PDF Version

October 24, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 45

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin, in the Speaker's gallery I'd like to welcome family and friends of Tony Andersen, including his daughter, Julia; and former Nunatsiavut Government Ordinary Member and Speaker, Pat Ford.

Also, Mr. Andersen is tuning in the broadcast from Nain and will be recognized this afternoon in a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Baie Verte - Green Bay, Bonavista, Cape St. Francis, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans and Torngat Mountains.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR: Speaker, today I rise in this hon. House to recognize a 15-year-old resident of Triton, Grayson Budgell.

Due to the number of iceberg sightings this spring, Craig Budgell was inspired to instill a business work ethic for his son, Grayson, to provide bergy bits to his buddies. With hard work and effort they could bag, store and supply safely harvested iceberg ice for their family and friends.

Once out at sea, Grayson assisted his father in harvesting bergy bits aboard their boat. In the cool of the evening, they chipped, washed and bagged the final product.

After reaching out to Newfoundland iceberg report with the idea of posting online, the response was phenomenal. The father and son duo travelled across the Island selling the sought-after bergy bits. Grayson, alongside his dad, travelled from Corner Brook to St. John's selling iceberg ice, including supplying ice for two weddings. The iceberg venture was a great success which included the profit covering the cost of a 12-day salmon fishing trip for Grayson and his dad.

I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Grayson on his iceberg venture, another Triton entrepreneur to be watched.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

Mark Clench of Princeton started a journey on October 4, 2023, to accomplish a dream that most would hesitate to undertake. Aiming to raise money for children, Mark began a bicycle journey from Wabush to Princeton, some 2,000 kilometres away.

During the pandemic's lockdown, Mark struggled with his mental health and relied heavily on his bike and guitar for support. He peddled whenever possible, realizing that solo activities in the great outdoors were safe and therapeutic. Seeking a way to pay it forward, he came across a foundation called Can'd Aid which promoted biking. It also assisted youth in acquiring their own bikes and provided safety lessons in their operation.

Along his travels, Mark highlights to individuals who struggle with mental health that there are resources available via phone as well as walk-in clinics in the more populated areas, both of which he availed of. He hopes individuals struggling with their mental health will reach out to these resources and realize that they are never alone.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the humanitarian efforts of Mark Clench, from the District of Bonavista, in supporting youth and their mental health.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a yearly coast-to-coast motorcycle ride across Canada, the Rolling Barrage.

The Rolling Barrage has now completed their seventh year, a ride across Canada bringing awareness to combat the stigma associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health concerns for veterans and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, first responders and emergency health care providers. The ride shows strength and unity among members, while at the same time raising the necessary funds and awareness to support programs for those in need.

On Sunday, July 30, the Rolling Barrage rode through my district, thanks to one of the organizers, Chris Sainsbury. Over 50 motorcycles travelled Route 20, stopping in Chris's hometown of Pouch Cove for lunch, photos and important discussion on post-traumatic stress disorder as, Speaker, many wounds are not always visible.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of this 50th General Assembly to join me in congratulating the Rolling Barrage for another successful ride, for raising the awareness on ending the stigma on post-traumatic stress disorder and to the riders who completed The Full Pull from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.

Chad Haggett was born February 26, 1975, with the biggest heart this world would ever know. Chad's volunteer and community work in Grand Falls-Windsor and throughout the province proved to be extraordinary.

He was a member of the Corduroy Brook Board of Directors, River Gold weekly volunteer, Special Olympics organizing committee for 2023 and a very proud Lions member. Chad also did some great work with the Crime Stoppers through the years but some of his greatest accomplishments would have been with the Ronald McDonald House Charities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Chad was a giver. He was selfless, kind and generous but, above all, if you knew Chad, you were family. Chad was a pillar of our community and his love was felt across the province. He always put others before himself. Sadly, Chad passed away on September 7, 2023, at the young age of 48.

His team of friends in Grand Falls-Windsor raised $10,500 in his memory this year as the acts of giving continue in his honour. Chad was a huge political guru. He loved a great political debate but could always put aside politics for friendship. Trust me, I know first-hand.

To my friend, you will forever be missed and always loved. God Bless you, brother.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Tony Andersen has spent a lifetime working towards improving lives of Nunatsiavut people. Not one for public praise, his legacy is significant. Positive change he forged for elders, children and the lives of our people. He lost his father at a young age and attributes his kindness and inner strength to his mother, Muriel, and his brothers and sisters.

Staff throughout the Nunatsiavut Government and the former Labrador Inuit Association, LIA, praised Tony's knowledge and wisdom. How freely he helped them and supported them and, most importantly, the respect and kindness he showed to them.

There are many types of leaders but best legacies are of those who care.

In 1992, he was elected to the LIA board representing Nain. Later, he served as advisor on Aboriginal issues to VBNC. In 2001, he returned to LIA, serving as vice-president and acting president. In 2005, he became first minister of the transitional Nunatsiavut Government. In 2006, Tony was elected to the first official Nunatsiavut Government becoming Nunatsiavut's first, first minister. He served consecutive terms up until his retirement, except a term he served as Nain's AngajukKâk.

His ministerial portfolios included Finance, Human Resources and Information Technology; Lands and Natural Resources; Education and Economic Development; and acting minister of Language, Culture and Tourism.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I stand to acknowledge the 6,000 brave volunteer firefighters in our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Volunteer fire departments are the heart of so many of our communities. From fighting fires to responding to emergencies, to organizing community events, volunteer firefighters make our towns safe and enjoyable places to live.

Recently, I witnessed first-hand the community building efforts of volunteer firefighters with a visit to Jack Connors Training Centre in Pouch Cove.

Through fundraising and support from the town council, a new training facility was built to service the local fire department, as well as departments from neighbouring communities. A project that epitomizes volunteer fire service.

As we put our faith in volunteer firefighters, we must ensure that they are equipped with the right tools. This year our government doubled the budget for fire protection vehicles and equipment, enabling us to work strategically with communities and fire departments to enhance the protection of property, infrastructure and public safety.

Province-wide Public Safety Radio is another tool that we are delivering into the hands of volunteer firefighters. Last month, at the Newfoundland and Labrador Fire Services Annual General Meeting, we announced that each volunteer fire department in our province will receive at least two portable and mobile radios. That is over 780 radios at a cost of $2.6 million.

This will improve communication during emergencies. These brave volunteers help protect the province and we are forever grateful.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in acknowledging Newfoundland and Labrador's volunteer firefighters.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We, too, acknowledge the 6,000 brave volunteer firefighters in our province. Where would we be without them?

The Official Opposition have put their faith in these individuals, when in the spring we brought forward a private Member's resolution to this House, calling for government to provide greater financial supports and other aids that would ensure their safety while carrying out their duties. The resolution was passed unanimously and received many words of support. But where is the action?

We salute these brave volunteers who serve and protect our communities, with outdated vehicles and substandard equipment, in many cases. These people who give freely of their time and risk their lives to protect and serve their neighbours deserve more than lip service.

Let's give these heroes the tools and the supports they deserve.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I congratulate the Town of Pouch Cove on the opening of their new Jack Connors Training Centre and its regional success. As a former volunteer firefighter, I can appreciate what a centre like this does for a region.

I remind the government that the role of a firefighter has evolved over recent years to responding to motor vehicle accidents, hazardous chemical spills, cold-water rescue and high-angle rescue. Training for this has many costs and fire departments can't afford them.

I urge this government to properly resource fire departments for the vital services they provide in all different types of roles when it comes to rescue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I ask: Why did the Premier tell the people of the province that the Liberal government built 750 homes when the Liberal government knew it was not correct?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Allow me to read from the budget. It says: “Building on more than 750 new housing options that have been created over the last two years or are under construction, in partnership with the Federal Government, Budget 2023 includes almost $140 million to address diverse housing needs.” It goes on to talk about “A new, provincial, three year, $70-million Affordable Housing Program that will help construct over 850 affordable homes, with a focus on seniors.”

I will remind the Leader of the Opposition he didn't support those initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, perhaps if the Members opposite, including the minister or the Premier, had read the budget maybe they wouldn't be talking about 750 new homes being built.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Why did the Deputy Premier, on at least three occasions, tell the people of the province that the Liberal government had built 750 new homes when the Liberal government knew it was not correct?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Speaker, I'm going to refer to page –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: I'm going to refer to page 14 in the Budget Speech that I read in this House. It does talk about building –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I heard the question quite clearly. I'd like to hear the response.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you for your protection, Speaker.

I will say that the Budget Speech does talk about building on the 750 new housing options. It goes on to talk about the 850 new affordable homes that are under construction; the $70 million that we put in the Budget Speech. If I slipped in my language six months ago in a video, I think the Member opposite should tell us why he did not support these initiatives that would help people in the housing crisis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, it's one thing to slip; it's another thing to say it three or four times.

Why did the Liberal minister of Housing tell the people of the province that the Liberal government built 750 homes when the Liberal government knew it wasn't correct?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Speaker, the Member opposite thinks he's got gotcha politics here.

I will say to the people of the province, it was clear in the Budget Speech; it talked about 750 housing options.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm not going to have Members shouting back and forth. The minister speaking is right in front of me and I can barely hear her so I ask Members to keep the noise down, please.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: I will say, Speaker, it was very clear in the Budget Speech where it says 750 housing options, building on those 750 housing options. Going forward in Budget 2023 , we allotted $70 million, a tremendous amount of money, to construct 850 new affordable homes.

Now, Speaker, I think the Members opposite should reflect on the fact that they didn't even vote in favour of those initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, what we are seeing here is a pattern, a pattern of deception, a pattern of misleading the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Why did the former minister of Health tell the people of the province that there was a Health Human Resources Plan when the Liberal government knew it was not correct?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have started the Health Human Resources Plan, Mr. Speaker. There is a proponent that is doing the work for us, that will help guide the future of human resource planning within the Provincial Health Authority and the Department of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, we are focused on recruitment; retention; having the right staffing levels; and being able to have a solid plan in place to guide us into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, why are seniors and others being forced to pay up to $65 to see a nurse practitioner because they can't see any other family care provider? Why can't the Liberal government fix this?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are fixing this; we are putting Family Care Teams, primary care teams in place throughout the province which are multidisciplinary teams, Mr. Speaker, that will provide access to individuals to primary care. In addition to that, we have a virtual physician program that will be unveiled, made public, go live within the coming weeks that will provide every individual in the province – once it's fully up and running – with access to a physician from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and provide 24-7 emergency department coverage. It will start rolling out location by location for the emergency departments and for physician coverage we'll start with those on Patient Connect NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, today, as we stand and I stand here in the House of Assembly, there are seniors and others still paying that $65 to see a nurse practitioner. Nothing I just heard says they will be any better off after what the Minister of Health just said. They need help right now; that's what we're talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, why does a mother have to pay almost $11 in sugar taxes on a $4 purchase of fruit punch powder for their children?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address the

preamble to that question. We are putting Family Care Teams in place throughout the province, Mr. Speaker. We are working to make the public health system more available, more accessible to the people of the province.

I wonder is the Leader of the Opposition, who has promised people over politics, he hasn't proven it so far by his questions in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. He seems to be bitten by the political bug; is he advocating that we privatize nurse practitioners as opposed to encouraging publicly available nurse practitioners?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, we're talking about seniors and others who are paying out of their pockets. That's what we're talking about.

Why does a mother have to pay almost $11 in sugar tax on a $4 purchase of fruit punch powder for her children?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I have indicated to the Member opposite, I'd certainly look into that particular case that he's speaking of. But allow me to say, this government is very, very, very focused on ensuring our better health in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're moving towards a 2031 goal of being one of the healthiest provinces. We know from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Canadian Paediatric Association, the World Health Organization that the consumption of sugar in sugar-sweetened beverages is what is impacting our health.

Speaker, we have put a tax on to ensure that we signal to the people of the province that this is very, very impactful on their health and to make healthier choices.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, let's use education, not taxation.

The out-of-control spending at Memorial University revealed by the Auditor General is being placed on the backs of the students. Tuition has spiked on the Liberal government's watch.

Why are food banks on Memorial Campus overwhelmed while expenditures are out of control?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite has alluded to, the Auditor General's report on Memorial University was released yesterday. We, on this side, as the government recognize that there is a responsibility to any funds that are distributed that would come out of the public purse.

That's why we asked the Auditor General to go into Memorial in the first place and now that we have the report and have a recognition of what it is that's actually happening at Memorial University, it's our intention to work with the university towards a resolution for this problem so that the expenses of the university aren't borne on the backs of the students here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, will the Premier freeze the tuition costs until expenditures are brought under control at Memorial University?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Mr. Speaker, we'll continue to work with Memorial University on the measures that have been recommended in the Auditor General's report. We'll continue to work with the students at Memorial University to ensure that they have access to an affordable education.

We have significant measures that have been implemented in the Department of Education in terms of our student assistance, our financial aid and the needs-based evaluations for these students and we'd encourage anybody and everybody to reach out to our department to take advantage of those programs that are there to support educational opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, while students at MUN have faced massive tuition increases and cuts to funding, the university leadership ordered custom chocolates and called a limousine.

Why are students being forced to pay for the failure of the Liberal government to reign in spending at MUN?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I just referenced in my earlier answer, we recognize that there's a responsibility to the public in terms of how their funds are being spent. That's why it's our intention to work with Memorial University on implementing the recommendations of the Auditor General's report.

We know that there are things in there that are certainly concerning and we want to continue to work with the leadership at Memorial University. Since the audit period had begun in 2019, we can already see some changes that have been made in Memorial University. We're confident that they have the ability to work with us to continue to make changes that will impact the lives of students and the funds that are required to achieve an education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: The minister may be able to elaborate at another time what's changed, because what I saw in that report, this is alarming. I'd like to know what change she's referring to, because we haven't seen them.

Speaker, again, the food bank on campus has been overwhelmed and residents are outraged by chocolates, limousines, oil changes and free liquor.

Why is the minister refusing to condemn this behaviour?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have already recognized and acknowledged that there are certainly issues at Memorial University that are concerning for this government. They've recognized that as well. They've acknowledged that there has to be change.

We're willing to work with them. As I said, they've already demonstrated measures in which they've changed. They've already stepped up. They've made changes to how they conduct their meetings so that there's a more appropriate flow of information, which was identified as one of the issues for the Auditor General.

They've also identified that they're working on doing their human resource searches in-house. They have five deans that they're searching for right now and they've already made significant steps in how they do that without the use of an outside source.

We're confident that these measures are just the beginning of ways that Memorial can step up and make the changes required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

We only saw the report lunchtime yesterday. All these changes are happening. Why are they happening? Because they were called out. Who called them out? This side of the House; we called them out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Why did the AG come in? Because we demanded the AG go in.

This is now cold comfort to the people of the province. We don't see any action yet. These are only words. The minister should be over in the president's office asking for change today.

Speaker, last year, when the former president's lavish contract became public, residents were outraged by personal trainers and expensive office renovations. While student housing has become impossible to find, the government attended a $100,000 retreat at the Fogo Island Inn.

Why are students suffering while everyone else at MUN is living high on the hog?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to first take the opportunity to correct the Member opposite. There was no member of government who attended the retreat that he's referencing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: However, I would also like to take the opportunity to identify that Memorial University has acknowledged that there are challenges.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

K. HOWELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the opportunity to answer the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Mr. Speaker, we've had the opportunity to chat with Memorial University and they recognize that there has to be accountability and responsibility measures that are instituted. I reiterate that at every meeting that we have with the president and the office of the president at Memorial University.

But as opposed to the way in which the Member opposite suggests that we correct this problem with a heavy hand or a slash and dash type of method, people on this side of the House believe that consultations and collaboration with the university will certainly give us the results that we expect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Only for I got a few seconds, I could go a long while on consultation, Minister, and lack of consultation I might add. We don't see any consultation. It's a play with words.

Speaker, the buck stops with this Liberal government. They appointed the majority of the Board of Regents. The Liberal government must stop hiding from accountability and step up and take responsibility for it. Students are facing a cost-of-living crisis and need something from the minister except excuses for inaction.

When is the minister going to start representing students versus defending the elite at MUN?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an issue that we are concerned with. As I've said before, we are taking every opportunity to work with Memorial University to correct some of the issues that have been identified. But when it comes to support for students, that's top of mind. That's top priority for this government and we'll continue to work and do that.

Just this last semester, we were able to offer $10-million relief to the students of Memorial University. The direct impact that they'll be able to feel with that money returned to their bank accounts. So we'll continue to work on measures like that to allow the student life to grow and to continue to excel at Memorial University.

On the other flip side of that, we also recognize that there has to be more accountability and responsibility, which is why we've since beefed up the Board of Regents and been able to appoint a new board that will continue to –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister needs to admit, the Board of Regents, the majority of them were appointed by government – their people. Their people are on that Board of Regents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: The buck stops with them.

The Auditor General found Memorial has the highest administrative salaries per student, compared to comparable universities; $375 per student higher than the next highest university. MUN's administrative cost was $893 per student higher than the average for all universities compared.

Why does the Liberal government force students to pay for the administrative bloat at MUN?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like first to take the opportunity to address the

preamble to the question. When we look at the Board of Regents, there was a significant amount of time where there were vacancies on the board. We've since had the opportunity to correct that.

We have now in place 16 members on the board; we have a chair of the board now who will be working with those new members. We've had the opportunity to have elected members who are alumni representatives that have been on the board. We have faculty representatives who now sit on the Board of Regents and there are student representatives that have been appointed as well.

We're confident that the board that's in place now will take responsibility, they will institute measures of accountability and responsibility and that they will have an open line of communication with the university to ensure that these measures are in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Speaker, the mayor of Corner Brook is calling for help after only 12 new housing units were announced under this Liberal government's housing plan.

I ask the minister: Why did you forget about the West Coast in the housing plan?

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

P. PIKE: Thank you for the question.

Our government remains committed to continuing to work with our partners, that is the federal government, municipalities and community stakeholders, to ensure that we have the challenges that you just mentioned taken care of and to make sure that every Newfoundlander has a safe space and a roof over their heads.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

But the mayor of Corner Brook is more than concerned. He's very worried what's going to happen to the people who don't have a roof over their heads.

Speaker, this housing crisis isn't just a PR exercise for the Liberal government. People are struggling, families are homeless and we have people living in tents across our province.

I ask the minister: Do you think the 12 units are enough for the City of Corner Brook?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much for the sincere question.

I will say there are two sides to this housing challenge. One is social housing and we've already talked about the $140 million, the investment that we made of $70 million to ensure the affordable housing program will help construct over 850 affordable homes, with a focus on seniors. I'm sure some of those will go to the Corner Brook area.

But we've also announced a way to make housing more affordable. The five-point plan that we brought in place in the last couple of weeks, including the new residential rental property rebate, including lighting up surplus lands that government has, including the homeownership assistance program. These are but some of the programs that we have to help make housing more affordable.

So investments in social housing; investments in making housing more affordable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Speaker, I suggest that the government consult with the municipalities as they go forward in making affordable housing there for the residents.

Speaker, I ask the minister: Will the 12 new housing units make up for the 37 housing units that have sat boarded up in the City of Corner Brook for quite some time?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

As the Member opposite knows, there has been a tremendous investment to put more of the boarded up houses, as he said, back on the market. We're putting a tremendous effort into revitalizing and refurbishing some of the social housing that we have available.

I will remind the Member opposite, I will remind Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the Opposition didn't even vote in favour of these initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, this week marks 151 weeks that Kristi Allan has been advocating for greater access to long-term mental health care.

When will this Liberal government heed the words of those with lived experience and address this mental health care crisis?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important issue. We do have money in this year's budget to address long-term mental health. The Towards Recovery Action Plan has 54 recommendations which were put in place in large part because of an all-party Committee that put the work into Towards Recovery and the development of those 54 recommendations.

I would like to think that the Official Opposition, the PC Party, Mr. Speaker, took this seriously as well. We have invited both the Third Party and the Official Opposition to an all-party Committee. I know the Third Party put their Members forward. We are still waiting, unless in the last two days we have the Members from the PC Party, so we can get on with the work of the all-party Committee and continue to build on mental health and addictions in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: I think you only have to ask Ms. Allan: 151 weeks out there waiting, waiting for this action and it's a Committee – it's a Committee.

Speaker, we have heard mental health supports need to be available 24-7 and that mental illness does not do well on wait-lists. There have been cases when persons have called 811 while in crisis, only to be told a nurse will get back to them. In two instances, the callers had thoughts of suicide.

I ask the Premier: What urgency is being placed on providing immediate life-saving care to those in need?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this is an important issue. We heard from families who were on the steps of the Confederation Building in terms of some of the challenges that they face. The 54 recommendations that were put forward, Mr. Speaker, are a very solid foundation. We are miles ahead of where we were four or five years ago in terms of mental health and addictions. We have much more work to do.

That is why the All-Party Committee is so important. I ask for the Members to be put forward from the PC Party so that we can get on with the work of the All-Party Committee and continue to build on the solid work that has been put in place over the last three or four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: I correct the minister on his three or four years. They've had this issue to deal with for eight years – eight years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Speaker, according to the Canadian Mental Health Association, between 2018 and 2019 there were a 61 per cent increase in youth visiting emergency rooms due to mental health concerns and a 60 per cent increase in youth being hospitalized for mental disorders.

I ask the Premier: When will he make mental health a priority, because mental health does not discriminate and affects everyone?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the increases in the budgets over the last three or four years towards mental health and addictions in this province, I believe we have made it a priority. It takes time to build on the programs that we have, but the FACT teams that we have, the assertive treatment teams, the opioid addictions hub, Mr. Speaker, all of these things were put in place over the last three or four years. We continue to build on what is in place. We have Doorways, Bridge the gapp, which is recognized as one of the most progressive programs in the country that other provinces are borrowing.

It is a priority for this government. We've increased the budget again this year. I ask the PCs to make it a priority, put forward the names so that the All-Party Committee can start their meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I have been hearing heart-breaking stories from constituents about their experiences waiting in emergency rooms.

This past weekend one constituent described a 12-hour wait while in terrible pain in a crowded waiting room in Carbonear hospital. Surely, Speaker, there has to be a more compassionate and humane system in place to keep patients comfortable and informed while waiting to be seen in our emergency departments.

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Member. We are working towards recruitment and retention of our health care professionals. As the Member knows, there has been a shortage of health care professionals across the country and, in fact, globally.

There are pressures in areas. We have made significant improvements, Mr. Speaker, in terms of recruiting the health care professionals that are needed. But I agree, it's unacceptable to have long waits in our emergency departments. That is part of the reason we are putting Urgent Care Centres in place to take the pressure off our emergency departments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

On October 6, the Leader of the NDP wrote the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development. The minister has not answered this question, so I'll ask it here.

Will the Deputy Premier today provide those living in tents a reasonable time frame as to when they can expect to be in a real, long-term home that is safe, affordable and allows them the privacy that they deserve?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

We have sent a lot of experts to those that are living in tents across from the House of Assembly. This is of great concern, of course, to not only this government, but to the people of the province. That is why we are sending in experts every single day.

We have worked with the people that are there to try and find them good places for them to live. We've offered them supports. We've offered them many, many things to ensure that they have what they need to have a good, fulfilling life.

I am encouraged that we are continuing to speak about housing and housing issues in the province. As the Member Opposite knows we are working very, very hard to ensure that we support those that need this type of supportive housing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

While OrgCode Consulting helps develop a shelter standard framework, will the Deputy Premier take an immediate action to make sure that all shelters provide adequate nutritious food that reflects the dietary needs for those who stay with them – do it today; not wait for the report.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

We've put a tremendous investment in housing; we've put a tremendous investment in social services. We've been really working on ensuring that we have a supportive, affordable housing network and we're going to continue to work with our partners in all areas of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that we provide a wraparound service to support those that need social housing, that need affordable housing and we're going to do the best that we can with the investments that we are making.

I'm glad to hear the Member raise the issues. We've put $140 million into this program this year. We're going to continue to working very, very hard with the partners in the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has pointed out co-operative housing and not-for-profit housing models are real solutions to address the housing crisis but there is a lack of resources to buy land.

Will the Deputy Premier commit this government to establishing an acquisition land trust so that co-operative housing associations and other not-for-profits can acquire the land they need to build affordable homes in this province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I think it's really interesting to have this question raised today. One of the things I did speak of today in Question Period was – social housing, we're putting a tremendous amount of effort to construct 850 new, affordable homes this year. We're also putting a tremendous effort on making housing affordable. As the Member opposite knows, in recent weeks we announced that we're going to unlock surplus government land and buildings for this very purpose.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

People are struggling to find shelter across this province in many different forms.

I ask the Deputy Premier: To show this Liberal government is truly committed to help address the housing crisis, as called for by our Leader of the NDP, will they form an emergency all-party Committee of this House to tackle the housing crisis and find a solution?

Will they form a Committee to actually help the housing crisis?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, one of the areas that we are going to focus on is the social determinants of health, including housing. That is one of the things that the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions will be looking at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

In 2020 the then minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development responded in Question Period stating that run-down Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units were under repair and would be ready in short order.

So I ask the Deputy Premier: Can she explain why renovating Newfoundland and Labrador units were just announced as a new initiative in the five-point plan when the minister said that they would be ready in short order?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

As in understand it, the houses of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing go under regular maintenance. There's a team, a very professional team within Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, a lot of workers that do maintenance and repair. Of course, some of these need more repair and when you get inside of them, it takes a little longer.

But I do want to gives kudos to the men and women who work for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, who work very, very hard to ensure that these homes are turned over as quickly as possible and given to new families. I'm sure the Member opposite would support those men and women as they go through their work to bring these social housing back onto the market.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I'm pleased to present the second report of the Standing Orders Committee in the 50th General Assembly.

I want to thank all Members of the Committee for their diligence and hard work on these matters and I recommend this report to the House of Assembly.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Are there any further presenting reports by Standing and Select Committees?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, yesterday, when tabling a petition, the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue asked about the

schedule for replacing the Canning Bridge. That was presented at a public meeting in Marystown and we have it here.

SPEAKER: Are there any other tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador intends to provide a rebate of the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax on new purpose-built rental housing;

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice on tomorrow I will move the following motion: That this House concur in the second report of the Standing Orders Committee of the 50th General Assembly tabled October 24, 2023.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, move the following motion: That in accordance with Standing Order 65, the Public Accounts Committee shall comprise the following Members: the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the Member for Exploits, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for St. George's - Humber.

SPEAKER: Any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Yesterday when we were debating Bill 51, there was a question that I just wanted to provide additional clarity into my answer. We were talking about unclaimed bodies. My department is not aware of any unclaimed bodies. I just did want to provide additional information, detail.

There is a process today where bodies are managed by funeral homes and funeral directors and then they go through the medical system. We have a sophisticated portal where all these stakeholders, each body are tracked and flows through the process. There are also bodies which may be at a funeral home which while the funeral parlour are awaiting payment or waiting identification of next of kin. There are also bodies or remains which may be at a funeral home at the request of a family.

I just wanted to provide that each clarification. We're still not aware of any unclaimed bodies but there's a process whereby bodies flow through a system of funeral directors and the medical system and there would be different numbers of bodies at different stages of process.

Thank you.

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

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

The driver's road testing was always offered in Bonavista to serve 8,000-plus residents of the region until a few year's ago.

It assessed the drivers of the area, youth and senior, in an area that they will be driving and have trained on 90 to 100 per cent of their time. Currently, in order for youth or seniors to avail of a driver's road test, they must travel 1½ hours to be assessed on a road network that they are not overly familiar with.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the driver's road testing in Bonavista to more adequately serve the 8,000-plus residents in that area.

I mentioned that petition before, Speaker, and many rural areas in Newfoundland and Labrador now have only received notice that their local bank is closing. Scotiabank in Bonavista, we've been informed, is closing. You need to drive to the nearest bank now, you're travelling 1½ hours to get to Scotiabank which would in a neighbouring community of Clarenville.

The cost of living in rural Newfoundland, all 40 Members are aware of it. The driver's testing is one thing that government would control 100 per cent. Scotiabank, they probably ought to have to been a little more proactive if they had a rural sustainability plan and we had a plan to know that we would keep some institutions or lobby to keep some institutions in some large rural areas and to see where we are.

We know that we can't control Scotia Bank. Scotia Bank's net profit will be – I think, according to 2022 – $10.1 billion. We know they're driven by shareholders. But government decisions to take things out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, like the drivers' testing, is creating undue hardship on the residents in the Bonavista area. That is one fix that they certainly can look at.

The advanced education and skills office, back some years ago this government closed that office in Bonavista. One that seen 100 residents per week visit that office for service. Yet, the government has closed it.

So when it comes to the driver's testing being reinstated, all we need is the driver's examiner to go down when there's enough interested individuals for their driving examination, travel to Bonavista to spare the many of coming up to Clarenville to get their examination. I would suggest an easy fix that would reduce the cost of living on the residents in the Bonavista area.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for a response.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to speak to one part of the petition. I wasn't sure if it was about the driver's closure or the Scotia Bank. I got confused. He was talking about both but I can speak to the Scotia Bank one. All I'm going to say is this – and again, I'm happy to stand and speak to it because the reality is that sadly, these types of things happen.

What I will say is that we are reacting here because there are options to prepare after for when these things happen. Right now, we're talking about co-operative efforts, credit unions, things like that that can happen. We have seen this. In fact, this is not just the first time. We actually had this happen last year. It's one of the realities of evolving into online banking, is that you have a smaller amount of foot traffic going into banks.

I just wanted to put that out there. Again, if the petition was about the closure, that's one thing, but I had to sort of have some commentary on the second part there.

Thank you.

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Approximately 100,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador live with mental illness. Only about 40 per cent of the people affected by mental illness and addiction seek help. Seventy per cent of mental illness develops during childhood and adolescence and most go undiagnosed. And less than 20 per cent receive appropriate treatment.

Emergency and short-term care isn't enough and it is essential more long-term treatment options are readily available.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide access to long-term mental health care and ensure continuity of care beginning with psychiatric and neuropsychological assessments being more accessible to the public so they can access proper mental health treatment and supports on a regular and continuous basis.

This is a very important issue, as I alluded to in Question Period, we have Kristi Allan and her group at week 151 of advocating for better mental health care in this province.

As I know, a report that was put out by the Canadian Mental Health Association-Newfoundland and Labrador last year or two years ago talked about the need for continuity of care. It talked about being proactive rather than reactive and it talked about the difficulty in not accessing these services.

I listen to the minister's responses today and talking about Towards Recovery and giving himself a passing grade on the action items of Towards Recovery . But just as an example, one of those recommendations, I think it was Recommendation 44, spoke about increasing the provincial health and addictions spending from approximately 5.7 per cent to 9 per cent. That was five years ago, they were supposed to meet that target April of last year and it is still unmet.

If you're misleading the people on these, what else are you misleading them on? But this is a very important issue when you talk about mental health care. You may have allotments from different departments but I can guarantee you there is no 9 per cent in Health and Community Services budget that is allocated to mental health as was agreed to.

We need to do much more on this; they need long-term supports and continuity of care when it comes to mental health in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition is actually named petition for timely and adequate access to health care for our Northern Labrador residents

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure that our Northern Labrador residents in Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet are provided with access to timely and adequate health care.

Frequently, patients are prevented from getting to medical appointments at outside Provincial Health Authority health centres in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, St. John's, St. Anthony, Corner Brook, et cetera. Some of the delays are due to inclement weather but, often, patients are prevented from getting on the medical flight to their appointments because there are no seats left on the flight. There are multiple reasons for this and we are calling on the government to work towards removing these barriers so patients can access their medical appointments for diagnosis and treatment.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate and timely access to medical care for patients in Northern Labrador by ensuring enough medical flights are available so patients can travel.

Now, this petition is about access, not about getting an appointment. It's about access to travel out to your appointment, to your treatment. Some of these treatments that people are bumped off the plane trying to access are cancer treatments. I remember getting a call last summer and I thought there was something wrong with it because an adult daughter had called because her mother, who is a cancer patient, was bumped off the flight to go out to Goose Bay for her cancer treatment.

When I started looking into it, a lot of people told me that this happens to cancer patients. Anyone who has ever gone through cancer – like, not talking about the fear of having cancer inside your body and you're trying to combat it, you're trying to survive, but anyone who goes to cancer treatment now knows about the importance of timely access to that treatment; it's scheduled. So people know that and the problem of getting out to the appointment is a lot of times there's no room on the plane and so you're bumped.

Then when you do get out to your treatment and you're coming back, I mean, you could have gone through treatment surgery, you could be going through your chemo appointments and then you're delayed. You're delayed in Goose Bay; not able to get on the flight. You've got children at home that people are looking after and then there are problems with that. You may have households to maintain and you can't get back.

We're not talking a day delay. I'm talking, sometimes up to five to seven days, patients have been stuck in Goose Bay and the reason why I know these dates, this time, is because as the MHA for Torngat Mountains a lot of times these patients call me.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

The Exploits District has seen increased speeding and ATV activity in the area causing issues for residents with safety in their communities.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase enforcement in the district to provide adequate safety and protection to our residents.

Speaker, the lack of police presence in the district and throughout Newfoundland, of course – I'm hearing it all across. But in Exploits in the last couple of years it's really been noticed that the ATV activity, speeding activity through the roads in different areas, the kilometres – one part of 350 is only a 50-kilometre zone but people usually go 80 kilometres, that sort of stuff. There's no enforcement there.

People feel the safety and the need for this is going to an extreme. ATV activity, of course, all throughout the community, speeding. They feel the response time from the RCMP, of crime and whatever, when they call for the RCMP the response time is slow. Sometimes they don't even show up.

I know I've talked to the RCMP and they tell me it's a staffing shortage. I know the minister said over a year ago there was a staffing shortage, but there has still been nothing done to increase staff in that area. When they're working half-staff, they can't really police the area.

We, the residents of Exploits, certainly would like this attention given. I know they tried to have a number of meetings. I know a couple of years ago we did have a meeting with the staff sergeants. They were going to try to put in some enforcement work with the wildlife enforcement with regard to the ATV activities, but they didn't have enough staff to get that up and running. There are some staff shortages there and the RCMP is certainly lacking in presence in Exploits. We'd like to call upon the government to increase the RCMP presence in the Exploits District.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to amend the Limitations Act to remove limitation periods for civil child abuse claims where the abuse complained of occurred against a minor, (a), within an intimate relationship; (

b) within a relationship of dependency; or (

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

And amend the Limitations Act to state limitation periods do not run during any time a defendant, (a), willfully conceals or misleads the claimant about essential elements of the claim, i.e. the fact that an injury, loss or damage has occurred, that it was caused by or contributed by

an act or omission or that the act or omission was that of the defendant; or (

b) wilfully misleads the claimant as to the appropriateness of a proceeding as a means of remedying the loss, injury or damage. The above-mentioned legislative changes should be retroactive and apply regardless of expiry of any previous limitation period.

Speaker, I'm glad but I'm sad in the same way to have to present this petition again today, signed by a number of people throughout our province. Of course, this was initiated by the Whalen family. Mr. Whalen has been up in the gallery every day since this House has opened; he's still here.

The man has significant health issues; he should be tending to those issues and his own well-being, but he is here every day nonetheless, because he is hoping – not just for Question Period, and not just for Petitions, throughout the whole day because I feel that he is probably hoping that somebody on the government side is going to stand up at some point in time and say: Yes, we're going to review this. We're going to have a look at changing this legislation to bring it in line with legislation in, I think, every other province except – I want to say New Brunswick or it might be Nova Scotia; it's one of the two.

I think I heard his daughter on Open Line today say it was either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick is the only other province besides Newfoundland and Labrador that has this statute of limitations.

What the man went through was horrendous. Had there have been any sexual misconduct or touching or so on that had happened during his time at Whitbourne and in care, then he would be able to deal with this through the courts. But because it was simply physical, he cannot.

When you look at the emotional toll this can take on someone, to be locked basically in a cage for extended periods of time; to have a minor incident that results in being locked up for two or three years or whatever the case might be, just at the whim of – I'm not sure at whose whim it was, certainly not like it would be today – and that person, I'm not saying it happened, but just think about how wrong it is that somebody in that circumstance, they could have tied him to a tree and flogged him every day, and there would be nothing he could do about it.

And that's absolutely wrong.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member's time is up.

P. LANE: We need to change the legislation.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

Another petition?

J. BROWN: I've got one petition.

Thank you, Speaker.

Anti-temporary replacement worker legislation – these are the reasons for the petition:

Anti-temporary replacement worker laws have existed in Quebec since 1978; in British Columbia since 1993; and the federal government has committed to introduce such legislation by the end of this year.

The use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or a lockout is damaging for the social fabric of the community, the local economy and the well-being of its residents.

Anti-temporary replacement worker legislation has been shown to reduce the length and divisiveness of labour disputes.

Since 2015, the right to strike has been clearly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it helps stabilize the power and balances between the worker and the employer.

The use of temporary replacement workers undermines that right.

THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or a lockout.

Once again I'm bringing this petition to the House of Assembly from the residents of Labrador West. They want to see this legislation. They understand a lot of them are union members. They've experienced similar situations and you just have to go back to D-J Composites, Vale. We've seen the use of temporary replacement workers on strikes. We've seen that they drag out strikes. We've seen the damage they do to the community but also to the bargaining process.

We see the federal government has recognized that and I think it's time for this province to also look at it as a way to rebalance between the worker and the employer and to bring down the divisiveness and the length of labour disputes, either be lockout or strike.

Once again, on behalf of the residents of Labrador West, they're asking to see this.

Thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2023.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: 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, that notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 2023, but shall continue to sit for the conduct of Government Business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 26, 2023.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 15,

An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 55.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that Bill 55,

An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act, 1999, now be read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 55, And Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act, 1999.” (Bill 55)

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm very excited to bring this forward today. We've been having a lot of back and forth with different municipalities over the last few years about ride sharing.

So ride sharing has been permitted. A definition of a taxi includes carrying passengers for money, and so a ride-sharing company could operate within that framework and follow municipal guidelines.

In 2021, we took measures to make it easier to get a Class 4 taxi licence. We reduced quite an expensive training course that taxi drivers had to do. We removed that, with the hopes of making it easier to get Class 4 taxi licence, recruit more taxi drivers and potentially attract ride sharing to Newfoundland and Labrador.

That did not see ride share come to Newfoundland and Labrador, Speaker, so now we're taking it a step further. In consultation with municipalities, community partners and ride-share companies, we are taking it up a notch and we're announcing a provincial approach to ride sharing.

Currently, the requirement is at the municipal level. If we think about the metro area, we have the Town of Paradise, the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's, CBS; they all have their different municipal bylaws. They are allowed to create their municipal bylaws currently to oversee this area.

So having a provincial approach to ride sharing reduces the risk for ride-sharing companies that they have to abide by four, five, six, seven or more sets of rules that could change, that may or may not be in place today.

That level of risk and uncertainty, in my opinion, was part of the reason why we haven't seen ride sharing come here and so now, Speaker, we're proposing to remove that risk and uncertainty for ride-share companies and hope to see them join us.

We are doing this in two ways: Firstly, we're going to make an amendment to the legislation, which you have in front of you today, to create an overarching provincial framework for ride sharing. This means that any ride-share company interested in operating in Newfoundland and Labrador would have one set of rules to follow and these would be outlined in the Highway Traffic Act .

Other things we are doing, which we do not need legislative approval for, we're changing the requirements to obtain a Class 4 taxi licence to operate a taxi or ride-sharing vehicle. These are currently at the discretion of the registrar at the moment.

Currently, the requirement is that you have a Class 5 driver's licence for two years, that you have a medical, a vehicle inspection and you need to pass a written test and a driving test. And that is currently similar to BC and Alberta. We are changing that to be more like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and we're removing the requirement for the extra driving test and the extra written test to get a Class 4 taxi licence. That should help both the taxi industry and ride sharing, Speaker.

So with our proposed changes all other requirements for a Class 4 driver's licence will remain in effect. Taxis and ride-sharing drivers will still have to require two years driving experience with a Class 5 licence, a medical, an annual vehicle inspection and an active and applicable insurance policy.

We're not making any changes to the licence requirements for ambulance operators, buses that carry up to 24 passengers, people that carry passengers – I believe it's under six for a contract under a school board and for vehicles under contract to carry children with a school board to and from school and school-related activities.

So taxis will continue to use taxi plates as a means of vehicle identification. Ride-share vehicles will not have to feature a taxi plate, will be required to display your sign or decal while engaged in ride-sharing services and they can use their existing J plates for their private passenger vehicles.

We currently have a zero-tolerance policy for alcohol and drug currently outlined in the Highway Traffic Act and that will continue to apply for ride-sharing drivers and taxi drivers.

To enable provincial oversight of this, we're making changes to the Highway Traffic Act here today, including a clear and concise definition of a transportation network, a transportation-network company and a ride-sharing service. We're clarifying the definition of taxi, not to include ride-sharing service and to include a specific reference to ride sharing. We're introducing a system of licensing of transportation-network companies and amending municipal legislation to limit their jurisdiction to taxi services only and not to ride sharing.

Details around the conditions for operating a transportation-network company would be set out in the regulations and so the idea is these would be things like they're responsible for ensuring their drivers have Class 4 taxi licences, maintaining a system of criminal background checks, maintaining the appropriate insurance and ensuring vehicles are inspected annually.

I also think it's important – obviously, municipalities are all different and they all have different interests and different things are important to different municipalities. While we're introducing a provincial approach, we're also providing the ability for any municipality who is not interested in having ride share in their municipality, they can request to be exempt from participation. We're outlining what will be required for that. They need a motion from the council and then a letter to the minister and we would, essentially, exempt that geographic area from ride sharing.

So these amendments will require the same safety standards for both taxi and ride-sharing drivers in Newfoundland and Labrador. They're going to ease some of the administrative burden to help meet demand for reliable and safe transportation services in the province and they will support a competitive industry that will continue to thrive.

Not only will this help result in new ride-sharing companies entering the market, my hope is that it also allows a more flexible business model for taxi companies that might want to transition to a new model. There's nothing stopping taxi companies from becoming ride-share companies or to kind of maybe split off their company into a ride-sharing part and then a traditional taxi part.

I do want to give a shout-out to the taxis in the St. John's area, the metro area have been using apps and using technology to help make the user experience better for taxi companies and I know that they've seen great success with those apps. I take taxis a fair amount and I do talk to the taxi drivers and the drivers are also very pleased with the use of that technology. I want to give a shout-out to the taxi companies for that.

I know our Premier has said multiple times that it's not one or the other. We seen in cities all across North America and in Europe, that both ride sharing and taxi companies exist and both are able to run successful businesses. We anticipate that that would be the same, no different here in St. John's and the metro area, Speaker.

I want to be clear, with anyone listening or anyone watching, that those are completely illegal. It is illegal to drive someone for money in that type of model without the proper oversight, the proper licence, the proper insurance. As a passenger, if you were to take one of those rides, likely the insurance policy of the driver would not cover you if there was an accident. In fact, that accident might not be covered. So there's a significant risk to the general public if you are participating in one of those illegal ride-sharing services.

My hope, also, is that by introducing ride sharing to Newfoundland and Labrador, we significantly reduce or hopefully eliminate the illegal use of these ride-sharing groups for the protection of everyone.

In conclusion, we had an announcement yesterday, which I thought went really well. I want to thank the Board of Trade, Destination St. John's, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador. We've been working collaboratively with a range of stakeholders, getting input from some ride-sharing companies and municipalities. I'm very pleased to bring this legislation forward to the House today.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Warr): Thank you.

I'm recognizing the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's a great opportunity to stand up and speak about this today. Anything that's going to propel Newfoundland and Labrador and its citizens into the times with the rest of the country, with the rest of the world – this has been on the go now for over a decade and it's good to see so that's what we're going to do today, we're going to flush out some of the legislation here and possibly ask some questions in Committee.

The bill would amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow ride sharing, for an example Uber. It will require the same safety standards and establish rules for both taxis and ride-sharing services. We feel as though that's very important. When it comes to anybody getting in the vehicle with another driver, especially that they don't know, safety should be of the utmost concern.

Especially here in Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the roads aren't the best, we have big furry obstacles jump out every now and again, and we want to make sure that those drivers are equipped, what they need to do, and ensure they're not under the influence. When you get in with another driver, you're not sure exactly what you're getting in with, so we want to be sure that a precedent is going to be set with the ride-sharing industry, that's safe for everybody including the drivers.

I would also restrict the municipality from making bylaws concerning ride sharing. So putting it back into the municipalities' hands, I think that could be a good approach and again we're going to get more opinions here today, but the fact is in Newfoundland and Labrador we have rural areas and we have urban areas. They are very different. They are extremely different when it comes to anything, and that will be including taxi drivers or ride-sharing industries.

We want to make sure that a rural area gets exactly what's best for them at the time, what will work for that municipality. I'm actually curious to see how that's going to play out in most rural areas across the province, because it's going to be very interesting.

Our caucus of course welcomes the addition of choices to the industry as we all have seen rental car shortages, which is a big deal, and especially when it comes to tourism, that's going to be a huge deal here. I can only imagine that it's going to boost our tourism industry if there are ride-sharing services here. It has to. It's everywhere else, and as you see, most tourists are very familiar with ride-sharing industry such as Uber now, so I'm sure that'll be a welcome for the tourism industry here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Taxi brokers have said they would welcome the ride sharing if the playing field was level. And that's something that we need to keep in mind as we move forward. And that will be included in regulations. Speaker, I'll go back and I'll say that I feel as though this House has gone through a regulation process that has happened after the bill has passed and gained Royal Assent, and sometimes it isn't what we expect.

I'll be looking forward to see what will be in the regulations of this, but make no mistake, as supportive as we are, we want to ensure that it's a level playing field so the taxi drivers, those good men and women, that the owners, the operators, the drivers themselves that have put so much into their industry, that have played by the rules all this time, don't get left out in the cold.

We want to make sure that everybody is on that same playing field and everybody has the same opportunities. Because we want to make sure, again, that the taxi drivers are taken care of, that they don't see this as a disadvantage to them. Open markets or free business is a great thing, but we want to ensure that our taxi drivers are looked at before we leave this legislation where it is.

Having these drivers fully qualified, licensed and insured is critical – and that is exactly what we talked about. In addition, it is critical the industry is on a level playing field with taxis that have been facing skyrocketing insurance rates and high fuel costs due to the Liberal carbon tax that we now see.

Again, these taxi drivers have been open and transparent about this for quite some time; they have been hurting and I would just hate to see another industry come in and not have to follow the same rules. It is extremely important with the ride-sharing industry now would be the time. People are hurting out there. Whether it is the metro area, the rural area, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook, people are hurting out there.

Hurting to the fact that when you see a used vehicle now – and my colleague for Ferryland I'm sure can speak to this as well – a used vehicle today is the same price five years ago as a new vehicle might have been. So to go out and buy a vehicle under the circumstances that a lot of people find themselves in now, with the gas carbon tax, maintenance, insurance, it is a lot of money to drive. It is a lot of money to drive your own vehicle in Newfoundland and Labrador right now.

So ride-sharing companies, of course, people will take advantage of it and my hope is that it will work out in time, precedent will be set and I think that it will be welcomed here in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is in the rural areas or the urban areas.

When I say that those are different areas of the province, you know, here in metro there are some great taxi drivers, both men and women, in the metro area, but you get in with one and you have a quick chat and that is it, you may never see that person again. In the rural areas, it is quite different. In the rural areas, the taxi drivers are almost like family: they truly are. They've been there since you were probably knee-high to a grasshopper as a kid. They are there when you need them; you get in and have a yarn, you have a chat, and you talk about everything that is going on in the community over the past while.

The fact of the matter is some of those taxi drivers have been around forever, for decades and we have entrusted them. We have entrusted them with our children, to take them back and forth to places, with ourselves. Again, I just want to make sure that they're not left out in the cold.

We have some great taxi drivers in Grand Falls-Windsor as well. One of them is a good friend of mine. I'll just use him as an example, Terry O'Halligan with ASAP Cabs. I know first-hand that Terry has done a lot for our community, just like many taxi drivers have throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in the rural areas. He's done a lot of work within our community. I know that his heart is quite big and he's taken people probably when he shouldn't have, or who couldn't pay sometimes, or didn't have enough to pay. I know he's taken pregnant women to the hospital. But that's him.

That's what we enjoy in the rural areas with those trusted taxi drivers that we have. And they are trusted. So again, I can't wait to hear the rest of the debate; I can't wait to get into Committee to ask some very pointed questions, but I will leave off on this.

I just want to make sure that our trusted taxi drivers throughout the province, whether it's metro, or Grand Falls-Windsor, or anywhere else, Musgrave Harbour, wherever they have a taxi, I want to make sure that those taxi drivers continue to stay on the same playing field, and they're not left out in the cold. The minister just said, we don't need to have one or the other; we can have them both, but just make sure that it's equal for both when it comes down to it, and eventually I'm sure we'll get into a trend where everybody gets along, everybody can have the ride that they need, nobody's left out in the cold, and it'll be great for our tourism and the people that rely on them every day.

So thank you very much.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously it's good when legislation comes in that moves forward the province and certainly when it comes to ride share and Uber and the likes. Obviously you would hope that it would create an area where it's cheaper for people to get transportation, certainly given today's economic climate and what people are going through.

There are some things that concern me, I guess, about the bill, and I'll talk about the first thing, which is the ability for a municipality to get an exemption. I guess for myself, I just wonder why municipalities wouldn't have to apply to be a part of the legislation, why the government is automatically blanketing it. The reality is you could have Uber operators or ride-sharing companies working inside a municipality without the municipality having applied for their exemption, and it could create some problems.

The other thing about that that I have to question is, while a municipality can apply for an exemption, we have lots of LSDs and unincorporated areas throughout the province that may have an incorporated business working inside of those areas, as a taxi lot, transporting people and their business could be negatively affected. Now we don't know that that's the case. We would hope that as business expands, it's just going to create competition and give everybody a better experience.

I guess the biggest thing that I'm concerned about is as the minister stood up and talked about this bill, while she said it was a provincial approach, she referenced St. John's a dozen times. I see, and I've travelled, and I've utilized Uber all over the world, and I know how well it can work. I believe it can work very well in St. John's, but I think once you go outside the overpass, there are some difficulties that will be faced, certainly with smaller taxi companies and their ability to compete with Uber.

But the one thing that really bothers me again, and it's the thing that I've said in this House time and time again, is that we need to put a lens on rural Newfoundland. The way these ride-sharing companies work and Uber – any of them; they're all the same – is they work through technology and apps. Once we get outside of St. John's into rural Newfoundland, we all know that the technology is not there, the cellular service is not there, the ability to access the Internet is not there. So what is the solution? I haven't heard anyone mention anything about that today.

So while it's okay to say that this is going to be great for the province, it's a provincial approach, once again, this Liberal government is alienating a large portion of the province – absolutely. You can shake your head no, but come out in my district and I can show you lots of places where Uber could not work.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what are we going to do?

L. PARROTT: Well, obviously we need to start talking about our ability to get cellphone service and Internet into these areas, and it's not happening. We all know that.

So, I guess that's the biggest thing for me, is what is the approach? Why have we overlooked it again? Why haven't we talked about that inside of this bill? Because when a company comes here to go to work, they obviously want to be able to go wherever they want to in the province and they will absolutely be alienated in their ability to deliver these services in rural Newfoundland. It doesn't work by a telephone call. It works by an app. You go in, you put what you want and they come. We all know exactly how it works. So it just does not work. That's the reality of it.

I know the government always talk about the consultations that they've done, but I'd be curious to understand what consultations they've done outside of the Avalon again. Again, in remote areas in Labrador where there are taxi stands operating, in the Bonavista Peninsula, in the Terra Nova District, on the West Coast, Stephenville - Port au Port, Burgeo - La Poile. There are cabs and taxi stands operating in all of these districts and I would be shocked to find out that there was any consultation done with any of them.

So, again, I'll say these small companies that have been around, these mom-and-pop companies that have been around for a number of years are going to struggle if Uber goes into some of these small communities. Now, that doesn't mean I'm against this. I'm just wondering if these conversations have been had and if there are solutions that are being offered, because obviously I haven't heard anything in this legislation.

We know for certain that there's an appetite to bring these types of services to Newfoundland, all of Newfoundland and Labrador. Uber and these ride-sharing programs have for several years attempted to go here and I believe that it's only PEI that doesn't have them. So I think that we'd be the ninth province to bring this in and it's long overdue, there's no question.

But again, I'll say with zero hesitation, if we're bringing in a provincial approach, it has to be beneficial for the whole province, and I don't think that this is. I don't think there was a lens put on rural Newfoundland and their ability to operate any of these types of services. So we're going to legislate something – it reminds me of what's going on up in Labrador.

You go to Labrador and you pay for a recycling fee, dispensing fee for your recyclables in Labrador West, and when you walk away you own the bottle. There's no way to bring it back. So government takes the money away, they've got legislation that says you've got to pay it and they don't give it back. And I'm just wondering if this is the type of legislation that's going to work throughout rural Newfoundland.

Anyhow, that's all I've got to say.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm just going to speak briefly on the amendment. The amendment is to the Highway Traffic Act, the City of St. John's, Mount Pearl, Corner Brook Act and the Municipalities Act. I just wanted to mention that. So there's a lot involved here. There are changes coming. These various acts are being amended to allow ride sharing.

When you look at ride-sharing services, it started becoming prominent about 13 years ago, and now several of the agencies have grown to giants in the industry, going from operating in a single city to national and international. We just have to look at the word “Uber.” Everybody knows about Uber and also Lyft, right?

So for me, one of my concerns with any kind of legislation that's going to have a huge impact is: What impact is this going to have for our taxi drivers and the taxi companies? As my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans talked about, he did raise some of the concerns as well, to make sure that the taxi industry and the workers are supported.

That's very, very important for me, because the taxi drivers and the companies have been here. It's established work, that's their career and that's their livelihood, unlike the people who work for the ride-share companies. So just looking at that now, one of the concerns I also raise is that the ride-share industry is different from the taxi industry, because ride-share drivers are not full-time employees. That's something that we need to be looking at as well.

I was listening this morning to an owner of a taxi company and he was being interviewed. He wasn't really negative towards this ride share, but one of the things he said is: We welcome it as long as it's a level playing field – a level playing field. So we've got to make sure that people who go to part-time work for these ride shares don't impact people's livelihoods. We can't allow taxi drivers and the companies to be disadvantaged. So that's really, really important. We've got to make sure when this legislation is introduced that it's not going to harm the taxi industry and the workers.

Like I said, there are a lot of different things I could talk about here. There's an option there for municipalities in the legislation to pass the resolution to prohibit ride sharing, to make a request to the minister to prohibit operation in their area and in the regulations. That's a positive thing because it's giving some autonomy back to municipalities. So they do have that option.

Another thing the minister talked about when she introduced the amendment is that Bill 55, the Register General is changing the criteria for obtaining a Class 4 licence, required to operate as a ride-share driver. So that in itself can be a little bit concerning. The written and road test requirements are dropped. Drivers are required to complete a medical examination, yes, and have at least two years driving experience to qualify for a Class 4 licence.

So some of the things that I am concerned about is, from what we can tell, there's no accommodating legislation to amend the Labour Standards Act . We talked to people such as those of the Federation of Labour. There's nothing to protect gig workers trying to make a living here. There's nothing to protect the gig workers here in terms of any changes to the Labour Standards Act .

Just looking at some of the key considerations here, why I brought up the gig economy, the gig workers, is the working conditions of independent contractors within the gig economy leaves much to be desired. We know that. It can be a difficult and trying occupation, even if you could consider it an occupation.

We've heard from agencies, workers who work for SkipTheDishes, DoorDash and they're not receiving much pay, Speaker. So we are concerned that the gig industry can prey on immigrants also, who are coming here that need jobs to be able to get established in our country. Also, their employment opportunities, because they're new to the company, are often limited. So a lot of times they have to resort to working in the gig economy. So we've got to make sure that gig workers receive full protection under the Labour Standards Act , and that's something that we will call for.

When we were in the technical briefing, there was a simple statement made that the insurance requirements are the same for ride-share drivers as for taxis, but it's not that simple. It's not the same. Taxis are commercial vehicles, versus the ride-share vehicles which are hybrids of personal and commercial vehicles. Also it's not the same because looking at the insurance, insurance providers in other jurisdictions have had to work to develop specific policies to accommodate the dual nature of ride-share vehicles. Also some providers flat-out refuse to insure the drivers who intended to work in the industry.

It's important to ask if the government has consulted with the insurance industry in Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the drivers will be able to adequately insure their vehicles, and that's something we'll bring up in questions.

Just moving on, municipalities also have been shut out of governing a means of transit within their borders. So we'll ask some questions about consultations when we get a chance to ask questions. For us, it's worrisome. Ride-sharing services, when you look across the country and internationally, when ride-share services have taken a hold and become very popular in cities and municipalities, it's been shown that ride-sharing services have been observed to cannibalize the public transit system and increase congestion.

When you look at climate change, when you look at most vehicles still emit carbon emissions, not a lot of the vehicles are electric. So we need to be encouraging public transit. This is something that I wonder if the government has looked at. We should be taking every opportunity to enhance our public transit system, which is the most economical and efficient means of transportation. Also when you're looking at the data, public bodies can leverage the data collected by ride-sharing services to refine its public transit systems and make up variable fee requirements to discourage direct competition because of the two models of transit.

Now, government did say in the briefing that it had put no thought into how ride sharing would interact with public transit and had no idea on how to enact a data-sharing agreement, because that's important. So are we undercutting various carbon emission efforts that are so important now in climate change by failing to properly manage ride-sharing industry?

For us, this bill is concerning. It's really hard to support when we look at climate change and we look at the impacts that have been felt across the country. For me on a personal level, I always look at an established industry and how it's going to impact employees, the workers, the taxi workers, the taxi drivers and also the operators. You have to make sure it's a level playing field. We have to make sure as these ride shares take off that it's not increasing congestion and it's not doing a disservice to public transportation, Speaker.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

It's certainly a great opportunity to get up and represent the District of Ferryland and, for the record, we will be supporting this bill.

First of all, I'm sure there are lots of people here that have been away and on holidays and used Uber. I've yet to hear anybody complain about it. It's nice that they're going to be on a level playing field, that everybody can use it. You haven't heard a complaint.

When I was away, anyway, for a couple of times, Uber was absolutely awesome. They give you the plate number, they give you the colour of the vehicle and they tell you what time they're going to be there; rather than go outside a restaurant or go outside a shopping mall, that you got dropped off at, they'll tell you exactly where they're going to be and how long they're going to be there. So, for me, I think it's great that we have the opportunity.

I live in a rural and a metro area, really. I have the Goulds who does have taxis and we have a taxi up on the Southern Shore but, further up, they don't have those opportunities and there are fellows up there who have nicknames as Uber. They're bringing fellows around the community; that's a fact. That's their nicknames and they're bringing people to destinations and if somebody pays them after they get there, fine, but that's their nickname and they call them and they're on call.

One of the big issues – and the Member for Terra Nova had said the same thing – is they don't have the Internet service in the district where I'm to. I leave Bay Bulls and I get to Tors Cove, I have no Internet service from Tors Cove up to Cape Broyle. You go up over Cape Broyle hill, you lose the service. Going down into Calvert, you lose the service. Outside of Ferryland, you lose the service.

In Aquaforte, there's no cellphone coverage or very little. Unless you get to the right spot in your house or the right hill to get on, there's no cellphone coverage. Now, there may be seniors that may use that to go to the Foodland in Ferryland, if they had the opportunity with an app, but you're not going to be able to use the app.

Hopefully we can get through some of those things. Listen, I'm all for it. I have to tell you, I'm all for it, but there are some regulations that we have to get figured out.

As for consultations, I hope everybody was was consulted on it; it's very important. I know that on this side, there are 18 or 19 people; I don't think we were consulted on it. We're here to make the rules in this House of Assembly. No one has asked us, whatever the regulations are coming, or whatever the rules – and Uber has their own set of rules; I'm pretty sure of that. They've got the rules that they're going to tell you how they operate.

But you talk about consultations? It never happened. No one ever called this side of the House or our groups or parties and mentioned it. It never happened. If we're in here elected as 40 people, we should be together on this to make sure that the rules and regulations are in place. Are we consulted? No. It's the same as the regulations we have when we had the helmets issue. Regulations come in after. No, they all go up in arms and wave their hands, never consulted after to what was happening.

Came in here and had a great debate on it, but the regulations, it never came out the way we were promised they'd come out. So the same thing here, that's my concern. And that's a big concern for the people of the province, I'm sure it is. And the taxi drivers as well, I mean, they're concerned. They want to make sure that they're treated equally, and I'm sure you're going to try to do that.

But for consultations, and we're all elected in here to represent the people of the province, and there are 22 making a decision, and we weren't consulted to see if we have anything to offer? I think that's ridiculous. I really do. It's disappointing. You get in here, oh, everything's going to change. This has gone on for 50 years – 50 years – unbelievable. It just can't get there.

In regard to vehicles, rental vehicles, you know that's an issue since COVID hit. Why that is since COVID hit, I don't understand it, but I was in the car industry for 22 years; I was at a dealership. And every summer we would put in 300 to 400 vehicles in a rental fleet. So they'd come in right direct, they didn't deal with Hickman's other than we did a PDI on them, fuelled them up, and brought them to their destination and put plates on them. That was it; we didn't do nothing more than that. They were already negotiated through the companies, they'd sell 300 or 400, and every dealership had pretty well the same thing, there were thousands of rentals.

Now we're down to no rentals; they can't get the cars. You go in to buy your own car now, there's very few available. They're getting better. I was only in there last week and went in to get a change of oil in the vehicle I had, and you know, speaking to them, yes, it's a little better, but you don't have an option to pick your colour, or here's what comes in that somebody didn't buy, they bought somewhere else while they're waiting. It's certainly a big issue, for sure.

In regard to inspections for these vehicles, and I'm sure – I don't know the rules on taxis. I'm saying that a taxi has to be inspected every year, and I'm just saying that off the cuff but I would think they do, or pretty close to it. But from the industry I was in, I don't want to cost people more money, because that's what we're not about, obviously, costing people money. But we've got vehicles that are on the road and there are no inspections after a certain point in time.

You buy a vehicle, it should be good for five years; you've got 100,000 kilometres. But when you come to motor vehicle inspections, to me I've worked in the industry and it was a concern of mine that people would come in with vice grips on the brake lines and pads gone right down to the rotors, wheel bearings falling off and there are no inspections. It's scary. The safety issue is the big issue. I'm not saying nothing about the rest of it but, overall, in the safety aspect of all this, that's the most important. We look at this and I look at inspections as the one thing.

So if a car gets over 150,000 kilometres, I think an inspection should jump up to say that we should have that inspected on the road. We're driving it, you're driving it and same as these vehicles are going to be driving it. These regulations that Uber have, I would think – and maybe the government may have something on it – that the inspections are a certain period of time that they have to be inspected. I know they will but a certain age of a vehicle as well, I would think, will come into it.

So that's really important. We'll ask a lot of questions and they're going to be tough questions. I'm sure they are and we probably won't have all the answers today but we're going to ask them. That's our job in here is to ask those tough questions. We're not going to let it go. We're going to hound on it. We're going to make sure we get this right and not put a pile of red tape behind it and slow them down. Let's not do that. Let's get it done. Let's get it right and do the consulting; absolutely do the consulting.

It's nice to included, if you're going to do that the next time we have some legislation – we rush legislation in. Every single time we do legislation, we do the same thing. A briefing in the morning and come here and talk about it in the afternoon and try to get people briefed up on it to know what we're talking about. It's ridiculous that we do this every single time since I came in here and we're going to be 40 people that got elected – do things different for the province and get this legislation, yesterday or today, and spend that time. It's unbelievable and that's consultation.

Why can't they give us this a week ahead of time. When did we come in? October 16 we came in here. That's when we came in. We had all summer to get legislation ready. You could have gave it to us in September and we'd have our homework done and be able to ask these questions and have something to offer maybe. Never once has it happened since I came in here. It's unbelievable.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Committee.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, form a committee. Slow it down again. Let's change and be different. We've got 40 people. Let's change and be different on legislation. This is important. Let's change and be different if you want to act as a group of 40 individuals. That's what we're here to do is set government and rules and we sit here and don't talk to each other – never involved.

Anyway, Speaker, I've had my say on that and hopefully someone else will have a say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm very happy to speak to Bill 55,

An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act and, as it's been stated, the intent of this bill is to allow ride sharing and that would be Uber, for example. I think there are two important themes for me that I'd like to highlight here with respect to this bill. The first is the fair playing field, Speaker. This is about equal opportunities. This is about saying that no competitor has an unfair advantage over another, especially in a competitive environment such as this. We need to ensure that there's equal chance of succeeding for all parties that are involved in this industry.

From what I'm hearing, the taxi brokers appear to support this ride-sharing model, provided it is fair. That there are fair opportunities, that the rules that are in place apply fairly to all parties, that they are following accepted rules with respect to the industry. But what I have some concerns about, Speaker, is with respect to when we find out what those accepted rules are and whether the parties are following those accepted rules, will that be in the regulations? Is that going to happen later, after the bill is passed, after the amendment is passed?

So that begs the question about consultation, Speaker. That is what my colleague from Ferryland was referencing. Consultation is very important with respect to legislation. I must say that the record so far for this government, in terms of engaging and collaborating and having consultations with the bills and the legislation it passes, has not been very good, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I would say it's been lacking.

Why is public consultation important? My colleague from Ferryland referenced that all Members be consulted and I agree that would be very important. It's a great starting point, but we also need to be hearing when legislation like this is being passed which will impact people – this is action that will impact the public – and it could adversely impact certain groups in the public. So there needs to be consultation with outside stakeholders as well.

So I'd like to know – and we will find this out – what level of consultation did the government and did the minister engage. Were taxi owners and brokers engaged? Were they consulted? What did they have to say? I hope that they were consulted. Obviously that would be an important starting place for taxi owners and brokers to be consulted. What did they say about this amendment? Did they have concerns and what were those concerns? Was the Insurance Bureau of Canada consulted? What did the Insurance Bureau have to say? What were their concerns?

Speaker, municipalities and Municipalities NL, were they consulted? What input and what feedback did they provide with respect to this legislation?

This is so important that we have this feedback, that we have the opportunity for all parties to have their say in legislation that will impact them. Why is that? There are many reasons. It encourages the public to have meaningful input into the decision-making process. That is very important. Why? Because on key public policy issues, they are better informed and they know then what their government is doing. It provides a strong foundation, a strong basis for trusting relationships between government and the people that government represents. It builds and maintains and essentially it will be the foundation for better decision-making and a stronger democracy, too.

These are all ways to improve – when we have consultations – our democratic governance. This is extremely important. It is important to have consultation because it means we will have a more inclusive and a more democratic society. It improves transparency. When government takes the time to consult with the public, with important stakeholders that will be impacted by the legislation, that will improve the transparency of the government. If we work on finding solutions together, Mr. Speaker, it improves our effectiveness; it improves our efficiency. It just makes good sense for better legislation.

When government is considering action that has impact on people's lives, then they must consult and they must collaborate with the people that are impacted by the legislation. Sadly, the record, as I stated, is not good when it comes to government's past record. In terms of consulting with the important people and groups that are impacted by the legislation, their past record is dismal.

Speaker, on that note, I just want to say public consultation is critical and we will find out in questions in Committee the level and the extent of the public consultations that this government has done. We will examine that and to see if that is at an acceptable level.

The other thing is the fair playing field. If this is not a fair playing field we are going to see, perhaps only in the regulations, exactly what rules are in place, in terms of to determine whether it's a fair playing field for all parties that are competing in this industry. But if it is an unfair playing field, if one party has an unfair advantage over another in this competitive environment and that all are not following the accepted rules at the same level, then that is going to be a problem, but unfortunately it will be too late because the regulations will be after the legislation is passed.

One final point I'd like to make is with respect to what my colleague from Terra Nova had raised with respect to the impact of this legislation on rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Personally, for me, as the MHA in the District of Harbour Main, who has very desperate cellphone service in many areas, for example, Holyrood – which we've raised in the House many times about that lack of cellphone service in our district and the inadequate cellphone service – how is that going to impact the people that cannot access cellphone service? I mean, that is a crucial element in order for the Uber service and this ride-sharing service to be effective in the Harbour Main District.

That is a very serious concern and, again, it raises the issue of the unfair playing field too. Because is one area of the province going to be able to access this ride-sharing service and yet other areas, such as rural areas, for example, like in Harbour Main, are we going to be left in the dark?

Again, I have some concerns about this legislation, primarily the level of public consultation, whether it's going to be a fair playing field, when do we find out if it is going to be a fair playing field. Is it going to be in the regulations and then there's not much we can do about it? These are all some concerns that I have. I look forward to hearing from the minister in Committee with respect to her answers on these important questions. I thank you for the time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further speakers to Bill 55?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, will be supporting Bill 55. I have to say while I do support the bill, I was a little disappointed when I saw the bill tabled originally and I heard the minister talk about the City of Mount Pearl Act, City St. John's Act and Municipalities Act, 1999 ,I was thinking that we were finally going to see the new Municipalities Act that the cities have been asking for for so long. All the towns, I guess, in terms of the Municipalities Act but, in particular, I know the City of Mount Pearl Act , for years and years, we've been asking for a new act that would be an enabling legislation.

Of course, it was supposed to happen – I thought it was supposed happen this fall because the last sitting of the House the former minister brought in just one piece of the legislation relating to the Code of Conduct. I believe she indicated that the act itself would be here this fall. Here we are this fall, I don't see it. Maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs will present it next week – hopefully. I look forward with bated breath for sure.

We are talking about ride sharing, Uber, if you will. I think that's something that people in my community would welcome. I know the mayor of St. John's has been in the media and he said that they welcome it. Of course, Southlands and Galway is part of my district, so I'm glad that they are in favour. I also believe that the City of Mount Pearl, Mayor Aker, has indicated as well, that the City of Mount Pearl would welcome this change.

Those are the people that I represent, those two municipalities, those two cities. So obviously, from my point of view representing that area, that would be my number one priority.

But with that said, in listening to the debate, I do understand and recognize and concur that there could be challenges for parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, communities and Local Service Districts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in areas where they do not have Internet service and phone services are bad or non-existent in areas.

I do appreciate the commentary and the concerns brought forward from my colleagues who represent rural areas of the provinces. We are all here as 40 Members to work together and to support each other and the province as a whole, as opposed to just our own district. Of course, our own district is what is obviously most important to us, but we should all try to work together.

I look forward to some of the questions that my colleagues will have, representing rural areas, representing Labrador and so on, and how this is going to apply to them to ensure that they are not left out of this opportunity.

The only thing I would say, again, this has been raised and this could impact people in my district and so on. I did receive a call from a taxi driver yesterday, actually, who's a constituent of mine. He's a long time in the industry, and he raised the same concern that other Members have heard from other taxi drivers, who have the concern around the fact that: not against Uber per se, but just want to make sure that there's an even playing field.

I've heard that said numerous times in the debate this afternoon, ensuring there's an even playing field between taxi drivers and Uber drivers in terms of the legislation, in terms of the regulations to ensure that they're on a level playing field and that both Uber and traditional taxi can co-exist, and that one will not be put in place to the detriment of the other.

That was his concern, and I think that that's the concern that most taxi drivers would have. I did hear Peter Gulliver on the news last night, I do believe – owner of City Wide, the largest taxi company, certainly in the St. John's metro area – and he indicated that as a taxi owner, he was in favour of the legislation. So that would be a positive, obviously. But I'm also concerned for the individual drivers themselves and ensuring that they don't fall through the cracks somehow and they're not disadvantaged.

I have a number of people in Mount Pearl and in my district, who I've known, who have been taxi driving for years and years and years, and have worked endless numbers of hours to put food on the table. It's not an easy job, it's awful long hours and the remuneration is generally not great if you're just a driver but you can make a living.

It is becoming more and more difficult to make a living, over the last number of years, with the skyrocketing cost of insurance and the cost on fuel and so on for taxis. It's been even harder than ever for a taxi driver to make a living and it does require very, very long hours. It's important, though, that for people who have chosen this field to make a living to support their families for all these years that they are not disadvantaged by what we're doing here today.

As long as the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that taxi drivers, Uber drivers are on a level playing field and that the taxi drivers will not be adversely affected by this change, then I will certainly support the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

If the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL speaks now, she will close the debate.

I'm recognizing the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Thank you everyone for your questions and comments and happy to answer lots and lots of questions in Committee.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 55 be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 55)

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

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

L. DEMPSTER: Presently.

SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of St. John's Act and the Municipalities Act, 1999,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 55)

SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I have a short comment that I would like to make to the House regarding Bill 43. Members will note that the Notice of Motion and First Reading refers to the bill as an

An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997; however, the title should read,

An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997, No. 2, as this is the second bill to amend the Schools Act in this session.

I am advised this is correct and appropriate from a legislative drafting perspective. I would like to draw the House's attention to the adjustment required. I suggest we proceed to second reading and debate in Committee of the Whole and that any required adjustments to the record of the House be made.

SPEAKER: Any further speakers?

I'm recognizing the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 11, Bill 43, second reading of

An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997 No. 2.

SPEAKER: I'm recognizing the hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL that Bill 43,

An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997 No. 2 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997 No. 2.” (Bill 43)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

Our government is focused on improving educational outcomes by aligning programming and curriculum development to help students excel, as well improving the service delivery. These improvements will be directly supported through integration. Through integration, we also expect to become more operationally efficient. This means collaborating to ensure we're using things like equipment, inventory and contracts for services in the