines to try to make them as addictive as possible,

actually, to attract people and to keep people playing.

There

are some controls on this stuff that can be controlled by the owner of the

machine or the operator of the lottery and so on. Again, I would submit that

having it in the back of their mind that: B'ys, if we're not being responsible

here and we're not careful, we could open ourselves up that a lawsuit would be

successful against us. That is a deterrent. Now, we're going to take that away.

I think that's an important point.

Anyway,

Speaker, those are the points I wanted to make about it. I still have that

concern. I can't support it. I will, again, conclude by saying that gambling is

a very sensitive topic, very controversial with some. There are people who

gamble responsibly and so on. They don't have issues. There are people who have

suffered tremendous loss, whether it be financially, have lost their homes, have

gone into debt. Marriages have been broken up. There's been all kinds of issues,

right to the extreme of – I think I spoke a couple of weeks ago about it – a

person who actually committed an armed robbery; lost his job, went thousands of

dollars in debt and actually committed an armed robbery to get money because of

the gambling addiction. So that's how extreme some of this can go.

While I

won't be supporting this bill, I do support the notion of having Members engaged

in a Committee, a study, whatever you want to call it, looking at these issues

and trying to ensure that the practices that we have here in Newfoundland and

Labrador are responsible and protect everybody.

I hope,

once again, that it will be actually a Select Committee and that there will be

representation from the independent Members here as well, because nobody reached

across the aisle to anybody here – check with all my colleagues – about this. So

this is kind of news to me. Perhaps not surprising, but, anyway, it is what it

is. I hope that all Members are going to be included.

I will

conclude my remarks with that, Speaker, and again just say that I do understand

that government is trying to, I suppose, protect the province from any potential

litigation. The fact of the matter is, is that it has been tried. It was turned

down by the courts.

biggest point, my biggest moral dilemma here is that I feel that to be part of a

class action lawsuit against tobacco companies, while at the same time

preventing people from suing with gambling addictions on the other hand, would

be totally, totally hypocritical. So I can't support it.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Any other speakers to the

motion?

The hon.

the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

First of

all, I want to thank my independent colleagues, Members of the Third Party and

those others who have spoken to their concerns around this bill.

When

this bill was first tabled I thought I was going to be the only one speaking to

it during second reading and I was very pleased to see the various comments and

the various, frankly, reflections of what so many of us are feeling as an MHA

with many constituents who are battling with this problem. That was good to see.

On the

particular Thursday that we were speaking to it I had to leave early for a

flight to Ottawa, but I want to thank my colleagues for continuing to make the

point to government of the unfortunate decision to proceed in this manner with

this bill. It's going to be difficult for us to stop what's happening here, but

we certainly are going to take this opportunity to make our points.

As my

colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands just said, there's no problem here in

finding ways to avoid any repetition because I can tell you my office has been

filled with comments, whether it has been people calling, sending me emails or

people I've met on the plane in the last week or so since this bill has come and

their stories, and that's some of what I wanted to read into the record here

this afternoon and point out some of the problems.

I did

want to reference my colleague from Harbour Main and her comments. I had

reference to it and I compliment her on the comments that she had made during

second reading. I just wanted to read a couple of them into the record. She

said: The legislation is of grave concern to the Members of the Opposition. From

a legal perspective, the legislation, in essence, is an attempt to legislate

away rights, the rights of individuals to join in a class action lawsuit. In

essence, it is restricting access to justice that basically is a very, very

concerning violation of one's fundamental right to have access to the courts.

I've heard others speak about the executive, the Legislature and the judiciary

and the importance of us not losing track of what we are all doing. We are here

making laws; we're not interpreting them. I'm very concerned, as she rightly

pointed out, that we are denying justice.

One of

the reasons why I'm fixated on this problem and wanting to continue to speak to

it is that as I speak to those who are either battling this addiction or who are

family members and loved ones of those who have a gambling addiction, especially

when I'm talking about video lottery terminals, there is something going on here

that is, I will just say, sinister. When you hear people talking about these

happy tunes, these happy music, the little jingly sounds that are going along

with you as you're watching your paycheque disappear at essentially one sitting.

The addictive nature of someone driving by any kind of building, frankly, which

has a VLT in it and just the draw, the lure and the attraction that they can't

even drive by the place. There is an element to the addiction here that maybe we

don't completely understand it, but I can tell you I've had people sit in front

of me and talk about it.

Because

of that I am very concerned that passing this bill is going to deny an

opportunity for us to really get to the bottom of it. As with tobacco, as with

OxyContin and as with some of these other situations that, frankly, our

government has been involved in in the pursuit ourselves, science, health

experts and others have identified a clear link between – perhaps an unintended

or maybe not; I'm not sure – the consequences of us being a part of this whole

institution of organized gambling. It's just something I feel we really need to

think about in terms of limiting the ability of people to be able to ever seek

any kind of recompense for what has happened.

As some

who have reached out to me said, if people lose $200 or $500, that's there

fault. Well, perhaps, and that is also not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm

talking about people who, from paycheque to paycheque, find themselves at a VLT

and sometimes playing more than one VLT. Frankly, many of them are playing

several VLTs at a time if they are able to. The day in, day out drain on their

own finances, and now what's happening and as I've learned – and I'll just go

through and I'm going to be very, very careful about some of the parameters

around these, but I do want to bring it into the record.

There is

a woman, I'll just describe her, she's in the District of Cape St. Francis and

her family contacted me. She's spending up to $100 a day on scratch tickets.

They've just discovered this. Just discovered her entire life savings are gone

and now they're having to step in and pay bills. I'm not sure of their own

means, but it was just one of the personal stories that somebody took the time

to reach out and tell me. So many of the others, frankly, are on the VLTs, but I

did have that one on scratch tickets. It's the same addictive nature.

What I

feel is going on I think through so many of us is that it's like a

below-the-radar problem that is so much more serious than we are giving this

credit to. If we really think about it, some of the numbers I had was $406

million a year is spent by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on gambling. That's

over a million dollars a day. I get this, (inaudible) again some addiction to

our own situation. We receive, on the bottom line, $130 million towards the

revenue of the budget that we operate on – $130 million. Man, you can do a lot

with $130 million. But guess what those families could've done with $130

million. Yeah, people put the argument out and they say: Well, maybe those folks

would just spend it on some other kind of online gambling system and so on. Yes,

perhaps; perhaps they would. But all I can tell you is that at least we would be

out of this business. I don't believe this is a way for the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to operate, by essentially setting up and being a part

of a system that has ruined so many people.

Back in

2009 – that was the most current numbers I could find. I'm not sure through the

debate; I've tried to catch as much of it as possible. In 2009, we had some

2,800 problem gamblers. Some of them I have, personally, as the MHA for Lake

Melville, helped to get some of these people to treatment at our own addictions

treatment facility here in the province. I just wonder: How many others are in

need of that support and, frankly, are not receiving it? That $130 million,

that's not tied to help victims, that's tied to everything else that we've got

to deal with as a government.

I'm not

going to belabour the point, Speaker, but I wanted to get in there and I wanted

to again express support for those who've spoken about this, spoken without any

kind of political lens other than to represent the people who've been most hurt

by this horrible addiction that we are unfortunately a part of.

Commenting about the all-party Committee that's coming and what it's going to

do, I would ask that this party also put on its agenda: What can Newfoundland

and Labrador do to get out of this racket? Because it is a racket. I'm also

going to be opposing the passage of this bill because, frankly, I want to be

able to look people in the eye and say: I did everything I could to stop it. I

can only hope that you get the support that you deserve if this all-party

Committee can actually do any of its work.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm not

going to say a lot. We spoke the other night on this. I think I spoke five

different times that night just trying to draw attention to the fact of what was

so wrong.

When I

got elected to be an MHA, I was under the delusion – and I think a big part of

it is the way I was raised. I was raised to look at the greater good. I was

raised by my parents to make sure that people who were vulnerable were

protected.

I saw

that in my daily life, and I'm disappointed with this bill. I was really proud

the other night when we stood and basically rallied to try to make this

government accountable. We were called on everything. We were shut down and at

the end of it; we were basically stopped from continuing to raise this issue.

I was

talking to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands earlier today and we were

talking about harm and we were also talking about residential schools. He asked

me why was I –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

One of the questions he asked

was: You seem to be doing pretty good; so what's different for you compared to

other people who have a lot of issues such as addictions and things like that?

One of the things I talked about is both my parents went to a residential

school. They were in a situation where they were vulnerable, without parental

guidance and parental protection, and that's one of the things that they

instilled in us.

believe when you are the government, you have to make sure that your most

vulnerable in the province don't fall through the cracks. With addictions, even

good people become criminals. Good people spend all of their money. Good people

actually neglect their children because of addictions. The biggest problem I

have with this is they are removing the ability for a class action lawsuit. Why

is that?

If you

look at what's the purpose of a class action lawsuit and if you google it –

because everyone has access to electronics now – this is one of the

definitions

that pop up and they're all basically the same. I'm not a lawyer. I don't need

to be a lawyer. Class action lawsuits allow groups of people to seek justice

against a defendant who is accused of causing loss or harm to others through –

and they list off all the things.

So I go

back to a class action lawsuit allows groups to seek justice against a defendant

accused of causing loss or harm. So why would we want to remove the ability for

our people to seek justice? We're basically preventing them from seeking justice

by removing this class action. And you want to know something? That is shameful

behaviour on a government.

Then,

you know, what was talked about a lot here today and the other night was about

the class action lawsuit that was brought forward against Atlantic lotto.

Douglas Babstock was named here many times as one of the people that put forward

the class action lawsuit and it was about the potential of VLTs causing harming.

More than 30,000 players had signed on to this class action lawsuit. They didn't

succeed, but it was a very, very narrow margin that they lost. It was actually a

narrow 5-4 decision that allowed the Supreme Court to side with the Atlantic

Lottery Corporation.

One of

the things that I think is important to mention and I didn't hear it before, in

that class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs who were bringing forward talking

about harm, claimed the VLTs are inherently deceptive and are electronically

programmed to create cognitive distortions of the perception of winning, which

is what my fellow MHA was talking about: the cognitive distortions.

We hear

a lot of about that; but do you know what this is all about? It's about taking

money from the pockets of people – families, citizens. Talking about ruining

lives. At the end of the day, we all know that class action lawsuits is there as

a deterrent from causing harm or loss. When you look at these lawsuits, why

remove it?

Also,

they narrowly lost at the Supreme Court but the claimants won their case at both

trial and the Newfoundland Court of Appeal, only to lose. So is this government

worried about – in actual fact, do the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador

have a legal right to sue and win because of the harms done? Is this a cover up,

really, honestly? Is this a way to cheat the citizens from having access to the

legal right to seek justice?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. EVANS:

Do your point of order,

buddy; I don't mind if you kick me out because, at the end of the day, somebody

got to speak up for the vulnerable people in this province. We can't allow the

government to do this to people. And do you know something? Remove it for

gambling, what's the next thing? Against automobiles, against manufacturers of

drugs? This is a slippery slope. That's why we spoke the other night.

I've got

to tell you, it was really disappointing to hear the words shouted at us that

what we were doing – standing up for the people – was shameful, shameful

behaviour. That was actually directed at us because we were challenging the

government on this.

At the

end of the day, who is going to look after the people if the government turns

their back on our vulnerable people? And how much money is this government

making on the backs of people who are gambling, $120 million –?

AN HON. MEMBER:

One-thirty.

L. EVANS:

Yeah, $130 million. In actual

fact, at what cost? When you have a family that's raising kids to be productive

future citizens of our province, to have all that thrown away, to have them lose

their houses, have them lose everything because of the system that's rigged

against them. At the end of the day, people have to speak against it.

The

minister actually did say 0.7 per cent is problem gamblers. So does that mean

only 0.7 per cent are problem gamblers? Because in actual fact other provinces

quoted up to 1 per cent. At the end of the day if somebody is a problem gambler,

everybody suffers. They suffer, their families suffer, their children suffer,

their parents suffer, their relatives suffer and their friends suffer.

It goes

back to Judas money. At the end of the day when you're stealing money from the

most vulnerable, it's not right. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to end it there.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I would

assume, Speaker, if we're removing protections, there should be adequate

protections in place. So this weekend, I checked out the Atlantic Lottery

Corporation and saw their site. Of course part of their mission is that they're

pleased to fund non-profit or charitable organizations promoting responsible

gambling initiatives in our communities. You can see what the purpose of the

Atlantic Lottery Corporation is. It's to promote responsible gambling. Gambling,

nevertheless, is what it is.

What I

found difficult to track down are actual supports for those with problem

gambling. Now, they do have a small

section there: gambling support resources.

If you or someone you know has a problem with gambling, help is just a phone

call away. We've heard that one here in the House of Assembly for a number of

departments.

I called

the number, which I understand is also on the side of the VLTs. What I got was

the crisis intervention team wondering how I got that number. I told them where

I got it – how I ended up calling them. They gave me the number to call, which

was the same number I just called.

Now, I

had a wonderful conversation, Speaker, with the gentleman there but he could not

direct me to anything with regard to gambling, support for problem gambling or

if I was suffering a gambling addiction. But he did recommend that I contact the

Recovery Centre, which I called on the weekend and again this morning.

At that

point, really, the person who answered, a very helpful person, said, no, we

really don't deal with gambling counselling or for addiction, along those lines,

but they did recommend that maybe I go to Adult Central Intake or call DoorWays,

which I did. Of course, you have to leave a message. Sounds familiar. I asked if

there is a gamblers anonymous and the person was unable to tell me.

here's the issue I have, on one hand we are basically promoting and supporting

an organization that its function is indeed to promote gambling, but it's doing

a pretty thin job of protecting those who might be problem gamblers or providing

the support resources. Actually, when I checked out some of the sites of the

other provinces, Speaker, with regard to gambling supports, the other websites

seemed a lot more robust than the Newfoundland and Labrador website, that's for

sure.

On one

hand – and this is the concern you've heard me speak about here – it's great for

the people who can walk into a casino, can walk into the VLTs, who can buy the

lottery ticket every now and again and walk out, but the cost to individuals who

have that addiction or who are dealing with other issues are far-reaching. They

are the unprotected. They are the vulnerable.

indeed a person felt that they had been victims of gambling; that they were

played upon; that they lost their home, their family, whatever, what is the

protection they have to take on the case themselves? In many cases, that's going

to victimize them again because they won't be able to do it, which is why, for

the most part, class action lawsuits do exists.

If you

look at some literature on it, Speaker, class action is often considered to be

an effective means of policing corporate behaviour and the assurance that the

injured victims will be compensated in the most efficient manner.

Why

corporate behaviour? The Atlantic Lottery Corporation, because they have at

their disposal huge sums of income that they can use to defend themselves, they

have experienced legal teams, you might say the game is tilted in their favour.

So, to me, a class action at least levels the playing field.

It is

interesting, in a CTV

article on this in 2019, it's here that in Ontario the

loser pays the legal cost of the defen