PDF Version

October 18, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 42

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 6.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 No. 2, Bill 56, and I further move the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 No. 2, Bill 56, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 No. 2,” carried. (Bill 56)

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 No. 2. (Bill 56)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 7,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act, Bill 47.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, that Bill 47,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act, now be read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act.” (Bill 47)

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Automobile insurance is mandatory for all motorists in Newfoundland and Labrador; this is an area of expertise of mine as, before this life, I spent six years working for a home and auto insurance company. I'm trying to put my expertise to good use here for the public good, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

It is against the law to operate a motor vehicle on our province's roads or highways without active registration or an active insurance policy. Operating an uninsured vehicle can result in a series of individual penalties, including cancellation of registration, impoundment of the vehicle, fines or accumulated demerit points.

This past year we have introduced the Insurance Validation Program, a digital process for determining whether a vehicle carries mandatory insurance coverage and we're continuing to identify and keep uninsured drives from getting behind the wheel.

Essentially, we will not renew your registration of a motor vehicle, Speaker, unless you have an active insurance policy, and there are a series of processes that run, first by email, and then by physical mail to make sure that we do not give anyone auto registration who does not have an active auto insurance policy.

So far this summer, Speaker, we've issued 3,700 suspension notices and 850 warning notices. We give them three notices before we start any of this. So we're giving them ample opportunity. I think this program is hugely successful and hopefully all of these will then get their insurance, as is lawfully required, and then that makes insurance cheaper for everyone.

Speaker, other measures we have taken in recent years to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on our roads and highways include placing the onus on the person who is charged with an offence to prove that there was a policy of insurance enforced at the time of the offence, as well as prohibiting the owner or driver of an uninsured automobile from applying for payment or damages for injuries arising out of the operation, care or control of that automobile.

So, Speaker, what we're talking today is about Facility. Facility is the association of all the insurers and they insure our most risky drivers. If you're considered a high-risk driver, finding an insurer willing to insure you can be a challenge. As Facility is kind of a historically a not-for-profit association, the idea is that all the insurers share in the losses from Facility for the most at-risk drivers because auto insurance is mandatory.

A high-risk driver is someone insurance companies consider more likely to be involved in an accident requiring payout, which is why all the auto insurance companies band together in Facility to share with the losses.

Persons that may be considered a high-risk driver include new drivers, drivers who have been involved in two or more accidents, especially when those drivers have been at fault, legally, and then persons with a previous licence suspension.

So when you're classified as a high-risk driver, usually this results in a driver having higher premiums, tougher restrictions and fewer insurance options. Most times if you call the insurers they will, unfortunately, often refuse to take them on as a client, and that's when Facility will offer them insurance. It's usually a bit more expensive but it's not so expensive as it's not affordable. That's how Facility shares in the losses of that business.

Speaker, this is not specific to Newfoundland and Labrador. Facility Association operates nationally and insurance policies are made available to those drivers considered high risk who are unable to obtain insurance in the regular market.

Facility Association is an unincorporated, non-profit association of all the insurers that operate in all provinces and territories with private insurance regimes. Facility does not operate in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Quebec, as those provinces have government-run or insurance regimes. So in those provinces you buy your auto insurance from the government,

whereas in the rest of the provinces you don't. And then all the other provinces have Facility.

Every insurer licensed to write automobile liability insurance, including Newfoundland and Labrador, is a member of Facility. So all automobile insurers in Newfoundland and Labrador are required to be members of Facility Association. According to the 2019 automobile insurance review report, which I have here which I will reference a bit later, it's a very thick document, Speaker. This was our last comprehensive auto insurance review.

Facility insures approximately 4 per cent of the private passenger automobiles and most of the taxis in Newfoundland and Labrador. Facility has indicated in their most recent rate applications that they insure about 11,556 private passenger vehicles, and 393 taxis. So, Speaker, those are the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that we're talking about: 11,556 private passenger vehicles, the insurance for those vehicles, and the insurance for 393 taxis.

Just as insurers in the regular market are subject to filing rates with the Public Utilities Board, so is Facility Association. Facility, if they want to change the rates, they have to apply to the Public Utilities Board and the Public Utilities Board says yes or no, or tells them what they can charge.

To get more specific, this bill specifically deals with whether or not insurers can make a profit on the business that is through the Facility Association. So Facility Association identifies as a non-profit association in the Insurance Companies Act ; however, there is no existing regulatory mechanism prohibiting Facility from seeking a profit on the Facility policies sold.

So historically, profit was never provided for Facility auto insurance policies. They were non-profit. In 2021, Facility Association submitted an application to the PUB, a rate-filing application, asking for a rate increase, including profit now for the first time on private passenger vehicles insured by Facility. So the order resulting from the application, the PUB stated as the legislation did not prohibit the board from allowing a profit provision to be included in Facilities rates, they granted it.

Speaker, that is what we're trying to remedy here today; there was an element of unclarity for the Public Utilities Board in our legislation, so we are trying to resolve that and provide that clarity. The Public Utilities Board determined that Facility Association should be permitted to include a profit provision in its rate, and the resulting increase was a 6 per cent profit provision, effective April 1, 2022, meaning a 6 per cent increase on all Facility policies that renew after April 1, 2022. On average 6 per cent.

Then at a June 2022 rate filing, the absence of legislation preventing profit on Facility, Facility requested a rate increase of 13 per cent for taxis, including 6 per cent profit. The resulting order, the decision of the Public Utilities Board in December 2022, the PUB approved a filing with a rate increase of 10 per cent. They asked for 13. They didn't get that but what the Public Utilities Board gave them was 10 per cent; that was a 10 per cent increase for taxis. So a big increase for the taxi insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So it should be noted that before approving the filing in 2022, the Public Utilities Board did advise through a public notice; it was published in the newspapers inviting comments from the public and a copy of the notice was also sent directly to the taxi operators in the province before the decision was made by the Public Utilities Board.

In the early filing of 2021, which is available on the website, Facility indicated that its rates should include a profit provision to generate an appropriate return for its members, which are automobile insurers operating in the province, given that they are writing and supporting Facility policies and are in the business of insurance to earn a profit.

I don't agree with that. I agree that insurers absolutely need to have a profit and I'll get to that in a bit. This message was further emphasized by Facility in recent communications with my officials in the department. No province or territory used to allow Facility to get a profit; now, unfortunately, all provinces and territories do. Our government recognizes the challenges faced by people in this province, Speaker, in a time of increasing costs and, as such, we are bringing forward this bill to prohibit Facility Association from seeking a profit provision in future rate filing applications to the Public Utilities Board.

This would not be retroactive but when all the policies renew for the next time, there would no longer be a 6 per cent profit provision, or any profit provision, on these policies. These profit provisions would have to be removed.

These amendments would build on other measures taken by our government to help stabilize insurance rates to show continued effort to support the taxi industry and to consumers, those 11,000, almost 12,000 consumers, who, for a range of reasons, are insured by Facility.

So some of the measures we brought forward to help taxi drivers in the last few years: we've reduced Facility's commission fees from 6 per cent to 3 per cent; we eliminated the 13 per cent tax on auto insurance; and we removed fleet-rated risks from the PUB. So taxis do not have to go to the PUB, I believe they currently, mostly do but they legally do not have to.

Section 64 of the Automobile Insurance Act requires me, as the minister, to conduct a considerable review of this act and regulations every five years. That decision is not required until January 1, 2025. So we thought that given the Public Utilities Board's decision specifically was made because the legislation was silent, we decided that now was the right time to fix this. This will still be reviewed again in the next review in – that decision will be made after January 2025.

On the matter of the profit provision for Facility, we don't want to wait; we want to act now in the best interest of Facility to protect the taxi industry and consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you everyone for your patience.

Just to get a bit more into the details. I don't begrudge the insurers for making a profit. I used to work for an insurance company. Obviously, they have to make a profit. They wouldn't be here and operate in our market if they didn't make a profit, Speaker.

When we look at the 2019 Public Utilities Board Commission report, which is available on their website, on page 24 they talk about the allowable return on equity that they allow insurers to make. The Public Utilities Board allows, on average, all insurers to get a 10 per cent return on equity on their business insuring auto policies in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what the Public Utilities Board allows, 10 per cent.

Speaker, my problem with this, personally, is on top of the 10 per cent, adding another 6 per cent on Facility. I don't know if I'm going to be in this role when we do the next auto insurance review, but my personal, as an MHA or as a private citizen, whatever I am at that time, I'm certainly going to be writing the minister at the time – maybe it's me, maybe it's someone else – requesting that whatever the Public Utilities Board's return on equity is, that they look overall at the insurers, includes Facility. It should be one return on equity for all business, including Facility and the private passenger market.

Speaker, what I'm trying to do today is make decisions and change things based on information that's put in front of me. We saw this decision. As I mentioned, the decision was based on the fact that the legislation was unclear on whether or not Facility could have a profit. Now we're kind of closing that gap. I think that should be reviewed in the next auto insurance review. A decision will be made in 2025 on that. My recommendation right now would be that there's one return on equity for all business, including Facility and non-Facility.

It's very technical, I know, I'm very happy to answer any questions in Committee and look forward to hearing other people's feedback.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Trimper): Thank you, Minister.

I next recognize the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's a pleasure to be back in the House of Assembly again for this fall sitting and tackle some good legislation.

This is an important part of legislation as well. Right now, I thank the minister and her team for bringing it forward because I think at any point if we can put money back into Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pockets from what they've been through in the past few years, any opportunity we can take to do that, we should take to do that and put that money into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; whether it be in the private sector or whether it be in the taxi and cab sector, who have been hurting continuously over the past few years; whether it be rising insurance rates, rising fuel rates, rising maintenance rates.

The taxi companies here in Newfoundland and Labrador have definitely been hit. We need our taxis, we need our cabs, not just in the metro area but we have them in Grand Falls-Windsor. We have them in many places throughout the province and we want to ensure that they get the best deal that they possibly can, too, so they can continue to run and have a successful business as they go.

I'm just looking at the bill, this “prohibit the facility association from including a profit provision in automobile insurance rates.” Again, it's extremely important and for the housekeeping part of the bill, which is important, the first portion of this bill is extremely important. We know that many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians look for insurance, they need insurance; we just discussed it. It's required by law that they have it.

Unfortunately, with the rising cost of living throughout our province, we are seeing more and more people who do not have insurance, who feel as though they just cannot afford the insurance at the time. To turn to Facility, of course, it's going to be a lot more expensive, but it's an option that's there. It's good that there is an option that's there.

Facility cannot turn down the person. It doesn't matter what their driving history is or their payment history is, they have to take them on. We need that. There are places in this country and in this province that definitely need that, so we are happy to see it.

Just getting back again to people who are driving without insurance right now. There are more people on the roads right now without insurance. It's not the right thing to do but when you're backed into a corner and you know you have to go to work, you have to do this sort of thing. Unfortunately, we do have that in the province. I do encourage everybody to do the right thing and get the insurance but we can also see that those numbers are on the rise as well.

A couple more pieces of this bill would be replaced referenced to the Trial Division with the correct reference to the Supreme Court. We have no issue with that here in the Official Opposition. Of course, incorporate gender-neutral language, which is important, too. Just a side note, today is International Pronouns Day so we are happy to see that as well. We want to make sure that everybody gets the proper respect that they deserve.

During the technical briefing, the department staff and the minister indicated – this was mostly housekeeping but, again, making sure that this company does not get a profit. Again, this doesn't cut into any private insurance companies' profits. I have many friends in the insurance business as well and they are happy to see Facility do this for people as a combined group.

So, again, when it comes to capitalism, when it comes to profits, we know the companies need to make profits but we also want to make sure that people are taken care of and people can have some money back in their own pocket, which is extremely important where we come from.

At-risk vehicles on the road: As we go further and further into this cost-of-living crisis, we know that there are more people on the road who do not have the money to maintain their vehicle in the proper way. That's a huge issue and that can trickle down into insurance claims as well. But we know there are many people on the road right now who you talk about having to make decisions between heat and food at home. Well, imagine having to make the decision between having to feed your kids or to get your breaks done when they need to be done.

So, again, it definitely comes back to the people of the province and what they're going through right now. When you have at-risk vehicles on the road, we're going to have more accidents on the road. It's a little side note, but it definitely ties into this. We need to ensure that those people have the best access to maintenance or garages or try to get as much money back into their pocket as we possibly can so they can get their brakes done, so they can get their wheels done, so they're not driving around on banana skins and stuff like that. We're seeing more and more of it as people's pockets are getting emptier and emptier across the province and that's just not good enough.

Again, Speaker, our caucus welcomes it. I have read over this bill now quite a few times. Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, has some of the highest insurance rates in the country. We're glad to see this coming in right now. We want to make sure that government continues to bring in some regulations that will ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay less for insurance, if possible, especially good behaviour.

We get the new drivers sometimes are a risk, sort of thing, because they don't have the expertise or they don't have the experience when it comes to driving, but, listen, I know there are tons of new drivers out there that are better than some of the older drivers and we've all see it as well. So we just want to ensure that proper regulations continue to be brought in by government, whatever they can do, without impeding on free enterprise and on capitalism to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get the best rates that they can get.

Again, unfortunately, we're seeing this come in now after a rate already has gone up. It would have been nice to see this a year ago, two years ago, before those rates did come in under the wire, sort of thing. But it's good that it's here now and we are very pleased with it here in the Official Opposition.

Customers have seen substantial increase in premiums over the past years, despite being claim free and that's an issue. Again, I can't imagine there's an insurance company in this province or in this country that's losing money. It's just not happening. So good behaviour should be rewarded with good premiums. If you go claim free over a year, two years, five years, we that should be reflected upon the insurance premiums that a person gets. Again, wherever government can do the best job they can to ensure the people of the province are taken care of and as much money can stay in their pockets as possibly can, as we can possibly make, that's exactly what we should be doing here.

Newfoundland and Labrador insurance market is dominated by a small number of players and government has done nothing to attract new entrants to protect consumers. I'll reiterate on that. We should be out there looking for new business, for anybody who wants to come into this province and to offer better rates to customers. When somebody is paying an insurance rate of $300 or $400 a month and they've never had any claims or any accidents, whatnot, we think that's an issue.

Again, nothing wrong with profit, but we want to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, themselves, are taken care of first. That should be our main priority. So we want to ensure that.

Before I sit down, I'll just have a quick word about the taxi companies. Again, they've been through the wringer and back, especially since COVID-19 here. The drivers, they see a decrease. The owners and operators, they've seen a decrease with the rising fuel costs and people just aren't taking taxis as much as they used to.

Buses are options and whatnot; we see the rise in the buses, which is great as well, but we want to ensure that the taxi companies – we've had taxi companies operating in the metro region here now for decades, the same owners and operators. We need them. We truly need them. That affects people going to work. It affects tourism. We want to ensure that when a tourist gets in that car, they don't seen an exuberant amount of a taxi fare. We're hoping that with this change, possibly, if they're getting back 6 per cent of the profits or if money is coming back to any taxi owners and operators, we hope that gets reflected in the fares. That would be great to see.

We know that when premiums go up or maintenance goes up or fuels go up, the fares go up as well. Well, let's hope it works the other way to help the consumers here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be great to see as well.

So for the taxi companies out there, for the 11,000-plus private users, this is a great piece of legislation. I hope they're happy with it, I know we're happy with it and we look forward to asking some questions in Committee.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you to the Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I next recognize the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll just speak briefly to the bill. We're glad to see that the government is doing the housekeeping and at the same time making sure that Facility is not taking more than what they need to take from consumers. We're talking about the cost of living and stuff but it also, at the same time, is interesting of the fact that we are going to be the only province that is going to be limiting Facility with the profit margins currently, right now, from the other members of Facility; so Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and so forth.

So it brings up the fact that we have to do this with Facility when there is an exorbitant rate of profit. We're also seeing that the massive rise of auto insurance and other insurance programs currently, right now, in the province for your home, auto, life, everything has gone up significantly in the last couple of years and now we have to do this with Facility to bring down the cost for high-risk drivers, taxis and so forth.

We do agree with this motion but, at the same time, it brings the question, which I'll ask in Committee later, on why we're not joining the other provinces of Quebec, BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba with a public insurance program which doesn't have a profit motive compared to what we see right now as an option to bring down rates significantly. Because currently, a business is going to do what a business is going to do and they're going to find other ways to get their profits back. We can limit them here in Facility but knowing how those industries work, they'll find another way to increase rates and get their money back.

It is great that we're going to do this at the same time, but my question to government will be: What are we doing to make sure we can stabilize this industry? We've seen countless years now of constant increases in the auto insurance rates. The justifications are interesting to say the least and that we are not seeing any real savings with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when it comes to auto insurance. Like I said, we pay some of the highest rates in the country; we have some of the least amount of vehicles on the road in some parts of this country, yet we're getting dinged left, right and centre for auto rates.

This is one good step, I think, but the question is why aren't we joining with Saskatchewan, Manitoba, BC and Quebec on having a public auto insurance system that they seem to be having, where we have the ability to actually adjust rates and make them that they're reasonable and affordable for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So, you know, this is just some of the things we want to know. But other than that, we're glad to see there are some steps made, especially for the taxi industry who has been really dinged over the last number of years so that they can actually continue to conduct business in this province. The rates are still really high. In some cases, it makes it really much harder, especially for those who are on fixed incomes, low incomes, to even afford insurance for their vehicles. We understand that, for some people, a vehicle is very important, especially in rural and remote areas where other options of transportation are not available.

We see this as great, but at the end of the day auto rates and insurance, it is very concerning the prices people are paying right now. I'll have some more questions in Committee, but those are some things to think about.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

It's an honour as the Member of the House of Assembly for Harbour Main to speak on Bill 47,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act.

When I look at this legislation, Speaker, and I listen and heard the minister in her introduction about the bill, I noted that the bill is of housekeeping nature. And I think from what I can see, it really applies to two main elements: the uninsured driver, so that they are not out behind the wheel – that's one of the important themes in this bill – as well as the specific aspect of Facility and insurance with respect to the most risky drivers – I mean, I think this is a very important element to this bill when it speaks to the amendment, and in relation to the risky drivers.

From what the minister said, the bill is really applying to about 11,000 to 12,000 consumers in our province, if that's my correct understanding of the bill. So these are important efforts, and no one can question that. But again, I need to address the bigger issue here. Although this is a piece of legislation that is housekeeping, when we look at the impact that the insurance rates are having on our everyday consumer, in particular our seniors and others on fixed incomes, I wonder why not more meaningful legislation is not coming forward.

I had the opportunity this morning to review this legislation with one of my constituents in the District of Harbour Main, just to see in terms of the impact that this legislation would have on our everyday citizen, our everyday resident. This is a very important piece of the cost-of-living crisis that we're facing now in our province, Speaker. And when I talked about this insurance bill with my constituent, he had indicated that over the last four or five years the cost of insurance, whether it's car insurance or home insurance, has doubled. And I referenced that yesterday in Question Period, about the impact that these costs are having on our seniors and others who are on fixed incomes.

So basically he explained that when you look at the cost, for example, of car and truck insurance – he and his wife have two vehicles. Last year, they were paying $1,200; this year, it's $2,000. He's at a point now where he's probably going to have to sell his car because they cannot afford these costs. Speaker, that's just unacceptable.

When you look at a man who's 75 years old, he started working when he was 16, up until he was 69 and he had to leave work then because of his health condition, but he said he'd probably look at going out to work now. He's 75 years old, so he would be able to keep his car. Now, is this the standard of living that we are going to accept for our seniors and others on fixed income in our province?

I bring that up, Speaker, because it's important to note that when we see legislation – and I'm not criticizing the legislation for what it is on its face. It's fine in terms of addressing the issue of uninsured drivers, of addressing the risky drivers and increasing oversight there. I think that's important. But it's applying to such a limited pool of the people of this province, 11,000 to 12,000 people. We need more meaningful legislation to come forward from this government, especially if we're going to address the important issue of cost of living, which is skyrocketing; insurance rates are a very important part of that.

On that note, I do think that we need to look beyond and we need to do better in terms of legislation. As my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans stated, Newfoundland has some of the highest insurance rates in the country. We're being overcharged here in our province by insurance companies. Who is bearing the brunt of this, but it's our seniors and other people, young families as well, but people on fixed incomes who do not see their salary or income increase. They are at a fixed income, yet the insurance costs keep escalating year after year after year.

Speaker, this is just unacceptable. We need to bring forward legislation that addresses the overall and the broader issue of the high insurance costs for our people in the province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Any further speakers?

I recognize the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

I just wanted to rise and have a few words on this bill, Bill 47. I hadn't planned on earlier but I thought I would just chime in with a few thoughts that I had. When I looked at the insurance company and the bill, I immediately thought of the many people in the District of Bonavista who cannot afford home insurance. That is not what we're talking about here today but I know that when my colleague from Harbour Main suggests that, when we know that we've got a lot of issues out in society and in our province, that is what should drive our legislative change.

Yesterday, we talked about those people who are struggling to stay in their homes or do not have a safe and secure home. Well, that ought to be a discussion on everything we can do in legislation to make sure that we can change it. So we are focusing today, not on the home insurance, because if anybody burned wood because they can't afford oil or electricity, if anybody did, then they know that they can't get insurance because it's priced out. So we have a lot that can't afford it.

On the vehicle side when we look at insurance, I'm most intrigued with the Member for Labrador West who says that the provinces that would have their publicly run insurance – and I'm sure the minister will speak to that because she's got a background in that – that would eliminate, I would assume, the 10 per cent profit for the insurers that we currently have and the 6 per cent now would go to Facility.

I'm not sure if I've got that right, but it should be able to say that we will do it on a revenue-neutral basis to have an insurance and make it as affordable for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as we possibly could, no profit involved. That sounds very attractive and that's something maybe that, we, as a collective group of legislators, ought to be looking at.

This is complex. We look at what drives up insurance rates. The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor says we have amongst the highest in the country. I thought we would be high. I don't know if we've got the highest but if we're up there, why? Why do we have the highest? We know what our climate conditions are. The residents in the District of Bonavista would say well, we know the vehicles that are damaged on potholes because if ever they're going through insurance, we'd know that.

I often tell my children, if they're coming from St. John's and coming back to the District of Bonavista, avoid driving in wet weather. There was one time when I was in Whitbourne. It was heavy rain on the way back to the District of Bonavista, when the tow truck driver had said that they had eight calls in the vicinity of Whitbourne, in that stretch, eight calls for vehicles that went off the road in the wet weather. That's not all the fault of the roads, but I guess some would make that assumption that is an issue, the condition of the roads.

The second thing would be how can my daughter or Scott Martin in Elliston, how can they assure that the vehicle that's coming towards them has the proper treads on the tires that they ought to have? Because is that a factor that would contribute to an incident on our roads? It sure is. We don't know as a government, we don't know as travelling pedestrians or driving our vehicles on the roads; we don't know the condition of the vehicle that's coming towards us because there are no inspections anymore.

I bring up inspections to know there's a degree of reluctance because the bottom line is that people can't afford the cost of living of what they have and I'd be really hesitant on adding more. But we have to find what that balance would be. We have to make sure we're safe on the roads. If it's because of tire tread or the vehicles or the roads, there are a higher number of accidents, then we have to tackle that.

The Member for Ferryland, he passionately talked about the brush cutting. All of a sudden you don't have the visibility if you're travelling in areas where the brush cutting isn't up to standard, then there's a risk of encountering a moose, a much higher risk, especially if he said he can hold his hand out the window and touch the alders on the passenger side.

There's a lot when we look at bringing legislation to the House. We can certainly make it broader to see what we can do to tackle the issue of the cost that would be included in the insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I will end with that and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

I now recognize the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm not going to take too long here, but I'll support Bill 47, of course. Mostly what we have here is housekeeping, but the big one of course is taking away the profit provision in automobile insurance rates for people who are in Facility.

Certainly, anything that we can do to lessen the burden of insurance costs on consumers, I think that's what we should be doing.

I will say, though, while I applaud this move, I'm not sure how much of a difference it will make in the end because if you look at the history that you see with big corporations – I don't want to sound like a socialist here now because I'm not, but you look at the history you see with big corporations, whether it be the big banks, whether it be –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: No, I'm not a socialist. I'm a populist, remember? I wear that as a badge of honour, absolutely.

But if you look at the big corporations and the huge profits that they make, whether it be the banks – just think about the fact, capitalism has really gone amok. I know it's better than communism and everything else but it has kind of gone amok. The profit margins that you're seeing are through the roof. It's absolutely ridiculous when you think about it that if somebody wants to go and take in a ball game or something, you've got to pay $10 or $12 for a hot dog. There's something wrong with that picture.

When you look at the fact that when you go to the ATM machine, every time you use your card, it's costing you $3 or $3.50 just to stick your card in the machine. That's all profit. You see these huge profits by the banks, by the big corporations and by the insurance companies. So I wouldn't be a bit surprised if any help that's provided by taking it away from there, the insurance companies will find a way of adding it onto something else and they'll get their money back, I guarantee you. Sadly, that's the way it seems to work, but I will support it.

I will also just add to what the Member for Bonavista said about trying to get rates down by preventing accidents. I'll just throw this out here. When we talk about the roads situation and I know that roads are costly and the minister has said if I spent $10 million, there's another $100 million to do and all that. I appreciate that.

But I just will say that, anecdotally, before the House opened, I went on a little family vacation. I drove down to the States. I drove right down the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and back up through Niagara Falls. I went down through Maine and up through Niagara Falls. I would have driven through Ontario obviously, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and numerous states in the US. The only time I encountered ruts in the road was Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the only place I encountered ruts in the road.

Coming back home on Saturday, I got off the Port aux Basques ferry. I want to say between Deer Lake and Grand Falls. It was raining, of course, and the ruts were wicked. I was like an impaired driver because you were trying to go around them, trying not to drive into ruts so you'd be kind of hugging the centre line and if cars were coming towards you, then you would kind of go over and you'd be hugging the shoulder and that just trying to avoid the ruts. You were like someone who was impaired, driving the car, trying to avoid going off the road and had to reduce speed, obviously, significantly just to try to stay on the road.

Newfoundland and Labrador was the only place that I encountered that. Of all the provinces I was through, nowhere else did it happen. It's definitely not coming from trucks. I hear people say big trucks and all that. It's not because it aligns perfectly with a passenger vehicle. It's not big trucks doing it.

I don't know if it's the studded tires. I don't know if we're going cheap somehow on how we're doing the roads, but there's obviously a problem in this province. It has been raised numerous times. If we could address things like that, perhaps we could cut down on the number of accidents and perhaps that would have a positive impact on insurance rates as well.

I do concur with my colleague from Bonavista around the idea of looking at what is causing the accidents here. Why do we have such a high accident rate that's driving insurance rates through the roof? Bearing in mind, as I said, that at the end of the day, just like the big banks and the big corporations and everything else, and the corporate greed, which has really come to the forefront – particularly since COVID, everybody wants their money back and then some – they will find a way to get their money back, even after we do this. I'm convinced they will but at least we're trying. At least we're doing something to try and help and I will support that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Seeing no further speakers to Bill 47, I now call on the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to close debate on Bill 47.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Members of the House for making valuable comments and suggestions and stories.

I just want to address a few of the points and I'm happy to discuss more in Committee. I guess in terms of the auto insurance market in the province – I used to work for a home and auto insurance company. Our auto insurance rates are based on the cost of the company to run and they have actuaries that estimate how much they have to pay out in claims for next year. Your policy is based on their estimate of how many accidents are going to be in Newfoundland and Labrador next year, and that's kind of divided up between all their policies and that's kind of the claim's cost.

Then you have some IT, HR, all that kind of cost built in and then the PUB allows them to have a 10 per cent rolling return on equity for profit on top of that.

Really, the insurance companies make money – people in insurance get bonuses when there are no accidents. Let's say there are no accidents this year – let's say there's a significant reduction in car accidents this year. Next year, everyone's rates will be a lot cheaper. There's a direct correlation, a mathematical correlation that many people are employed to look at within these insurance companies: What is the likelihood of car accidents?

So as a province – I'm in charge of highway safety and I take that very seriously – if we become better drivers and have less accidents and slow down and follow the speed limits, that will put a downwards pressure on our insurance policies. I guess what we're talking about today is specifically the people in Facility, and so whether or not there was the 6 per cent on average profit added in.

Those 11,000, plus 300 taxis, when they renew their policies they should get a 6 per cent reduction on average in their insurance premiums this year, unless for example Facility – they might apply to the PUB to have an increase if their costs went up. If the claims costs went up, they might apply for an increase. But overall there should be a 6 per cent decrease for those 11,000 people when their policies renew, Speaker.

I guess the second point I wanted to raise, which multiple Members raised it, about whether or not we should have a public insurance company. In some provinces, the government essentially has a Crown corporation that runs the insurance company. That's a really interesting idea, and I have thought about that, and my struggle – we have Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They're a Crown corporation. They have their own policies and procedures, that kind of stuff.

Some provinces have more Crown corporations, some provinces have fewer Crown corporations, and I guess I was a mid-level manager, let's say, in an insurance company for six years, and I know how tightly they ran that ship, and that was an international insurance company. I have a lot of respect for our public servants here and our government employees.

The reason why I have not – well, as a government we would have to, but I personally would not right now champion having a public insurer, because I don't think we could run it as efficiently as a private company, and I think we could not offer, based on the accident rates in Newfoundland and Labrador, insurance rates at a lower cost than they do.

Because they're looking at the cost plus 10 per cent. Personally, I do not think that we could create a Crown corporation, and run an insurance company and deliver premiums at the current rates. I don't think that taxpayers would win in that model. Just because I know how efficient and cost, profit and efficiency-driven those companies are, or at least the company I worked in was. So I don't think we could do it cheaper, Speaker.

So that's why I have not brought that forward, but I'm happy to have those discussions. So I'm happy to answer any questions in Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 47 be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 47)

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

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

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 47)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee of Whole to consider Bill 47.

SPEAKER: It has been moved that I do now leave the Chair so the House can resolve itself to consider Bill 47.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 47,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act.” (Bill 47)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair is recognizing the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Chair.

Can the minister explain why she's doing this now instead of bringing this legislation forward last year, six months' ago or the year before last?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

That's an excellent question.

My team tell me whenever the Public Utilities Board make kind of big decisions and they came to me and said, oh by the way, this happened. I look through the paper on the weekends and I look for the Public Utilities Board notices and I never see them, but they say that they're there. So I didn't see this. When they told me about it, I started asking a lot of questions and we dug into it, dug into it, dug into it and dug into it, and then this brings us to this place we are here today now.

When I understood that they had made a decision to allow profit and then the more we asked questions and the more we looked into it, that's why this is right now. This is the time between when the decision was announced and when I could bring this to the House of Assembly.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

What about the drivers that have already renewed mid-year or if a driver renewed January 1, 2023, as opposed to a big taxi company renewing now on December 1? Why isn't any of this retroactive?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

That is a fair question. I guess we want to be clear moving forward. The policies react like, in the past, the ruling was made; the insurers have to do their work to issue the policies. It is an enormous amount of work for them to go through all the policies and send cheques to people. I'm not trying to punish them or unduly burden the insurers by doing this. We're trying to clarify an area that was unclear in the legislation so I think it is not perfect, I agree.

I'd love to make the insurers send everyone cheques, but I think it is reasonable that moving forward, when everyone's policies renews, after this receives Royal Assent, I think it will take affect immediately. I'm sure that if your policy renews tomorrow they might have to send you a cheque but I don't want to burden the insurers by having to send everyone cheques. I think that might be too onerous and their financial statements and stuff would be all messed up. It would cause a lot of problems for Facility if we made them do retroactive; I think it is very reasonable to go on a forward basis.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Just to be clear, Minister, was it an option for your department to make this retroactive to put money back in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pockets?

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

S. STOODLEY: I don't know if I have an answer to that. We're trying to clarify that profit is not allowed in Facility. So we're doing two things with this act; we're changing the definition of profit provision and then we're saying profit provision cannot be allowed in Facility. That's our intention to the act; I guess that's the most I can say about that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Minister, I'll continue on with other questions, but before the Committee is over if I could get an answer to that question it would be great. If it was an option for your department to make this retroactive, to put money back in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pockets, because issuing cheques, although it may have been a little bit inconvenient for Facility, it would have been great to see some money back in those people's pockets.

Minister, why has the government allowed insurance companies to overcharge for several years, between 2021 and 2022?

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

S. STOODLEY: I'm sorry; I don't understand the question. I'm not aware that insurers were overcharging. They applied to the Public Utilities Board for a rate. The Public Utilities Board says yay or nay and there's an official order on the Public Utilities Board website that's published. The Public Utilities Board officially approves all the rates so if any insurer is charging a price higher than what they have on file with the Public Utilities Board, that would be against the legislation regulations and I would expect the Public Utilities Board to fine them or take some kind of action. I'm not aware of that, so I'm not quite sure what that means.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Can the minister please outline the consultations that were held for this legislation?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

So we did not do broad consultations. We spoke with Facility. My team spoke with Facility. The department experts spoke with the Public Utilities Board on many occasions to understand the background and all that kind of stuff. I met with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, so essentially the association of all the insurers, maybe a month ago.

One of the things that I told them was that I was very disappointed with their ask to the Public Utilities Board to add profit in Facility. We didn't have any discussion, but I did communicate to them verbally in the room that I was disappointed with their decision. So that's kind of the extent of our consultation.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, you said that you did consult with the PUB. What was their stance on this decision?

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

S. STOODLEY: I guess the way it works is we set the legislation and the Public Utilities Board, they're an independent, quasi-judicial body and they make decisions based on our legislation. So it's not their role to be supportive or not. They execute the decisions based on the legislation.

I guess our relationship with them is more so like, Digital Government and Service NL's experts would ask the Public Utilities Board for background information on why did you make this decision. All this is published on their website. You can see the order where they granted the Facility and then they did send a notice out to the taxi companies. So it was more like fact finding with the Public Utilities Board.

The Public Utilities Board gives us that fact-finding information and then they communicate it back to us. My team have been having those discussions with the Public Utilities Board. They wouldn't really say we agree or disagree with the legislation. Their job is to enact the legislation as a quasi-judicial government body.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

What did the taxi brokers, the owners, the operators and the drivers have to say about this?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I have not spoken to them. I thought I might have been going second this morning and so I was going to try and give some of the owners a call this morning, but I did not have a chance.

I am saving them 6 per cent on their insurance when they renew, so I don't anticipate that they'll have a problem with that.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

How many taxi owners will receive a rebate?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the question.

I think I mentioned the number of taxis. I have no way of knowing when different taxi policies renew and so any that renew after the date, before the Facility and the insurers have a chance to update their systems – because they're going to have to update the system to change it. I have no way of finding out how many policies will be changed between the Royal Assent and then when the insurers have the chance to update their systems and then they might have to issue a refund.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Do we know how many individuals will receive a rebate?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

Again, I think there are 11,000 vehicles insured through Facility. If their policy renews a week after this bill receives Royal Assent, if and when this bill receives Royal Assent, they may get a refund because their policy might automatically renew, for example, with a 6 per cent built in and the Facility might not have time to change the systems to incorporate this.

I can't say how many individuals or taxi companies will be in that situation. But if your policy renews in six months' time, then you'll just get the lower price in six months' time and no refunds will be issued.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Will this legislative change be retroactive for several years to date of PUB implementations?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

It is not retroactive. It is moving forward after the date of Royal Assent.

Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Again, Minister, I don't know if we found an answer, if your department was able to make this retroactive. If so, why was it not retroactive?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

So I guess part of the complexity is we have insurance companies running their businesses. I don't know if it's reasonable for us to put in a piece of legislation that says: Okay, all private companies, you have to give all your customers a cheque.

We try and do that as few times as possible. That causes a lot of disruption.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: I'm trying to clarify a gap in the legislation for the Public Utilities Board, I guess. That's what we're trying to do.

As a government, we've done things for the residents with the cost of living. We cut motor registration fees in half, we cut the tax on auto insurance, we cut the tax on home insurance, we sent out $500 cheques. We do have people's household cost-of-living measures in mind all the time. With the change here, we are trying to clarify an element that was silent in the legislation.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Is it possible we can give those back and pay for next year? Is that an option that your department could look into?

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

S. STOODLEY: I guess I'll reiterate. We are trying to clarify an area of the legislation that was unclear in advance of the 2025 auto insurance review.

What we are not doing is saying: Okay, private company or not-for-profit association, you have to find this money in your budget and give it back to everyone. That's not what we are trying to do.

We are trying to clarify a piece of legislation so that the Public Utilities Board is clear that Facility policies should not have profit.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Do we have a total amount of rebates that are going to be given back?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I don't have that. There is a lot of public information available about the number of policies in Facility, the total policies written in Facility. I think you can do some basic math and get an estimate. I don't know off the top of my head.

Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Is there anything in the bill to help customers with another options besides Facility? If not, why not?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

So Facility is the insurer of last resort. I encourage anyone with auto insurance, shop online and shop online every year. You can go online and get all the online insurance quotes. You can call and get quotes. If you're looking for the best rate insurance, you should shop around every year is my advice.

If, as a driver, you are too risky and you do not fall within the approved risk that the Public Utilities Board allows each insurer, if you call and they say: I'm sorry I can't give you a quote, you've got to call Facility. Facility is the insurer of last resort.

So everyone can buy insurance through Facility. Facility operates, generally, at a loss and so all the insurers share in that loss because the idea is these drivers, essentially, cost more than they pay in their insurance, on average. That's why Facility exists because auto insurance is mandatory.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Will taxi customers see a reduced rate or benefit from this move?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

So it's up to taxi companies how they run their businesses. I certainly hope that this prevents an upward pressure on rates. I am trying to turn over every rock and stone to keep costs down for residents of Newfoundland and Labrador within my portfolio.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: I hope that this does not have an upward pressure. This allows taxis to get a very small amount of breathing room, is my hope. I cannot say how that impacts taxi rates.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: I'll just leave on this. We appreciate that, Minister, because we're all trying to do the same thing here, I guess, and put money back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

My question would be: Why wasn't there more done with this legislation on this day to ensure rebates back for people who may have already renewed their insurance? I mean, that's something that I think could have been looked at, that should have been looked at before it was brought to the House of Assembly.

We have seen rushed legislation in the past and I hope that this wasn't rushed because I think that this is an opportunity to ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have more money in their pockets. If we can get an answer to that, it would be great.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I guess I'll reiterate again. We're trying to clarify and area in the legislation that is unclear. So the Public Utilities Board said that they allowed Facility to include profit because the legislation didn't say that they couldn't. I guess we are not trying to be punitive to the insurance companies or to Facility. I'm not trying to punish them. I don't think it would be reasonable, right now, for us to say you have to take a cut of the money you are expecting to get this year to run your business and to operate and give that back to people. That would be punitive and that's not what we're trying to do today. I'm trying to clarify an unclear area in the legislation.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you.

Minister, I'm just trying to seek some clarification on how this went down.

What I'm understanding is that – well, first of all, let me ask this: Without making this change, was it the intent of the legislation that there would be no profits on Facility, it just wasn't as clear as it ought to have been, but that was always the intent of the legislation to begin with? Is that true or …?

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

S. STOODLEY: Facility has always been non-profit. I think it was always assumed that Facility would not have a profit provision. If I just guess, I'm just guessing, that it was not explicitly put in because Facility historically has always been non-profit. They now asked for a profit and because the legislation didn't say they couldn't have a profit, it was granted.

Now we're clarifying that they cannot have a profit. They're already getting profit.

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

P. LANE: Okay, I'm not asking for the specific date, if you have the specific date, fine, but even a rough idea: At what point in time did the insurance companies apply to the PUB to get profit and how long have they been deriving the profit? Has it only been a couple of weeks, couple of months or it's been a year? How long has this been going on that they've been receiving profit?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I think it's within a year or year and a half. All the dates are publicly available on the Public Utilities Board website in terms of the day they made their order. I thought I had it here, I might find it in a second. If I don't have it, I will certainly get it to the Member in terms of the actual date the order was granted and then when the Public Utilities Board allowed it. It's all public information, I will get that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you for that, Minister.

Okay, well then, with that being said, I was kind of under the impression that this was something that had kind of just happened. If it had just happened and we were intervening immediately, type of thing, to add clarity, prevent them from collecting money from people that they ought not to have been collecting, then I would be with you.

But I do have to say that if they have been collecting money from people for the last year or year and a half that it was never the intent, it was never collected before, was never the intent of the legislation and it's simply an error by the Public Utilities Board or some issue with the legislation that allowed it to happen, even though it never happened before, it was never allowed to happen, then it seems to me that perhaps the insurance companies found a loophole and they explored that loophole and they were successful in doing it. That's on them, and I don't think they should be rewarded for it.

So I would agree with my colleagues that they should have to pay that money back. I know you've made your decision and I respect that. You're the minister, that's your call, but I don't agree with that part. I think they should give the money back. If they're not going to issue cheques back, it would be very easy for them to simply – the people that are involved there – calculate what the money is and when they come up for renewal say, okay, your rate this year is $2000, minus the $300 we owe you, you only pay in $1700. They don't have to go issuing cheques.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you for the feedback.

So I do have some dates that were in my speaking notes. In June 2022, a year-and-half rate filing, Facility requested the rate increase of 13 per cent for taxis including a 6 per cent profit. The order that was issued in September 2022 allowed the profit. Before it made that ruling in September 2022, that was when the Public Utilities Board gave this notice in newspapers and sent the notice to the taxi operators.

It was in 2021 filings that Facility was asking for profits. So it's been in place for taxis since September 2022; it wasn't in place for everyone else since then. I don't have all the filings in front of me but they're all publicly available on the Public Utilities Board website, of if and when – because I believe there's been no commercial insurance Facility filings. There are no commercial insurance Facility members currently paying profit, because I know for a fact that no commercial have gone through this process yet.

I believe there was a request for regular auto insurance. I don't have in front of me the date that was approved by the Public Utilities Board, but that will be on their website and I can certainly get that.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: I would just conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying, you look at, for example, when the CERB money came out. I'm just using this as a little analogy. There were people that legitimately applied – I know there were people who illegitimately applied for CERB, but there also were people who legitimately applied for CERB. It was kind of thrown out there haphazardly, and at the end of the day the federal government came back and said you received money that you shouldn't have received. They had no problem being punitive on the average person, to say you've got to give us our money back.

So I'm not sure why we would be so concerned about insurance companies who are making tens of millions of dollars, having to give back a bit of money to the consumer, given the fact that they collected money that they ought not have collected.

Thank you.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the comments. I do have some new information from my team. The average savings for a taxi will be $423 a year per taxi. The average saving for a private passenger vehicle will be $138 per vehicle a year. In the 2019 Public Utilities Board review of automobile insurance, they did indicate – this is on the Public Utilities Board website – that profit was not allowed on Facility business.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Just a question. Given the background of Facility and making these changes, was there any report or anything done on this and the effects that the profit had or was it just, I guess, of the department to just go and make this one correction? Was there any actual research or anything done with Facility on this profit or was it just blanketly, like we're going to just fix this little loophole?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

We are clarifying a piece in the legislation that is not clear. Historically Facility never had profit. In what I've read, in the rulings from the Public Utilities Board and in a request from Facility, it is solely for the principle of having profit on this business. That is the sole purpose of it. As I've said, my argument is they're getting their allowed profit, fair. They don't need the extras, so that's what we're trying to clarify.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Minister.

Given the changes for Facility, is there any ongoing work now that your department is doing on the rates for average insurance company and those kind of profits that they're allowed to make?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

The Public Utilities Board sets the percentage allowed and in their 2019 review – it's a fascinating read, if anyone is really bored sometime. They are allowed an after-tax return of equity of 10 per cent on average for all business. As a government, our next legislated auto insurance review, we have to announce a decision, I think, around January 2025. This is not comprehensive; we're just clarifying an unclear area to provide some financial relief, but the next big auto insurance review we'll make a decision on whether or not that'll proceed in 2025.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

E. JOYCE: I'm just going to stand and have a few words on this because I was involved with this back years ago.

The few questions I would like to ask and have answered because a lot of this is concerning to small businesses, the people with the taxis, who, $500 a year, would be a lot of help to a lot of those individuals. What happened back years ago when the insurance rates were a bit higher and there was some talk about putting a cap on soft-tissue injuries in the province – there was big uproar from the legal society about that. So to try to mitigate some of that, the insurance companies said, okay, what we'll do now; we'll put in a Facility.

Anybody that we feel has more accidents or maybe a possibility of someone that may have accidents we'll put them in this Facility Association which will drive up their rates.

The question I would ask the minister on that – and this is something that hasn't been discussed here today – who decides who goes in to that Facility Association or Facility rates and how do we justify that whatever they're charging those individuals, they're not making profits? That's the question.

As we all know, we drive our cars. Everybody is this House of Assembly got a car. We probably drive it a few hours a day. A taxi is going 24 hours a day. The possibility of an accident is much higher in those cars. It is – much higher.

So the question would be who decides who goes into the Facility? How are the rates decided that there is no profit being made? If the minister stated that, yes, there was $400 or $500 made that shouldn't have been made, shouldn't we and the minister look at some way to help with that?

This idea of the insurance across the province is big. The bigger picture of the insurance companies – and I remember getting all the briefings on it and meeting with all the insurance companies – is that the big insurance companies, they're on the stock market. If they make money on the stock market, they say they try to subsidize the car industry, auto industry.

Then when you've got all the massive floods across Canada, that a lot of these insurance companies have got to pick up, they're saying, well, we've got to make our money somewhere. This is where the insurance rates for vehicles are tied into the whole insurance. But when they break it down and they say, okay, how can we make more profit? That's when the Facility Association, the Facility

section came into is that we think that three over there in that part, it is a good possibility you may have more accidents so we're going to up your rates.

What the rates were, were decided, but it was never, ever found that: Okay, how do we know that those three people are going to have more accidents than these three people? That's where the loophole was in the system at the beginning that they tried to fix, is that the insurance company decides who should go in there and who should not and who has a greater possibility of having a car accident.

That was the big question for a lot of people that were running them out of business, especially for the taxi industry, for courier businesses and others; younger drivers are another example. I'm sure they have stats that they can show, but what happens is a lot of people who are private business, say for taxis and couriers, they're getting lumped into this whole scheme of higher rates because there's a certain group that's got more accidents. But you're part of this group; you've got to pay anyway.

So I'd for the minister to answer those questions, if possible. I'm not trying to put the minister on the spot with that because that's a lot of the information to be answered here today. But she could bring it back for a third reading on that issue, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

So fair questions, absolutely. In terms of who goes in Facility or not. We have a private auto insurance market, right. There are a few different companies. If you were an insurance company, you're in the business of making money. You decide which driver is a risk that you're prepared to take on. So the actuary, the math experts that work for the insurance companies decide how many accidents, how old you are and all that kind of stuff. Maybe not age, I think we took that out. But what makes up a driver that we're prepared to insure.

So if you can call an auto insurance company and get a policy, that's great. If you call around and they say no, I'm sorry, we don't have an insurance product for you and you've called all of them, then you go to Facility.

Facility is a non-profit association of all the insurers. They have to be members of Facility insurance. The idea is that they all share in the losses from the riskiest drivers because, on average, that pool of people who are the riskiest drivers, they cost more money than they pay in premiums. So all the insurance companies pay in the losses for that.

That's kind of how they decide who goes into Facility or not. If no insurance company will insure you, then you go to Facility.

Then, I guess in terms of what the rates are. The insurance companies have to file rate filings with the Public Utilities Board. They have to outline: these are our costs, these are our claim costs. Then the Public Utilities Board makes a decision on that. I have to say, their closed-claim studies in the 2019 review are really helpful to explain what the makeup of those kinds of costs are, I encourage any Member to read it if you are interested in learning more about all the different costs that go into claims costs and everything.

My understanding is pretty scientific; the Public Utilities Boards allow rates based on the input of costs. So that's the best I can answer the question.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we come in here this morning, I'm hearing that a company of Facility, who was never supposed to be profit driven, were non-profit, managed to make profits at some point off our taxi drivers, our private citizens, over the past year or so, and that's not the way it was supposed to be.

Of course, we're all looking for ideas to put money back into Newfoundlanders and Labradorians' pockets. I'll say it again, I think that it's a shame that we came in here today and we didn't have a little more to this legislation that could have put more money back into Newfoundlanders and Labradorians' pockets because, at the end of the day, that's exactly what we're here to do, especially with the cost-of-living crisis that we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: Chair, I would like to make an amendment to Bill 47.

I move that Bill 47,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act, to add clause 34: This act is considered to have come into effect retroactive to April 1, 2023.

That is seconded by the Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.

Like I say, this is a great opportunity for all of us to vote on this amendment and put money back into Newfoundlanders and Labradorians' pockets where it belongs.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

We need to call the rest of the clauses. I'll ask you to put your amendment in at the end, okay?

So we are on clause 1. Any other speakers to clause 1?

If not, shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 33, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 33 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 33 carried.

CHAIR: I recognize the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Chair.

Like I say, we heard this morning – and, listen, we realize that legislation, that's what this House is for. This House is for debate, it's a House for ideas. I said it yesterday; this is the people's House. This is the way debate is supposed to go. We can put out ideas, we can add to legislation and we can make it stronger. That's exactly what we're going to do here today.

I know the minister said it would be quite inconvenient for them to issue cheques this year. Well, I have to tell you, for a company that wasn't supposed to make profit, we here in the Opposition are not going to lose any sleep over the inconvenience of re-issuing cheques to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that truly need it.

Again, I move that Bill 47,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act, to add the clause 34: This act is considered to have come into effect retroactive to April 1, 2023.

This is seconded by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We will recess the Committee and have a look at the proposed amendment to see if it's order.

Thank you.

Recess

CHAIR: Are the House Leaders ready?

Order, please!

After reviewing the proposed amendment by the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, the amendment of Bill 47, it's determined that the amendment is not in order.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 47 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 47.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 47 without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 47 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 8,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, Bill 48.

SPEAKER: The hon. Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House today to bring forward Bill 48.

SPEAKER: We need a mover and a seconder.

B. DAVIS: I move Bill 48, seconded by the MHA for the beautiful District of Gander.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 48,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.” (Bill 48)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm pleased for the second time to rise in this House to start to bring forward Bill 48. I apologize for not getting the process correct. But I'm excited to be here nonetheless.

We're seeking to amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. This bill incorporates amendments to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act and provides bereavement counselling services for survivor dependants after work-related fatalities that occurred on or after January 1, 2022.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, 30 workers lost their lives in 2022, eight workplace incident accidents and 22 occupational diseases. Over the past five years, some 145 workers have lost their lives. One life lost is one too many, and the impact on families is enormous. This change is very, very important.

Speaker, WorkplaceNL currently provides compensation to dependants and up to $10,000 in burial expenses following a work-related fatality, but does not cover bereavement counselling for surviving dependants. This will be rectified here today, is my greatest hope.

Reaching back for almost two years brings us back to a time where the pandemic heightened awareness about mental wellness and when more workers' dependants began asking for counselling services, Mr. Speaker.

WorkplaceNL have received various requests in 2022 for bereavement counselling sessions to be added to the supports provided by WorkplaceNL for dependants of deceased workers. Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that does not currently have this to provide this service, so we want to rectify that today.

This change would align us with other Canadian workers' compensation boards where eight provide bereavement counselling services to dependants. The regulations will address the finer details of such as the number of sessions.

Speaker, by adding bereavement counselling to the benefit available to dependants, we are acknowledging the significant impact work fatalities and helping them navigate through tragic loss. This change will also reduce financial burdens to accessing mental health supports and demonstrates the provincial government's leadership in trying to advance psychological health and safety.

The proposed changes will not have any significant impact on the injury fund and will not increase employers' assessment rates. Also, I won't go on for too much longer, because I think this is going to be supported by my colleagues in the House, I'm hopeful, and ask all Members in this House to endorse the amendments of Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act.

I look forward to the debate and the subsequent questions that will come after this and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It's always a privilege to get up in the House of Assembly to speak on such an important bill, actually. This bill, I think, is important to the injured workers of our province.

First of all, I would like to touch on the compensation act itself, I guess, and just make a brief note on that one. Speaking of the compensation act, many injured workers find themselves in difficult situations, financially and mentally through no fault of their own. We need fast action to accommodate those injured workers, to give them the security they need. We need fast action from the compensations to make sure those are adequately determined and the compensation is provided to them so that they can deal with the everyday life and strives that's happening, especially with the cost of living, that they can carry on their normal lives as best as they can do.

I've heard many stories related to WorkplaceNL and compensation, especially dealing with the cost of living, the fast actions that they need to have the compensations in place to help them with the high cost of living, their regular day living and the supports they need to carry on with their regular day. That part of the act certainly would be appreciated.

Speaker, in regard to Bill 48: “This Bill would amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022 to provide Workplace NL with the authority to pay for bereavement counselling services for dependents of a worker who, as a result of an injury, dies on or after January 1, 2022.”

We will support this bill, no doubt. During the technical briefing, department staff indicated this change came as result of heightened awareness and sensitivity to mental health issues over the past few years. I can understand that, Speaker, because with the cost of living today and the way it is, and I just mention the compensation act itself, to find themselves in those situations with no financial help basically, sometimes it takes a period for them to get situated into the compensation act and get the money flowing.

So that causes a lot of stress on families, causes a lot of stress on the individuals themselves sometimes and it is certainly good to see the compensation stepping up here and paying for those types of costs.

In response to a question on that date chosen, January 1, 2022, staff indicated that it was operational and fiscally year related. The dependants and children of cohabiting partners will be included. The number of sessions being provided will be specified in regulations. That would be something that we would be interested in seeing, of course, the number of sessions that would be specified.

I guess that's on a case-by-case basis but I'm sure that, you know, when the dependants of a worker find themselves in bereavement because of an injury from compensation their life changes. They are turned upside down. They don't know where to turn. Their safety net is not there anymore. They need help, they need some compensations, they need bereavement issues dealt with and it's very hard on the families and the dependants so the number of sessions would depend on that.

But it's a good initiative for the compensation to certainly step up here and to help those individuals that need that help, especially for the bereavement periods that they need because this causes devastation, not only to the partners, but to the families and everyone involved.

We've heard too often across our province, of course, even if it's once, it's too often when someone loses a life in regard to the WorkplaceNL issues and in regard to injuries at work. If it's one, it's one too many but hopefully we can change that as well.

This bill was certainly overdue; it should have been done a long time ago, but it is good to see it come into effect. We welcome the long overdue change to provide counselling services to those who have lost loved ones; so that is a good initiative to do. We have heard in every district and every community of our province that people are touched by workplace fatality.

I just explained that it is touched by every one of us here in the House of Assembly. Every one of our districts is touched by workplace fatality. It is sad that happens; I wish it didn't happen, but the facts are there and facts are true.

We need to do more to support the families that are grieving, that have lost a member – I explained that earlier. We need to put every support that we can in there so the bereavement, for those people that need the help, especially in the sessions, how long that would be and the help that they need, especially on the mental supports, would be greatly appreciated.

It is unfortunate that in 2023 we need to change legislation to provide counselling. One would have thought that government would have wraparound supports for families during these difficult times. It took until 2023 to get this done; we would have liked to have seen it in past prior. But it is a good initiative and we will support the initiative and support this bill, but we will certainly have more questions in the Committee.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll just speak briefly to this. First of all, I will say that I want to acknowledge the loss of a worker, this past week, in Labrador West who was killed on a mine site. I want to acknowledge that, today, in 2023, workers are still being killed on industrial sites. We still have a memorial service and stuff on the day of mourning for workers; we still see new names added every year. This is unfortunate in this province, in 2023, that we're still losing workers on job sites so I want to acknowledge that first.

I thank the minister for also acknowledging that as well. We have a lot of work to do as a province for health and safety, but unfortunately we do have to put in an amendment today about grievance counselling. Something I figured was actually already covered in such circumstances but we're going to rectify that now. It is a small step forward for families of workers who were killed on the site, but it still doesn't replace the fact that their loved one is gone and was killed in an industrial accident.

Right now, we talk about wraparound supports and mental health and stuff like that, and this is a good first step forward and I hope that going forward that the minister's department will actually look at how wraparound supports can be given to families of those who were injured or killed in the workplace, because even those who are injured suffer long-standing trauma, them and their families.

In some cases, people can never go back to work after being injured and they, too, need wraparound supports. We want to talk about mental health, when it comes to this. A lot of the injured workers that I spoke to do suffer from a lot of mental health issues and stuff after having sometimes in cases very horrific accidents. Then we go back and talk about those families who have lost loved ones.

This is a good first step forward. If I can give anything back to the minister and his team, is to go and do a comprehensive review on how do we handle these kinds of things over at WorkplaceNL. Because not only just this one first step but also there is so much more when it comes to mental health and counselling and stuff like that that needs to be addressed for injured workers, families of those who were killed on the worksite and so on and so forth. This is just on top of all the other things that we discuss and we talk about: WorkplaceNL, the compensation and how that process goes through.

I get a lot of calls and stuff to my office talking about delays and why was I rejected. Why do I have to go to appeal? Things like that. There are a lot of issues and stuff that are inside there as well that we need to work through, but at the same time, we bring in this one good thing but we'd like to see that a review of how we treat injured workers, especially those who are having mental health issues and stuff after their accidents. It's traumatizing, especially those who lose the ability to work, lose the ability to continue on.

We want to see that they're also taken care of because, like you said, most cases it's no fault of their own that these things happen and they lost the ability to work is also a very traumatic thing as well.

I do applaud this, I do support this move and I hope to see the minister take back some of comments and maybe hopefully soon see some more changes that will be positive when it comes to mental health with those who are injured or the family of those who were killed in the workplace.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I'll just take a couple minutes as well and talk about this great piece of legislation that's been brought forward today for the workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

First of all, I'd like to remind everybody out there, whoever is listening, that every worker in Newfoundland and Labrador has the right and the obligation to refuse unsafe work, if that's ever come up. Safety is everybody's responsibility. Every person here. Every person on every job site. You have to watch out for yourself. You have to watch out for the person next to you and ensure that they go home to their family safe at the end of the day because nobody wants to see an injury or a worker that lost their life. Over the past year, those numbers are astounding. Thirty people – it's absolutely terrible.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, our geography dictates how many tough jobs out there that there actually are. You watch these men and women come in in choppers on the power lines. It's amazing. We have our oil and gas field out there that, you know, it's a danger zone. Every second of every day you've got to be paying attention. Lots of us here have worked in blue-collar jobs and we have a lot of hazards out there in our workplaces. We need to ensure that we do everything we can to mitigate the hazard. But at the end of the day, it's going to be human consciousness that picks up on the hazards, that mitigates the hazards.

So to see this piece of legislation come forward is absolutely fantastic. People, at the end of the day, we want them to go home to their families. I often think about the road workers alongside our highways and people zipping on through, not paying attention. Those road workers are on the highway during traffic. They leave their families in the morning; they just want to go home in the evening. So I would compel everybody to watch your speeds.

We live in a day of cell phones now. I'll just keep it tight and quick, Speaker. I think it's relevant. We live in a time of cell phones right now where: I'll check that real quick, just a moment. Well, that can go sideways real fast. So I encourage everybody to do the right thing, to do your part to ensure that our moms and dads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters go home at the end of the day. It's extremely important so, of course, I'm sure that we'll be supporting this legislation.

It's great for mental health. It's great for those people who have lost in the past. I know many families who have lost a worker on the job. You kiss your husband, your wife, your significant other in the morning; you expect to see them at 5 in the evening. Not everybody does. When you get that phone call lunchtime and it can be an absolutely devastating phone call to your family.

So the government bringing forward legislation to ensure that those families get the help that they need, it's an absolutely great piece of legislation and I look forward to supporting it.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll be supporting Bill 48 as well. It won't take too long to speak to this. I'll just say that prior to becoming a Member of this House of Assembly I worked for many years as an occupational health and safety practitioner, that's what I did for a living, in any number of fields here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I worked for the City of St. John's as safety officer there, for about four years and oversaw the construction of Mile One and the Convention Centre.

We looked after, of course, the depot; all of the roadwork that would be contracted out by the city, Bay Bulls-Big Pond and Windsor Lake and so on; recreational facilities. I later worked for Oceanex; I was there for about a year or so as safety manager down there. We all know what Oceanex is related to and the type of environment they work in.

Of course, before becoming a Member I worked for the A. Harvey Group for 10-plus years, and that would have included Browning Harvey, a production facility of course, for Pepsi in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Harvey Autocarriers, Harvey's Oil, Argentia Freezers.

So I guess the bottom line is I've been involved in many, many areas of industry, many different types of work, both as a safety practitioner and as a disability claims manager on the other side. So I'm quite familiar with, sadly, workplace accidents. I'm quite familiar with serious incidents, serious injury, I've had to investigate, and unfortunately I've had in my career three or four, fatalities in different places, due to the nature of the work, dangerous environments, and unfortunately things happen.

I understand completely the impact that a workplace accident, a serious incident and certainly a fatality – I understand the impact that that can have on a family. As a matter of fact I can recall having to track down a family member, spouse of a person who had died at the worksite. And I had to go to the home along with a chaplain and so on, and break the news. So I know how heartbreaking it can be. I know how devastating it can be on families. I know what they have to go through.

Anything that we can do to assist families when it comes to, as we're saying here, bereavement counselling services for dependants, whether that be spouses or children and so on of those who have been lost at a workplace, then I think it's a very positive move. I certainly commend the government for bringing this forward.

I would say although it's not in this particular bill, I think it's related – and I'm not sure if there's something in the act already. I don't think there is anything in this act or in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but I would just put out to the minister as a thought that when a serious workplace accident occurs, particularly if it's a fatality, while it's obviously devastating on the family of the individual or individuals involved, it can also be very, very devastating on the coworkers.

I know that there are a lot of companies out there that have good EAPs and so on to address these things but I would venture to guess, in my experience, that not every company out there, especially the smaller companies and so on, would necessarily have an EAP or whatever in place.

So I just throw it out there as food for thought, something to consider perhaps in future amendments to just look at that issue to ensure that there are some mechanisms in place that would have some kind of a requirement – again, I know a lot of companies would be doing it anyway, but to have some kind of requirement or perhaps even a little funding through workers' comp, whatever, if necessary that if there was a workplace fatality that there would be some services available to coworkers of the victims of workplace accidents as well, because that, as I said, can have a devastating impact on the workplace. I've seen it first-hand and it's not a good thing.

Anyway with that said, as I said, this is a positive thing and I will certainly support it wholeheartedly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to speak briefly on the bill. This is a positive improvement and I think it's long overdue for bereavement counselling. My colleague from Lab West spoke about the trauma and spoke about mental health issues of people being impacted not only from a loss of life, but also a traumatic injury that impacts everybody, coworkers and families. It's really, really important that we make sure that mental health supports are available to all those impacted.

The only concern I would have about this is the limitation for a spouse, children and dependants of the person who's deceased. If you're 19 or 20 and you lose a parent in a workplace accident, that's a lot of trauma as well. I think what we should be doing is we should try to be extending to make sure that people don't fall through the cracks, that people are looked after, that the supports are there as well.

I know, for example, with some insurances somebody who's over the age of 18 is still covered if they're a student or they're doing something that would make them eligible. Maybe that's something that this legislation should look at including as well.

Very, very important – yes, we're going to provide bereavement counselling for workers, the dependents and the spouse. But in this province right now we have a lot of people who are looking for counselling, looking for support for mental health issues that they're dealing with, they're struggling with and we look at the long wait-lists. We really need to make sure that mental health supports are available to people who need it when they need it. That's really, really important.

We can amend all the legislation we want but if we don't put the resources in place so that when people want to avail of counselling, it's important that they can. There's such a backlog.

I just listened to my colleague for Mount Pearl - Southlands. He knows how many people died on his shift. Any worker that works in industry you know how many people – even if you weren't at the site. Even if you were on turnaround. If they died on your shift, you knew about them.

Do you know something? Not only did you know about them, you remember them, you know the impact, you know what happened to their families and you know what happened to their colleagues. It's really, really tragic and it's very, very traumatic.

If we're going to actually make supports available, we have to make sure that they can avail of them when they need them. It's really, really important that we put more effort into mental health supports.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Seeing no further speakers, if the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL speaks now we will close debate.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the hon. colleagues for the support from both sides of the House. Starting with the MHA for Exploits, I thank you for the good words about heightened awareness and ensuring that we all have a responsibility to ensure safety.

The Member for Lab West, we're very sorry for the loss that your community has experienced over the last week. One loss is one loss way too many.

Mount Pearl - Southlands for his detailed résumé and experience and the knowledge that he does have for safety and the experience that comes to the table, it's very helpful in the House of Assembly when we have bills like this come forward.

The Member for Torngat Mountains for bringing forward some of the concerns. One of the concerns she just raised is one that I can say is covered up until 25 if you're a student, similar to what you just expected. So I did want to let you know that right away.

The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans who also had the opportunity to highlight reducing the stress levels and anything we can do that's going to help people move forward in a quicker way and get the help they require. That's why we're doing this.

I'm anxious for questions, so I'll give everyone the opportunity to come forward with questions. I'm looking forward to it.

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 48 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022. (Bill 48)

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

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

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 48)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 48.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 48,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.” (Bill 48)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Just a couple of questions there.

Can the minister explain why he is doing this now?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A very good question. With the heightened awareness that came from the COVID-19 pandemic, we were looking at that through WorkplaceNL. The additional requests that came forward, we looked at there was a gap in the system that we wanted to fix, so we looked at a jurisdictional scan. The second we started that process, we backdated the coverage to include the time at which we were first brought to the awareness of this. We wanted to do that to bring us in line with the rest of the country.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Can the minister outline the consultations held?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: So this is an improvement to the benefit. The consultations would have been internal. They would have been with areas with respect to our own legislation to look at the jurisdictional scan as I mentioned earlier with the rest of the country. That would bring us in line with the other eight boards. This is a positive improvement. There would be no reason, I guess, to go out publicly with this to the people until we actually brought it to the House of Assembly like we're doing here today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: So what were the results of those consultations?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Workplace –

B. DAVIS: What you see here today –

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: I'm a bit too quick. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I am so excited to answer his questions.

What you see here before you is what the results of those jurisdictional scans are. We wanted to make sure that we brought this forward to bring us in line with the rest of the other jurisdictions in our country to serve the people that we serve. We want to ensure that those individuals that are dependants, when probably the most impactful thing in their life is ever going to happen, they get the services they require with no cost to themselves.

So we look forward to the implementation here as quick as we possibly can.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Why was the date of January 1, 2022, chosen?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Another good question.

It aligns with when we were first brought to awareness of this issue from people reaching out to us to receive that bereavement counselling. So we wanted to do that, as I said, jurisdictional scan, get that information in line and then we backdate it to the point at which we started that process which would have been the start of that fiscal year of 2022, January 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: During the department briefing, staff indicated that the date was chosen for operational and fiscal year issues. Why does that trump the needs of grieving families?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: It absolutely does not. The reason why we chose that date was around when we started that process, it just aligned closely with that time of the year, so we figured, for ease of opportunity to do that, at the start of a year would be the best way to do it. There was no rhyme nor reason not to do it earlier than that. That was just when we started the consultation period and it lined up very closely with January 1 of 2022. It started after that but we wanted to go back to ensure that started that fiscal year.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Will the minister limit the amount of grief counseling sessions an individual can have?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Another very good question; that will be dealt with in the regulations. I don't know the answer to that question, yet. That is what we're going to be consulting with some of our industry players, some of the best practices that will be across the country.

We look forward to those regulations being put in place very, very quickly. But we do want to make sure we do our due diligence on ensuring that they get the number that they require. If that needs to be changed, either up or down after the fact, we're willing to do that, as we need to for the people that we all represent.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Again, how would the number of sessions be determined?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Through consultation; looking at the best practices across the rest of the country, as well; talking with our stakeholders, ensuring that is where we need to be.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Just a couple more quick questions. Will both the spouse and children be eligible for counselling, with no family cap?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Yes, both the spouse, the children, dependants – if you've got, for argument sake, your stepmother living with you, they would be considered a dependant. Provided they meet that qualification, they would be able to avail of that service as well.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: So that applies to benefits as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Yes, thank you.

I can get the answer exactly with the benefits, but yes, the dependent spouse would receive the benefits of the deceased person, of course, like they do now, currently. This is just dealing with the bereavement counselling, to ensure that they would be able to get the counselling that they would require once they – hopefully nobody has to have that tragic news come to them – but if it does and we know because of the line of work that a lot of people are in in this province and around our country that that happens from time to time.

We don't like it and we don't want it to happen and we're going to do everything we can to stop it but after this worst day of your life has happened in your family, we want to make sure that there is counselling that can be covered by WorkplaceNL at no cost to you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thanks.

Just one question actually. Given this work that was done in consultation, I guess it was brought to the attention of WorkplaceNL to look at this, is there any more work being done on the side of mental health services for either grieving members or injured members services that they could avail of through the compensation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to address that there's no family cap. I wanted to jump back and answer your question, no family cap.

To your question directly, we've moved a lot in WorkplaceNL, as you've seen; we've brought some progressive legislation forward over the last number of years. We're going to continue to do that, evaluate what's required, whether that be additional services, presumptively like we've done with cancer for firefighters, volunteer and career, or whether it's going to need to be mental health services, which we've done as well.

We're always looking at ways to improve legislation and availability of services to the people that we all represent and we want to ensure that they get it as quickly and as fast as we can in consultation with our stakeholders, which Workplace is doing, I would say, on a daily basis but definitely very, very often.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 48 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 48.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte- Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 48 without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 48 be passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

L. DEMPSTER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that this House do now stand in recess.

SPEAKER: This House do stand recessed until 2 p.m.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Good afternoon, everyone. First of all, I'd like to begin by welcoming the public gallery today, Dennis Flynn. Dennis will be recognized this afternoon in a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the District of Stephenville - Port au Port, Conception Bay South, Humber - Bay of Islands, Torngat Mountains, Harbour Main and Waterford Valley, with leave.

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Volunteers do not necessarily have the time; they just have the heart. Rosie Keats of Stephenville and Dave Kane of Stephenville Crossing are shining examples of people who have heart.

Several years ago, the Cancer Care Garden of Hope infrastructure was put in place at the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville; however, it needed much care and attention to make it an inviting place for patients and visitors. Rosie and Dave, two gardening buddies who share a passion for gardening, accepted the challenge to revitalize the Garden of Hope.

Without funding available, the pair reached out to friends and family for donations of plants, soil, paint and stain. Often working 10 hours a day, in extreme temperatures, Rosie and Dave filled every planter and applied all 20 gallons of paint to the boxes, benches and fences.

Today, the Garden of Hope is a spectacle with its beautiful blooms and colourful decor. As one palliative care patient told his nurse as she was tucking him into bed for the night: “If Heaven is like that Garden of Hope, I am ready to go.”

Thanks Rosie and Dave for brightening the lives of patients, workers and visitors to our hospital.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the Town of Conception Bay South is celebrating its golden anniversary. Incorporated in 1973, Conception Bay South consists of nine communities: Topsail, Chamberlains, Manuels, Long Pond, Foxtrap, Kelligrews, Upper Gullies, Lawrence Pond and Seal Cove.

Conception Bay South has changed significantly over the last 50 years. Amalgamating nine separate communities together improved living conditions and expanded the range of services due to accessing government funding as a town.

We are now the second largest municipality in the province, thriving with over 27,000 residents. CBS is a linear community that follows the beautiful coastline, with spectacular views of Conception Bay. It is truly the best possible mix of rural and urban living.

CBS has been busy hosting numerous festivals, events and family activities throughout the year. Some of the highlights were the Canadian Forces Snowbirds airshow, magic