PDF Version

November 21, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 22

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

We have

some visitors today. In the Speaker's gallery, I would like to welcome Stephanie

Lights, Chris Lights and Logan Butler. They are here this afternoon for a

Member's statement.

In the

public gallery today, I would like to recognize representatives from Let's Talk

Science: Desiree Newhook, manager of communications; and Tom Walsh, regional

lead. They are also joining us today for a Member's statement.

Also in

the public gallery, I welcome Carol Murphy and Elise Murphy-Dowden, grandmother

and the mother of one of our Pages.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Ferryland, Bonavista, Cape

St. Francis, Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Terra Nova.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize a graduate from Baltimore School in

Ferryland.

Trent

O'Brien graduated grade 12 in June 2019 with perfect attendance. Not missing a

day from kindergarten to grade 12 is certainly a great feat; 2,340 days without

missing one day is a great feat. Trent's parents have a lot to be proud of, as

not many kids have gone through school and not miss a day. Trent's classmates

surprised him with a motorcade through the town on his last day of school back

in June.

Trent's

plans are to study science at Memorial University this fall, and he said he

don't plan on skipping either day there either. At this time, I would also like

to take the opportunity to congratulate Trent on completing grade 12 and wish

him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

I would

like all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Mr.

Trent O'Brien on his wonderful achievement.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

Talk Science is a national, charitable organization committed to preparing

Canadian youth for future careers and citizenship demands in a rapidly changing

world. For 22 years, they have provided engaging, evidence-based science,

technology, engineering and mathematics programs in Newfoundland and Labrador,

all at no cost to our youth and educators.

Since

2012, these volunteers and staff have interacted with thousands of youth through

outreach, online resources, professional learning and projects. Through a

partnership with our Department of Education and school district, they have

assisted in the implementation of grades one to six and senior high science

curriculum renewals. They have created and supplied an extensive electricity kit

for every grade six classroom and motion kits for all grade two classrooms, and

continue to provide professional learning with our educators.

Working

with other Canadian partners like the Canadian Space Agency, Let's Talk Science

continues to engage youth in real science through projects like Living Space and

Tomatosphere, creating an understanding around the optimal conditions for living

and growing food on earth and in space. A remarkable team of volunteers,

educators and staff having a great impact on our schools' youth.

I ask

the Members of the 49th House of Assembly to join me in applauding Let's Talk

Science, as well as the Hibernia Management Development Company Ltd., for their

valued involvement in our educational system.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize this year's inductees to the Royal St. John's Regatta Hall of

Fame.

Mr.

Speaker, residents in my district take great pride in the tradition of

participating in the oldest organized sporting event in North America.

This

year's inductees include the 1985 Outer Cove Intermediate Crew for their record

time of 9:30:55. An impressive record that stood for 16 years. Crew members

included: cox, Mike Power; stroke, Pay Hyde; Dave Kelly; Frank Power; Darin

Hyde; Greg Morris; Paddy Dyer; and coach, Bill Power.

Graham

Roche of Torbay was also inducted this year as a coxswain. Graham has been

involved in the Regatta for over 20 years, first as a rower in 1992, and in 1998

he began his coxswain career.

Graham

has won 25 medals. In 2008, he was coxswain of the O'Dea Earle team, which won

the Triple Crown. Graham was also coxswain for the intermediate crews that won

gold medals from 2002 to 2005. Graham has a passion for the sport, teaching

beginners and veteran rowers. He has patience like you wouldn't believe – he

even tried to coach me.

I would

also like to acknowledge the late Frank Dinn, who was inducted as a builder. For

40 years he served on the Regatta Committee. He made a remarkable contribution

to the Royal St. John's Regatta.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating this year's Hall of Fame

inductees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On World

Fisheries Day, today, I would like to recognize a strong young woman from my

district who demonstrates leadership while preserving tradition, culture and a

way of life in a coastal community.

Featured

on a recent episode of CBC's Land and Sea ,

Stephanie Lights of Bareneed has been named the woman in the wheelhouse.

She

thrived as a busy hairstylist for more than a decade, but when Stephanie and her

husband Chris started their family, Stephanie's father Wayne Russell, a

well-respected fish harvester, could see the toll the busy full-time work was

taking, and one day he made an offer to Stephanie to come join him on his

fishing boat, a career change she fully embraced and loves. The father-daughter

duo were on the water.

Sadly,

Wayne and Stephanie only had two seasons fishing together. In July of 2018,

while docked working on his boat, Wayne passed away suddenly.

Port de

Grave is one of the most prosperous fishing harbours in the province, and

harvesters from this community are known and respected far and wide. Wayne

Russell was no exception.

I just

know that Wayne is so proud of the job that Stephanie is doing, as he watches

over his family, living the way of life that he loved so much.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask that all hon. Members to join me in thanking Stephanie for her

family's contribution to the province's legacy and growth.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in

this hon. House to congratulate the senior girls volleyball team from Southwest

Arm school in Little Heart's Ease, the Tigers.

Five

years ago, a group of female students approached their gym teacher about

starting a volleyball team. They were told that if they could find a parent to

coach them, they would allow it to go ahead.

After

four years of playing as a team, with a group of only 13 players, made up of all

eligible female players from grades nine to 12, they were successful in winning

their first official female volleyball banner at Volleyfest for their school.

They have since also won their first regionals, and a player named Katie Kelly

was named MVP. They're travelling to Gander for provincials for the 50th

anniversary of SSNL. They will have four players graduating this year.

This is

a prime example of hard work and determination of a small groups of girls, with

a volunteer parents as a coach, Angie Peddle, and their teacher sponsor, Megan

Perry.

Once

again, I ask all hon. Members to congratulate the senior girls volleyball team

from Southwest Arm for their first volleyball banner and the excitement that

goes along with raising it in the gymnasium.

Tigers!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism for

winning the prestigious Marketing Campaign of the Year Award for Place of

Stories at the Canadian Tourism Awards last night in Ottawa.

I am

proud to say that this is the third time that Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism

has been acknowledged with this honour by the Tourism Industry Association of

Canada.

The

Place of Stories campaign positioned the province as a place of storytellers

that comes alive through the warmth of our people and hospitality, and our

unique places and experiences.

Mr.

Speaker, the overall Find Yourself campaign has been recognized with 359 awards

to date, and is considered one of the most successful tourism campaigns in the

country. The fine work is produced in partnership with our Agency of Record,

Target Marketing and Communications, and I acknowledge them as well.

I also

want to recognize and congratulate the Wooden Boat Museum of Newfoundland and

Labrador for winning the Community Leadership award at last night's event. The

museum is a living-library or irreplaceable Newfoundland and Labrador

boat-building skills and knowledge, as well as a cultural tourism experience.

The Winterton group does a fantastic job, and their award is well deserved.

Mr.

Speaker, through Budget 2019 , the

provincial government invested $13 million towards tourism marketing. This

industry generates $1.14 billion in visitor spending each year, and is

responsible for over 20,000 jobs, representing approximately 2,800 businesses in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I invite

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism,

as well as the Wooden Boat Museum for their success at the Canadian Tourism

Awards last night.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

behalf of the Official Opposition, I'd like to congratulate the individuals who

work hard behind the scenes to support Newfoundland and Labrador tourism.

Mr.

Speaker, our tourism industry is vital to the province. It supports many

communities including those in my district.

suggest to the minister that we need to do more to capitalize on our tourism

potential. We need to ensure that we use our cultural exports to bring visitors

to our province.

Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the Winterton Wooden Boat Museum of

Newfoundland and Labrador for wining the Community Leadership Award. These

volunteers are a true testament to passion, dedication and commitment. The

Wooden Boat Museum is a true example of what can be accomplished and successes

that our tourism operators and attractions can have.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I

also thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I join

the minister in congratulating both NL Tourism and their award-winning campaign

and the Wooden Boat Museum of Newfoundland and Labrador for their role in

preserving the boat-building culture of this province.

As a

former heritage director for Gateway Labrador, I fully appreciate the importance

of growing our vital tourism sector as a part of a sustainable economy.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to inform the public that MyGovNL, the provincial government's platform

that provides multiple online services in one convenient, combined location is

now available to everyone after a successful pilot program.

Mr.

Speaker, residents expect government to be innovative and to make their lives

easier. With MyGovNL, residents can now review and renew their driver's licence

and vehicle registration information very quickly and easily online. Residents

can also update their mailing address through their MyGovNL profile, or can

advise if they no longer own a vehicle. All of these activities used to require

a visit to motor registration offices.

As part

of The Way Forward , MyGovNL is making

it easier for residents to access the services they need online, and will be

expanded to include most programs and services for both residents and businesses

in the coming years.

Mr.

Speaker, the Digital Government plan is transforming the way services are

delivered in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are helping residents access

government services faster and with less hassle, letting people spend more time

on the things that matter most to them.

Residents can now register for MyGovNL by visiting the government website:

www.gov.nl.ca/digitalgovernment .

This

plan will put government in a position to deliver on its vision of “One Client.

One GovNL. One Relationship.”

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister of an advance copy of his statement. We are living in an age which is

becoming increasingly more digital. It makes sense to provide more services

online for people's convenience. However, I do want to make reference to the

fact that there are areas of this province which do not have high Internet

connectivity and there are people in this province who do not use online

services.

Recently, a 92-year-old man in my district was fined $300 for driving with an

expired sticker. He did not have access to notification by email, and I suspect

that this is happening in all districts in the province.

While I

support increasing online services, I also recommend ensuring that in-person

services are available to those who wish to use them. Banks, credit card

companies, et cetera, all offer people a choice between paper and email. Let's

provide services to all citizens in the best method available for them.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Online

service portals like MyGovNL can help make service provision easier and more

efficient, and this is a welcomed benefit of embracing the digital age. I

commend those who are involved in the launch of MyGovNL.

With

MyGovNL making is easier to access online services, I, too, remind the minister

that individuals without access to reliable Internet or without an email address

must still be able to access services offline as well.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Wednesday, the Natural Resources Minister boasted of the benefit of the Bay du

Nord Project for workers it the province, yet the technical briefing given by

her department says: Fabrication of the hull, turret, flowlines, umbilicals and

other components will be international.

So I

ask: How many person-hours of work is the government sending outside the

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As the

Member opposite knows, as the people of the province know, the project to which

the Member is referring, the Equinor project, opens up another basin here in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If it's sanctioned in 2012, it would open

up another opportunity for deepwater work here offshore Newfoundland and

Labrador, so it brings many, many benefits.

But I

will report to the Member opposite, when he attended the technical briefing, the

employment opportunities for Bay du Nord is about 22.3 million person-hours, so

about 11,000 – I remind you again 11,000 person-years of employment. That's

tremendous benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member's time is

expired.

MS. COADY:

This government is working to

create jobs and to drive economic opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The Terra Nova FPSO will also

be leaving our waters to undergo maintenance. It will be gone for eight months.

I ask

the minister: How many person-hours of work on the Terra Nova is she sending

outside the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sending anything anywhere, so I will remind the Member

opposite –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. COADY:

I will remind the Member

opposite that we are very, very pleased for the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador that the life of Terra Nova will be extended in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and just as with previous contracts under

Terra Nova, the hull and the work around that has to be done outside the

province because it cannot be done here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think

the Member opposite will celebrate the fact that we are enticing and encouraging

more jobs and economic opportunity for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Does the minister feel that the FPSO retrofit for Terra Nova could have been

completed here if her government didn't put jobs and hope at risk when she

cancelled the installation of swing gates?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd be

happy to offer a technical briefing to the Member opposite, because he should

know that the Terra Nova couldn't fit with swing gates or without swing gates in

Argentia. He should understand that technical information before he asks that

question.

This

government, Mr. Speaker, has been focused on growing the opportunity for oil and

gas here in this province. This government has been encouraging the growth in

our oil and gas industry and this government has created jobs and economic

opportunity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker,

there is a perception in the trades community that workers outside the province

are benefiting from our industry. Our residents are eager for jobs and hope.

I ask

the minister: Why can't our province develop the necessary facilities to provide

jobs and hope here?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm very

encouraged to hear the Member opposite support

Advance 2030 .

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

In that plan, it talks about

growth and development of our supply and service industry; in that plan, it

talks about making sure that we have the opportunities here in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and in that plan, it talks about the growth of

development of economic opportunities as well as jobs in this province. I'm glad

to hear him supporting Advance 2030 .

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Transportation and Works if he will table the scores for all the

roads which have been paved in his district since 2016, and there are quite a

few.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I have

no problem tabling that, but if he would like to save the paper, he can just go

online and look at the Roads Plans for the previous three years.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

I'll get to that part now in

a little bit, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, if your government have taken the politics out of paving, how can you

justify spending $10 million in your own district this year while only a

fraction of this amount in many others, including your own colleagues'?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

justify it in the same way that this year we spent $11 million in the Member for

Placentia West's district, Mr. Speaker.

We've

spent $140-something million this year on roads throughout the province. Very

proud of our Roads Plan. Since forming government, we've paved 2,100 lane

kilometres, Mr. Speaker, enough to go from here to Corner Brook three times.

We'll continue our investment in roads, Mr. Speaker.

Last

year we were fortunate enough to sign an agreement with the federal government

that's going to inject another $104 million over the next nine years into roads,

Mr. Speaker, and if the Member opposite would like to contribute to next year's

Roads Plan, the portal is open until November 23.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

You can't get near the

portal, Mr. Speaker. He pretty well has a monopoly on that.

To his

point of Burin, he cancelled the contract down there, and after a lot of

infighting and whatnot, they reinstated it because that used to be a Liberal

district and it went to Tory. He should have added that to his last answer. It

used to be a Liberal; now it's Tory, a bit of a problem, but he had no choice

but to go ahead.

Minister, according to access to information requests we have received, your

district has received $24 million in roadwork since 2016, up to and including

the coming year, while your neighbouring Liberal district has received less than

$5 million.

Don't

you think this is a case, Minister, of you taking advantage of your position?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

reason why we cancelled the tender in the hon. Member's district was because we

decided to do the project in a one-year lot versus a two-year lot.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask him to do his research. The other reason was there were some

budget considerations around where we were able get a better value for our

money. The reality is right now that project is concluding I think.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to apologize for investing money in roads throughout the

province. I have a district that has great economic opportunity. Almost 25 per

cent of the seafood in the province is transported on Route 70 and the Veterans

Memorial Highway. The reality is we have invested money all over the province in

roads, and we look forward to doing the same thing again in the 2020

construction year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the minister there are 39 other districts in the province, not just one. It's

absolutely disgusting to watch and read what I read in the ATIPP request. He

can't justify what he spent in his own district.

They

took the politics out of paving, not us. They need to live up. Their actions

have to match the words, Mr. Speaker, and the laughter comes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

We never took it out, Mr.

Speaker. We've never advocated for it; they did. They need to stop fooling the

electorate because they're not fooling me or anyone on this side.

Minister, will you commit to having an independent assessment completed on our

provincial roads – not your own little five-year roads mock-up you have done –

with all the scores being made public, independently and this will truly take

the politics out of paving and stop trying to fool the people of this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, it's terrible

that a Member that spent some time in the Department of Transportation and Works

gets up this afternoon and talks about our engineers and our regional engineers.

There are a number of components, Mr. Speaker, to the five-year Roads Plan – our

regional engineers, our input. The Member has every opportunity until November

23, which is Saturday, to have his input.

Mr.

Speaker, we have conversations all the time in this House with regard to

roadwork and how things are done. The Member opposite has those conversations;

then he stands up here today and tries to slander what I've done.

Mr.

Speaker, I advocate for infrastructure for the people I represent – absolutely,

100 per cent. But realize, we've spent $154 million this year on roads in our

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The past

year, Red Indian Lake in Millertown has been designated as a unique place in the

Commemorations Program through Heritage NL. Combined with the lucrative upcoming

Valentine Lake mine, the Buchans Highway is set to see an increase in traffic,

between tourism and industry.

I ask

the minister: When are we going to upgrade the 11 kilometres before Millertown

and the six kilometres going into Millertown of this very important highway to

make it safe for the workers and tourists before the road falls apart or someone

gets hurt?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

I would

actually have to go back and check with our engineers and our regional staff to

see where that highway is right now.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Route 60

is a main thoroughfare through the District of Topsail - Paradise. It's the

section of the road on the shoulder that's constantly being eroded. In fact, I

suspect it's going to be –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MR. P. DINN:

I suspect it will be eroded again after the rainfall.

I'll

applaud the Minister of Transportation and Works for the temporary solutions

that have been made, but the residents of this area want to know when will there

be a permanent solution to correct this dangerous part of the road.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

enjoying the exercise today.

Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. Member knows – he and I had this conversation, I think, in

a sidebar earlier this week – the temporary repairs were made. I did receive an

email yesterday and I think the hon. Member is correct. It's something,

certainly, that we will look at for the next construction season.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

What do

you say, Minister of Transportation and Works, to the people of the District of

Harbour Main, people from the communities of Seal Cove, Holyrood, Conception

Harbour, Colliers, Roaches Line, Makinsons, South River, North River, and others

who have to drive over roads which are in a deplorable condition?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I am

very proud to stand here today and talk about what this government has done for

Route 75, Veterans Memorial Highway. It's one of the proudest things that I've

done as minister, what we've done for the people of that region, I say to the

Member for Conception Bay South, because I tell you, 10,000 people a day travel

on Veterans Memorial Highway, and it was this government that put passing lanes

on that highway.

I've

heard so many horror stories, been touched myself by people that lost their

lives on that stretch of highway, Mr. Speaker. So, don't question this

government and what we've done for the people of the Bay de Verde Peninsula.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, these

are serious and real concerns from individual citizens, Holyrood council and

many other municipal leaders. We need to know what you say to these concerned

residents of these communities who are calling my constituency office on a

regular basis. Minister, I know for a fact they are contacting your office as

well.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Again,

very proud of what we've done for the people of the Bay de Verde Peninsula. If

you want to think about Conception Bay, it was just last year, because of

savings that we were able to achieve from our five-year Roads Plan, that we were

able to do in one year the entire Salmonier Line. That piece of road was

atrocious, Mr. Speaker, and we took the savings in construction season 2018 and

actually did that piece of road.

Mr.

Speaker, we're doing improvements all throughout the province: 2,100 lane

kilometres in the last three years; $700 million of investment; $154 million

investment this year. We're very proud of our roads program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for highways and roads in our province,

how can you justify the excessive road improvements in your district when so

many other communities, like the ones I've mentioned, are left with roads in a

total state of disrepair?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's why we spent $154 million this year – 2,100

kilometres; $700 million in the last three years.

Mr.

Speaker, we have 10,000 kilometres of roads throughout this province. We're

replacing them at a rate of, I think, about 4 per cent a year, which we need to

improve.

Mr.

Speaker, we've been working with the federal government on our new northern and

rural program. I'm going to be in Ottawa, hopefully, to meet with the new

minister sometime in December to talk about some flexibility in some of the

programming to ensure that we're getting every single infrastructure dollar we

can into the province.

I invite

the Member opposite, I invite everybody in the House or anybody watching: the

deadline for submissions to this year's Roads Plan is this coming Saturday. Get

the information in. We'll work with our regional engineers to get another

$100-plus million invested in roads again in the 2020 construction season.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Construction of the new Sir

Robert Bond Bridge was completed a couple years ago, but the residents of that

area feel that the lack of lighting at the intersections is creating safety

issues and it's only an accident waiting to happen.

Will the

minister agree to install lighting in those areas?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

Member for the shout-out for this side for getting that bridge finally

completed.

It was

only yesterday they were standing in this House talking about cutting and

cutting, and how we were going to reduce.

Mr.

Speaker, road safety is very important. I'll take the Member's question under

advisement. It's the first time it's been raised with me. If he would like to

have a chat a little bit later about it, I can certainly accommodate that

conversation.

Mr.

Speaker, 2,100 kilometres; $700 million; over a $150 million in the 2019

construction season. I can assure every Member of this House we will have a

Roads Plan next year very similar to the one that we had this past year.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

This part of the TCH runs

through the boundary of Bishop's Falls and I've had concerns from the

municipality of Bishop's Falls that they don't feel they should be paying for

the lights in that area because of the construction that was done by

Transportation and Works. This is a heavy traffic area for residents – ATV

crossings, pedestrians and visitors as well.

Will the

minister commit to fixing this issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly

commit to looking at the issue.

The

reality is it's been Transportation and Works' policy throughout that when we

install lighting, whether it's traffic lights or any other lighting, typically

it then becomes the responsibility of the municipality. If the Member opposite

would like, I can certainly take a look at this case for him.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

a consultant report, parents and school council all agree that Mobile needs a

new school. Last year, the former minister of Education stood by the decision to

build an extension; however, students have outgrown the extension. The school is

full, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Will you admit that an extension was a waste of money and a new,

bigger school must happen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

When the

study was done some years back, it showed that the current school, the footprint

improvement, would catch this number, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure of how much

that's been outgrown already, but it's something that from the department's

perspective and the Department of Education we can take back and get back to the

hon. Member.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You keep

speaking about politics on the other side and we hear that since I came in here

six months ago. The evidence that supports a new school – the budget in 2009

included four new schools, yet the students in a rapidly growing area in my

district are left without. The Mobile school will be over capacity in 2021, even

with the extension. I suggest to the minister that the extension was a wrong

choice.

I ask

the minister: When will students in my district get the new school they were

promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I think

right now we have four schools under construction throughout the province:

Gander, Bay d'Espoir, Paradise and others. Mr. Speaker, direction for school

construction typically comes from the school district. I would have to go back

and see what the latest submissions to the department, or to the Department of

Education, have been with regard to school construction.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, on October 28

Stephenville High school system. On November 7 Piccadilly high school was added

to the review, effectively creating an area over 75 kilometres, 24 communities,

two high schools, six elementary-primary schools and one alternate learning

centre. No reason was given why a review of the Stephenville - Port au Port

District is happening.

Can the

minister provide the reasoning why this district was chosen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, reviews happen within the school

board. They happen on a regional basis – or on a yearly basis, I'm sorry. As I

answered this question once before, my district alone as well – I have three or

four schools in my own district.

It is a

review; nobody here is closing schools, Mr. Speaker. It's the board doing their

due diligence and I certainly support the board in their reviews. If the hon.

Member has any other concerns he can bring them forward.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, if the reason is

financial, no financial information was presented. If they are comparing with

similar areas, no examples were given.

I ask

the minister once again: Why or how and for what reasons was the District of

Stephenville - Port au Port chosen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

There's no particular reason

why, Mr. Speaker. It is a comprehensive review that the district undergoes and

we do it every year.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I support the review of the schools. We have 260, 270 schools

across the province. Do we need that many? I don't know but the district

undertakes the review. It's been going on for years and I appreciate the

district doing their due diligence.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland

thought-exchange website for public input, which has a limit of 300 characters

for your thoughts. This was not relayed to the communities in general, only to

the schools.

This

method of public input has only been open to people who have communication with

the schools involved and who are computer literate and have access. These

parameters are not applicable to a large percentage of the district's

population.

I ask

the minister: What will he do to ensure that more people have an opportunity for

input?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the hon. Member brought that up because it gives me an opportunity to talk about

the engagement that we, the district, will undertake with parents, with people

in that particular area, with the town councils. Mr. Speaker, this review is

comprehensive and we will ensure that every person gets an opportunity to speak

to the review of those schools.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

all seen the pictures from Nain of the perishable of food that was frozen and

spoiled; 26 pallets spoiled just recently. People in Makkovik just learned

yesterday they shipped frozen food in September and it never arrived. Trying to

track it down they found out just yesterday that is has thawed and spoiled;

thousands of dollars worth of food for Makkovik.

I just

got a call before I came in the House from Natuashish. A businessperson there

had a whole pallet of soft drinks spoiled, but he's more concerned about the

eight other pallets that are missing, can't find it. This goes on and on and on.

I'd like

to ask the minister: When will he admit that the ferry, the

Kamutik W , has failed to meet the service contract for the North

Coast? I'd like to add, scripted answers by the minister about tonnage and

roll-on, roll-off abilities really is unacceptable, when the boat itself doesn't

have the ability to meet the service requirements.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

Mr.

Speaker, I addressed this same question yesterday, I think, here in Question

Period. The reality is this is not acceptable. We don't find it acceptable. All

damaged goods will be replaced or the person will be compensated at no cost to

the individual or the end-user.

This

will be burdened by the company, not the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Mr. Speaker. These decisions to offload these pallets in Makkovik, we're

questioning the company on that. We can assure the people of the North Coast,

whatever products, whatever supplies were damaged, make your claims to the

company. We will hold them responsible.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Mr. Speaker, there is not

enough time to get the freight to the North Coast now. Time has run out for my

people. Freeze-up is around the corner.

I want

to say, all this that's happening was told to the government, to Transportation,

last year. All these problems were told this was going to happen. It fell on

deaf ears and I think the minister should be accountable for that.

I ask

him: Do you think money is going to feed empty bellies this winter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, it's the choice

of the individual or the end-user what they decide to take, whether it's

compensation in money or a compensation in goods. We've been quite clear to the

company we don't care how they get these goods to the North Coast. We've been

100 per cent abundantly clear. But these goods, whether it by boat or by

airplane, will go to the North Coast at the expense of the contractor.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

been almost two weeks now since the Refugee and Immigrant Advisory Council

closed its doors, essentially eliminating some services to the newcomers to this

province.

I ask

the minister responsible: What is the status of that council now and what have

they done to get this service restored?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly cannot comment on the status of RIAC's decision to suspend their

services. Officials have been in contact with the organization and requested

official updates. They certainly provided important service to the community, to

the people of which they served. The department had a couple of projects with

this organization in terms of a Creative Sewing Atelier and a number of

initiatives to help advance entrepreneurship.

We'll be

working with RIAC and the process to determine what the next steps are, Mr.

Speaker, but this is not an organization that is core funded by government. They

are independent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier regularly claims to be – and I quote – fully committed to the

environment. Yet, we have seen the failure of wetland capping, a mining road

abutting the Salmonier Nature Park, a massive salmon die-off, an illegal road

going through Thorburn Lake and the destruction of the East Coast Trail at

Ragged Beach, all on their watch.

I ask

the Premier: Does government's environmental policy allow exemptions for

destructive events such as these?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

start by saying our best resource in this province are the people in this

province.

We have

a certain number of officers who go around and patrol our province looking for

things that may not be up to par, we would say, or against the law. It's the

people we trust to bring anything they notice that goes on within the

environment back to our office. Once we find out about that, Mr. Speaker, we

send out an investigator.

Anytime

there is an incident – and the Member opposite mentioned four or five different

ones. If she wants to take them on one at a time, I can update her on the status

of each and every individual one; but each one we're aware of, we have a file

on, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, in 2015 the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador pledged to develop the Eagle River

Waterway Provincial Park to complement the Mealy Mountains National Park. The

Eagle River Park would protect 3,000 square kilometres of natural and cultural

landscape.

I ask

the minister responsible: What is the status of the addition to protect

ecological areas in The Big Land?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, the question

came rather fast at me, and I wouldn't mind if the Member opposite wouldn't mind

repeating the question, but in case I'm not sure what the answer is, I will

certainly get the answer for the Member opposite and get back to him at my

earliest convenience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

The Eagle River Waterway

Park, 2015 status?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

certainly something that is a commitment of government; the waterway park is an

important piece. We've been working as a government with the Indigenous

governments and partners on site and working with private foundations to be able

to work and advance, and we're firmly committed to making sure there is a

waterway park here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Ragged Beach is a key natural asset for the East Coast Trail and

survival of the Witless Bay Bird Sanctuary, and those working to protect it have

legitimate concerns about its preservation. They are not convinced government at

the municipal and provincial levels have exercised due diligence.

I ask

the Premier: Will his government put an immediate freeze on the destruction of

Ragged Beach and bring in a mediator who can help resolve this situation that

has the potential to destroy a natural jewel?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, thank you very

much for the question.

This

morning we had representatives from our department at Ragged Beach and they did

an investigation that showed that the people operating and the construction in

that area was within the controls of the permit we issued a week or so ago.

Nothing out of the ordinary, that we're not aware of right now, is happening at

Ragged Beach.

As early

as two hours ago, I got an update on that and the construction they're doing

there. I guess for the knowledge of everyone, the parking lot appears – and I

saw pictures and the hon. minister opposite can change the view of this – has

been eroding away. They're planning on placing some armour stone to protect the

parking lot.

There's

no other development along that beach except the development of the parking lot,

protection of that parking lot area – from the pictures and from our expert

people that were on the scene this morning.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, we understand

that those members from his department went up there checking to make sure that

the equipment itself was in proper working order and not about whether the

assessment or the beach was being destroyed.

What

we're asking for is, put a stop on this and have a cooling-off period, a

moratorium, and bring in a mediator to resolve the outstanding issues that have

been identified by those who are trying to protect a natural area – that's what

we're looking at – and assess properly whether or not it's being eroded or

destroyed. It's a gravel beach. It hasn't changed in over a hundred years,

according to a lot of the people who live up there. It's been that way in living

memory.

Will he

commit to that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, I really

understand the passion of the Member opposite, but when we are issued and we go

out and investigate and someone asks us for a permit, we send out our team. They

would outline some criteria and some conditions are outlined with that permit.

Within the parameters of that permit and the work area described, that's where

we would allow or not allow construction.

We can't

have a moratorium on everything that ever happens in this province.

Unfortunately, sometimes it may not be what everybody feels it is, but in this

case, the work that's being doing there, we feel confident is within the

parameters of that permit. If someone feels and can prove otherwise, please

bring that attention to our office.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that on tomorrow I will move that in accordance with subsection 8(8) of

the Standing Orders, the spring 2020 sitting of the House of Assembly shall

commence on March 2, 2020, and end on March 4, 2020, but in all other aspects

the parliamentary calendar for 2020 as issued in 2019 shall remain unchanged.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

MR. BRAZIL:

Yeah.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oh, sorry.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, could the

minister please clarify the dates again on that? I think there's some confusion.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much.

The

Table Officer was just explaining to me that I misread it as well. So allow me

to try this again, and thank you to the Member opposite.

I give

notice that on tomorrow I will move that, in accordance with subsection 8(8) of

the Standing Orders, the spring 2020 sitting of the House of Assembly shall

commence on March 2, 2020, and end on June 4, 2020, but all other aspects of the

parliamentary calendar for 2020 as issued in 2019 shall remain unchanged.

MR. SPEAKER:

Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

I hate to do this to the

Minister of Transportation and Works but –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE:

Please don't take it

personal, and there's no collusion here. I'm a bit more independent these days.

Mr.

Speaker, no need to read the prayer of the petition. I'm just going to stand up,

Mr. Speaker, again, and I understand that some of the staff have been in contact

with our office and some people in the local areas to get some of this work done

before the winter season steps in.

I'll

just go through a few things, Mr. Speaker, that you can mark down also when we

visited the site back in 2018 was the brook out in Little Port Road. I know when

the report came back it said debris has been cleared in part of it, and across

the road, the whole ditch was filled in because of it and that has been cleared,

but I just want to let you know that the gabion basket, as in the report that

you'll see from the regional office, is out a long ways. The rocks have been

pushed out of the gabion basket.

What

happened in spring this year is that there was a lot of debris and a lot of the

ice built up in that area and that caused flooding across the road, and that

gabion basket, which was caused by the flood, needs to be repaired because there

is still flooding across the road. Once it hooks up the ice and debris, it flows

over the road, not through the culverts that were cleaned.

The

other thing is, as I mentioned to you, a lot of the potholes that were in John's

Beach that, hopefully, was going to be fixed last year, and I mentioned it to

the minister and he's going to have a look at, is in some of the areas with the

heavy equipment and with the tractors that were in the area, they'll be fixed

this year. I know the parts in Frenchman's Cove have been done, the big contract

in Frenchman's Cove and I will be forwarding about the John's Beach brook.

A lot of

the work is getting done. I know they called yesterday about the gabion baskets

that two of them weren't cleaned out. I understand the minister is asking to see

if they can be done by local contractors as soon as possible, because when the

spring comes and the rocks are rolling off the hills, Mr. Speaker, it will be a

bit too late.

I just

want to know that the minister is working with the people and just advise the

people on the South Shore that the minister is getting some of this work done.

We'll get as much work as we can done before we get some funds from the rural

and northern fund to fix John's Beach in the Mount Moriah area.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works with a response.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

I'll keep it going.

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for the petition. We're committed to Route 450

and the work that needs to be done there, as we are committed to routes and

roads all through the province – 2,100 kilometres, $750 million, $150 million

this construction season alone.

Mr.

Speaker, we're going to address some of these concerns around the gabion baskets

with the contractor this fall. We realize there are some other issues with the

gabion baskets being pushed out. That would have to be part of next year's

construction season. We've already had a commitment under the new northern and

rural program to do a tender next year in the John's Beach area.

I've

also asked staff to go back and have a look at the whole area of Route 450 in

the Bay of Islands to make sure that we're capturing other things that have

happened, subsequent to the January 2018 storm, because we're still seeing

damages caused from that storm. We had a slip just this year, I think, in the

Copper Mine Brook area that wasn't attributed to the storm, but probably was a

part of that storm. So we know there are ongoing issues there, Mr. Speaker, but

we're committing to resolving those issues.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the Member

for Placentia West - Bellevue, I just want to say the noise level in the House

is a little too high. I ask Members to keep the noise level down so we can all

hear what the Members are presenting on behalf of their constituents.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Transportation and Works is going to love me. This petition, again,

is for the Minister of Transportation and Works, about Swift Current. Like my

colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands, I won't rehash the petition, just for

the simple fact that I've presented it several times.

But a

couple of things just came to light, obviously, through Question Period and

stuff like that. I think what we're looking at here, more than anything, is that

we've been told that this was a plan that was going to go over two years, over

two construction seasons.

MR. SPEAKER:

I hesitate to interrupt the

Member, but it's a requirement of our Standing Orders that the –

MR. DWYER:

To read it?

MR. SPEAKER:

– that you read the petition.

I should've called the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands on that as well.

Sorry.

MR. DWYER:

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I knew

the Minister of Transportation and Works would want me to read it out anyway, I

was trying to save him a little.

The

reasons for this petition are that: Highway 210 is the main road going through

the community of Swift Current.

The

Department of Transportation and Works currently are working on a two-year

project – that I think I just found out in Question Period, when it was

retendered, I understand now that it's a one-year project – on Highway 210 from

Garden Cove towards Pipers Hole, putting in an extra turning lane for Garden

Cove.

The

current tender for the highway work includes Highway 210 only. The side roads of

Swift Current are not included.

The side

roads in Swift Current are in deplorable conditions. The side roads have not

been repaved since the initial paving in the early 1970s. The side roads which

were used to divert traffic and store equipment during the current tendered

construction contract are in worse shape now due to the extensive traffic it

endured.

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 consider paving/upgrading our side roads, including

Darby's Cove, Sharpe's Lane, Maple Crescent, Old Church Road, Academy Hill,

Hollett's Point and Shoal Cove Heights in Swift Current to the current existing

road upgrade project as an add-on.

Just to

reiterate, I guess, where I started was that even in the petition we're under

the understanding that it was a two-year plan; now it's gone back to a one-year

plan. Absolutely no discrepancies or anything like that, Mr. Speaker, on the

work that's being done there because Farrell's construction is actually doing an

excellent job. I thank the minister that they actually got the contract. There's

absolutely nothing wrong with workmanship, Mr. Speaker. I would absolutely say

that.

I think

the thing is that there was no consultation with the local service district.

Consultation before the commencement of the next construction season would be

greatly appreciated, Mr. Minister. Would I be able to get that commitment for

consultation with any public works projects that are slated for Placentia West -

Bellevue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member's time has

expired.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works for a response.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

One of

the reasons why this project actually looks to be turning into more of a

one-year project versus a two-year project is because of the terrific work that

the contractor is doing. This was a contract for 11 kilometres, and it seems now

the contractor is actually going to get, at least, most of this work, maybe not

the surface coat, but a lot of the work that we had hoped to do over two years,

the contractor has performed so well and the weather has co-operated that we'll get

it done over one year.

Mr. Speaker, our commitment to Route 210 is very clear.

We had a business case approved for Route 210, I think some time in June, for

some $20-plus million; a continuing commitment to that route. One of the things

we recognize about Route 210 is we have some great international trade, great

jobs happening there now that's going to benefit us in the trade world. We're

going to be looking at continuing to expand on Route 210. We see the

developments in St. Lawrence, the developments in Marystown and further

developments on the Burin Peninsula that require this route.

Mr. Speaker, the Member references consultation with

municipalities or local service governments. While that is something we would

love to do, the reality is we are paving almost 1,000 lane kilometres a year.

They're within our right-of-ways and we (inaudible) to get the work done.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. Member's time has expired.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS.

EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new ferry

schedule for 2019 cuts our transport

service in half. This is a drastic reduction. We are isolated for seven months

of the year. To have a ferry steam past within a mile of our dock is doing us a

great injustice.

We will lose a reliable and affordable service that can

connect us to the South and beyond. We also stand to lose the Cartwright,

Newfoundland and Labrador connection to a highway that leads us, in a timely

manner, to other parts of the province. We utilize the ferry service at every

opportunity. It is the only economical means of travel and freight provision

that is provided to our community by the province for five months of the year.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: We, the undersigned residents of Rigolet, Newfoundland and Labrador,

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

Labrador to reinstate the ferry service to include our community on the South

Coast run.

I'm standing here presenting another petition about

transportation. Why is transportation so important? Well, first off, we have six

communities in my district that are totally isolated. The only means of

transportation is either the expensive air or the marine passenger ferry.

Standing here I also want to say this petition is not

about asking for something new. What the residents of Rigolet are asking for is

for something that was taken away from them without public consultation. They've

always been included in the South Coast run. They have friends and relatives,

their travel plans all focus around being able to access the Cartwright - Black

Tickle run. Cartwright is actually tied to the Trans-Labrador Highway, which is

another means of transportation for them. It's very, very important for them to

be able to access this ferry.

I also want to bring attention to the fact that my

district is the only district, I think – one of the few districts – that's

entirely isolated with no road access.

Why do we have to tolerate

this deplorable transportation, costly air? I've said in the House many, many

times how expensive it is and it's quite shocking to people, but looking at the

marine transportation it's an affordable transportation cost to my people.

Six

Indigenous communities having to withstand deplorable service. The service has

failed and it's obvious to us. It's impacting our food security but, more

importantly, in relation to this petition it's isolating us totally. I think

that we really need to talk about the elephant in the room. Why is this allowed

to happen? Why six Indigenous communities where they still speak their language,

the Innu people, the Inuit people and we're still isolated? We're not only

isolated without roads, we're isolated by a failure from government to provide

us adequate consultation and adequate service. I say it's a failure to

Indigenous people.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I'm not trying to set a record today.

Mr.

Speaker, to the Member opposite's comments; we've seen a lot of challenges this

year with the structure of the ferry service itself. This January or early

February we're going to be convening a meeting of the users with the company,

everybody involved.

I extend

an invitation to the Member opposite to be a part of that conversation of how we

structure the

schedule going into next season, if that means we include Rigolet

in a South Coast run, if there's a way to do that, Mr. Speaker. I offer a

sincere invitation to the Member opposite to be a part of that discussion this

winter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further Petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CROCKER:

Roundabouts.

MR. LANE:

No, nothing for the Minister

of Transportation. The roundabouts are working just fine now.

There

have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,

whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,

not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for

extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

To urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which

includes the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three

residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities

housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive

debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from

injuries, proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would

include the creation of a specific job position in these facilities for

monitoring and intervention as required, to ensure the safety of patients.

Mr.

Speaker, all the signatories here today are from Labrador. They're all from Lab

City and Wabush. This is certainly a petition now I have presented – I don't

know how many times – a lot. It was initiated by a group called Advocates for

Senior Citizen's Rights. As the prayer of the petition says, what they are

looking for is a guarantee in legislation – not regulations, not health

authority policy which can be changed on a whim, but in legislation – to

guarantee certain ratios for the safety of their loved ones who are in long-term

care. Specifically, for people with Alzheimer's disease, dementia and other

cognitive debilitating conditions.

That's

what they're looking for. There have been many, many stories – if you go on

there they have a website, a Facebook page. If you go on there you can see all

the stories from all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador where people have gone

into the long-term care facilities and found their loved ones who may not have

been fed. Not because nobody wanted to feed them, not because there was no food,

but because the food was left on the bedside. They'd show up at dinnertime and

breakfast was still there because there was no staff person to actually feed

their mother and father and they weren't able to do it for themselves. Or to

find them in conditions where they're basically zoned out, overmedicated or

strapped into chairs in these facilities because there's not enough staff there

to let them wander around the area, to take care of them and make sure that

they're not aggressive towards each other or that they don't fall and hurt

themselves.

Those

are the issues. We can build all the long-term care facilities we need – and

certainly we do need them, we recognize that – but if they're not going to be

staffed appropriately, then we are doing a real disservice to the people of our

province. As I said many times, these people that we're talking about, they're

our grandparents, they're our parents and one day, yes, maybe you and I.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You're

going to have to bear with me for just one second because the Government House

Leader left me unprepared.

Mr.

Speaker, I call for third reading of Bill 18.

apologize for my not being prepared.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 18,

An Act

Respecting The Demise Of The Crown, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that Bill 18,

An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown, be now read a

third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Demise Of The Crown. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown,” read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 9.

This is

on the Order Paper, number three.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into

Committee of the Whole with respect to the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Bennett):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.” (Bill 9)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I only

have a couple questions so I won't take very long.

How was

this error detected?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, the error was

detected within the department in some consultation with the legislative

drafters after.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Are you aware if anyone has

been impacted by the error since the initial legislation was passed in April?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

No, nothing has been brought to our attention, but when we noted the error, we

figured it was in the best interest of the general public to correct it as soon

as possible.

CHAIR:

Seeing no other questions.

Shall

clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 2 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The

Automobile Insurance Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 9 without

amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

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

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move

that the Committee rise and report Bill 9.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 9.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 9 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matter to them referred

and have directed him to report Bill 9 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

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

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 4, Committee of the Whole.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that we go to Committee of the Whole on

An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province, Bill

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole and consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Bennett):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 13,

An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading

In The Province.

A bill,

“An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province.” (Bill

13)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr.

Chair, I have spoken on this in second reading and I was on the Committee. I've

had a lot of conversation on this piece of legislation, back and forth and with

officials, with the industry, I guess doing my own homework on it and whatnot. I

expressed in second reading the concerns I had – or have, I should I say. I

think they're legitimate concerns, and I just want to go back to a few things

that I think are important to hit on, to be on record for.

We went

through original Committee stage with the department and we had the industry,

NLAR, in, and then we had someone from the public come in. Then we called them

back for a second Committee meeting. We went to the Committee Room; we had

meetings up there.

questions have always been about the mortgage broker/real estate broker

transactions on the same transaction for the buyer and seller, which is the

sticking point in clause 28 in the prohibition. That's clouded the full bill for

me. I've continually asked, and I'm on record – and I've read through

Hansard and what have you – and I was

never given an answer up until Tuesday, asking the minister: Can you justify why

you don't want that part of the legislation? I was never given an answer.

I was in

this Chamber and I had colleagues, Members opposite, and some of it's written

here in this stating why, basically agreeing what I agreed. They couldn't

understand, why can't you allow mortgage brokers to be part of the act? It's in

Hansard , on the same page as I was,

and no one was giving us any answers.

Then

when we moved from here to a Committee Room upstairs, the tone changed, the

argument changed. I was always at a loss, and I kept asking: Why are we

changing? If it's not broke, why are we fixing it? Can you give me examples? Can

you justify why you want that out? No, NLAR wants it out. They're opposed to it.

Consumer protection; valid points, but it's not the home run that I – why do you

need that out?

The

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune was quoted in

Hansard , clearly quoted in Government Services Committee

Hansard , September 30, 2019: “I would

have loved to have been a mortgage broker on a lot of transactions because I

would've been equipped more with information and, therefore, in line

representing my client to the best of my ability and to represent them. Because

at the end of the day, the real estate industry is very competitive, no doubt

about it. It's how I'm going to represent, say, if Alison is my customer, my

client, I want her to be my client forever and ever, amen. So, it is, I guess,

complex.

“You

mentioned control. I don't like that word because it makes it seem like we're

doing something wrong here. The industry is a good industry, but I think, for

me, I would weigh towards the agent being a mortgage broker is going to equip

him or her to represent the client. At the end of the day, for me, I want to

hold on to that client and do the best I can. So it's about equipping that

agent.”

That's

coming from a former real estate agent who totally supports in that commentary,

when we were in this Chamber in the Committee stage, of leaving that there – as

was I, as were others. We hit the Committee Room and that was changed. Somewhere

along life's road there was an influence on changing their opinion.

The

reason I'm going down this road is I believe in the Committee stage; I do

believe in a Committee stage. Our leader has asked for it, and we all think – I

thought it was a great experience, but if we're going to make things better and

have true committees, we have to have some level of independence.

Obviously, somebody got to them that never got to me, and got them to switch

their views or change their opinions. There was nothing shared from my side.

When we got through the debate things were changed, and we had a healthy debate.

Then when we got to the end of the Committee stage, before we were bringing it

back here, there was a majority decision – and I heard commentary, the minister,

we had a committee. Your Committee should have ironed this out before it ever

came back to the House. I totally agreed.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment stated so when he sat in on a

meeting. He said: Shouldn't we have a unanimous decision? I agreed, but I'm not

going to agree to make it a unanimous decision because everyone are happy and we

have to put on a facade that this Committee is great. No, I don't agree. On

principle, I will not agree. If I don't agree with something I'm not going to

agree for the sake of agreeing, but that's the way it felt.

So here

the minister gets up yesterday or whenever, Tuesday, during second reading and

made a reference of the fact that the Committee made this decision, the

Committee supported the bill being referred back to the House and no

recommendations. The majority, which happened to be the governing party, decided

that.

Like I

said when I spoke in second reading, I can do math. I just accepted it. If

anyone were to take it and answered in that meeting, they would have quickly

picked up that's exactly what I said.

It's

bothersome, because if we're going to go forward and as we go on over the years

in this government, whoever is in power, and we're going to do committees, we

have a lot of work to do. I think it's a great idea, it's a great concept and

good things come of it, but I think a caution to everybody is there needs to be

a level of independence.

You're

sending a bill to committee for a reason. Government, bureaucracy with your

minister's direction, has developed this legislation with industry or what have

you. Then they feel they're comfortable, they've gone through the review.

They're going to send it to this Committee. That's what the Committee is about.

You look

in Ottawa, they do Committee stage. They give them back with 100

recommendations. Now, they might not accept them all. They might get back and

they might be voted down in the House. They're accepting these changes; whether

they accept them or not, they're accepting there are 100 recommendations.

Whether they accept them, that's a separate issue. The Senate does the same

thing. That's a committee. That's what we signed up for.

Not when

you leave one Chamber and you go to the next room a week later and the view has

changed because someone, obviously, influenced their view, and you're asking:

Can you explain to me why? I'm not getting any answers.

backtrack to Tuesday; I'm having a conversation, you're back and forth – that's

part of this stuff. Can we agree to something? Is there a way? So back and forth

with the minister having a very open conversation, that's great. That's what the

Legislature is about. I think it's great. In a minority government it's even

better.

Yesterday, upon entering the House, an email comes back. Now, it was all: I'll

talk to you tomorrow. We're going to look at it, I'll talk about it. That's

fine, I don't expect an answer right away.

I get a

news release. We're only gone through second reading, we're not gone through

Committee. This bill is not passed yet. We're going through the process. We went

through second reading. There was no big hang-up in second reading because it

was a fluid conversation and we went through it pretty quickly.

A news

release comes out stating the bill has gone through second reading and these are

the recommendations – even though I had an issue with one of those

recommendations. I'm like: Is there a common courtesy? I know it doesn't have to

be anything; to each their own. I would provide the common courtesy to say we're

not going to make any adjustments, this is the way it stands. That's fine. I

wasn't offered that.

So in my

conversation with colleagues opposite here, we were almost like, okay, well I

guess there's no change. We have to accept it, which is not in keeping with the

way I like to operate but fair enough.

I had my

opinion on the mortgage broker/real estate broker piece, and I still do. I

really do, but in saying that, I had the pleasure this morning to meet once

again with NLAR, and to their credit, they highlighted a very important point

that was not given to me before, as much as I asked.

It's a

very important lesson, I think, learned here that government needs to start

paying attention to. They provided me with information that I asked government.

Had government not known, that's fine. They should've known. They ought to have

known. There's no excuse.

This

legislation – I'm not impressed by it, because this went through the Committee,

and this is the poster child of committee – we're going through Committee for

the first time in 20-some-odd years or what have you. It's all good, but do your

work. The NLAR met with me, we had a discussion. I went in that meeting and I

was like, no way, because I am a bit stubborn and I get galvanized in my opinion

and it was like, no one is changing my mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. PETTEN:

I know, yes, you hear that. At least I'm being honest. There's no put-on here,

it's pretty straightforward. You got it. They all know me.

But I

went in and I sat down and I was open minded. They gave me two or three very

important aspects that no one ever told me, but government ought to have known

that.

If we're

going to truly have a Committee stage, we're going to go through Committee with

this legislation and we're going to sit in this Chamber and we're going to ask

questions, whether it be Service NL or Education or Municipal Affairs, be

equipped.

I did

sit on that side. I wasn't in the Chamber. I was there, I sat in on the

legislation, I know. You do your homework. You have a group of officials behind

you. Give justified reasons.

Am I not

worthy enough for an answer to a serious question, because we're Opposition or

we're that other crowd? I don't know, what is it? I wasn't told. The Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune had a totally different opinion – as for a couple of

his colleagues, but he especially did – from what he did here in the Chamber.

Obviously, he was told something that wasn't shared with me. What is it? Is it

something in the industry that I'm not privy to?

If we're

going to have committees, if you're going to bring stuff to committee, do the

homework on it. Whoever is responsible should do homework, because I think what

NLAR provided me today was a very important piece of information that they ought

to have told me, I should have known. Would have made this conversation and

argument and debate go a lot better.

When you

go out into public and people ask you about any of this legislation stuff, you

want to be able to talk with confidence, especially if you're involved in it

like I've been through this process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

You should know what you're

talking about, but you're not informed. Not only not informed, then there are

games being played, when you're coming into the House of Assembly and you get

this news release 1:25 p.m. There's no respect. That's what it is, Mr. Chair,

there's no respect.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Dismissive.

MR. PETTEN:

It's dismissing you. You're

asking a question.

Another

point, it made its way through me, I heard back through this grapevine. It's a

grapevine so people need to be careful what they say because it always trickles

back through, we've learned that along the way. Me, being MHA for CBS – I'm not

allowed to use my name – he got friends in the industry. Oh, yeah, he must have

friends in the industry. That's why he's fighting for this.

Well,

I'll be on record, Mr. Chair, I don't know any mortgage brokers. There's one

person I'm an acquaintance with and I have never worked with her in my life. I

don't have any real estate brokers as friends.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Shameful.

MR. PETTEN:

I know real estate brokers,

and the king of shame is back shaming me.

Anyway,

I find that offensive. It is offensive. I don't have no motive. I come in this

Legislature and I do take offence to that. I come in this Legislature, I come in

and I ask questions, you do your debate, you do your role. You do whatever, your

petitions, but I come here to represent the people who elected me and when we do

legislation this affects every resident of the province. You're trying to make a

piece of legislation better. That's all.

If you

feel that something is not right, you can agree for the sake of agreeing but, at

the end of the day, that's not where we need to be. If we're going to do

committees, if we're going to make these committees meaningful, if we're going

to do this in a respectful manner, which it should be, it shouldn't be

controlled by the majority of government. It should be controlled by six people

in a room sitting down and hashing this out, having serious conversations,

making sense of it. Then we'll come back here in a united front and say: We

agreed with everything, but this one here we're not comfortable with because we

weren't given the right answers.

We were

not given justified answers in our Committee to keep that in the legislation.

Evidence shows in Hansard it wasn't

there. It changed after the fact but I was not privy to being told why. I was

not being privy to being told why. It wasn't privy to me. That is wrong.

I used

up my time, but I wanted to make that clear, what happened during this Committee

stage, I think it's a great concept, I hope we continue on but, it should be

some lessons learned because this crowd over here, as we're referred to –

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

level of conversation is getting too loud.

Thank

you.

MR. PETTEN:

That's right, Mr. Chair, they

don't want to listen.

We're

paying attention, we pay attention, but I'll also say something else the public

pays attention, too. Never lose sight of that. Never lose sight that people

actually watch this Legislature because I think a lot of Members don't think

they do. Trust me, they do. They pay attention to the Legislature. They watch

what's going on. They actually listen. I hear that a lot of times, I'm just as

surprised myself. I'm like, you really listen to this? They listen and no one

likes that stuff. No one likes this stuff to happen and be treated.

So, I'm

on record as saying my total displeasure with how this all unfolded, but on that

note, we have questions, but we will be supporting this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

I thank NLAR for providing

clarification.

This is

a good piece of legislation, but had we been told all the facts upfront and had

the minister and her department done the proper amount of work and research, we

would've had this solved a while ago and saved everyone a lot of time.

On that

note, Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

apologize that the Member for Conception Bay South feels offended by the news

release yesterday, but the news release actually said: “Legislation to modernize

the Real Estate Trading Act to benefit both consumers and real estate

professionals has gone through second reading in the House of Assembly.”

wasn't debated; we weren't in Committee, and the bill wasn't confirmed or

passed. I'm sure the Member opposite knew that when he read the news release,

Mr. Chair.

There

were a number of questions that the Member for Conception Bay South had there.

My departmental staff, in fact, held a briefing, and two Members from the PC

Party attended the briefing. The Member for Conception Bay South could have

attended the briefing also if he wasn't satisfied with the Government Services

Committee process.

MR. PETTEN:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, he's asking what

the dual agency and dual licensing difference is. I'm going to enter the

complete difference into the House of Assembly. I've got 14 minutes here now.

The

definition of a dual agency, Mr. Chair, is when the salesperson represents both

the seller and the buyer of a property, but dual licensing means when a broker

or a salesperson is also licensed to provide the service, for example, under the

Mortgage Brokers Act .

The

conflicts, Mr. Chair – the Member is leaving – a potential conflict may arise

when the seller expects the salesperson to obtain the highest price possible for

the property whereby the buyer expects a salesperson to get the lowest possible

price, Mr. Chair. This may be further complicated when there are issues

regarding financing, inspections or other conditions.

With

dual licensing, the conflict says the dually licensed real estate salesperson

and mortgage broker would receive compensation on both the transactions, Mr.

Chair. It may be challenging for the client to understand and differentiate the

cost and the fees in order to make an informed decision whether to bundle the

services with one provider. Situations may also arise where the clients feel

pressured to complete a transaction without understanding the longer term risks,

for example, increasing interest rates or fluctuating property values, Mr.

Chair.

In the

consultation process that was completed under dual agency, the response to

banning dual agency was mixed in the What

We Heard document, and only 28 per cent was in favour. This document was

done when the previous PC government did the consultations in 2012-13.

Dual

licensing, 83 per cent of respondents to the

What We Heard survey on the engageNL felt that a salesperson should

not also be registered under the Mortgage

Brokers Act .

The

recommendation that came forward, Mr. Chair, was that banning dual agency could

pose challenges for clients in rural and remote parts of the province and

recommending clear disclosure to clients to ensure that they are aware of the

potential for conflicts of interest. The recommendation for dual licensing was

recommending a restriction from acting both as a real estate salesperson and a

mortgage broker for the same client on a transaction.

Mr.

Chair, my understanding is that the Government Services Committee process worked

really well, except there wasn't a consensus on this particular clause 28. I am

sure as we go forward with all the bills that we are going to put to the

Government Services Committee that this is going to come up again, where

everyone within the Committee does not agree.

The

information came back to my department. My department reviewed the information

they received and based on What We Heard ,

based on the information from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of

Realtors, based on the consultations that we completed, we felt it was in the

best interest for the protection of consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador to

leave 28 in place as we proposed it, Mr. Chair. Therefore, our government

decided that we would come into the House of Assembly and we would debate it in

Committee that 28 should remain.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm

going to stand and speak for just two minutes on this bill and say I will be

supporting the bill. As the former minister of Service NL, we know there are a

lot of regulations within the department that needs to be upgraded and brought

up to modern times. The protection of consumers is the big thing here. So I just

want to say that I will be supporting the bill.

I just

find it kind of ironic – and before I say that, before I say my point, myself

and the independent, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, we had a briefing

this morning and a discussion this morning with the deputy minister and her

staff and they did a great job. So I just want to recognize that we sat down

with the staff. They answered every question we had. They gave us the amount of

time as we needed. We had a great discussion with the deputy and the people in

the room. So I just want to recognize that they were very open and we pushed

back on a few issues, but they came forth and they gave us the information.

I just

want to say, by no means, am I going to be saying that everything in this bill

is correct. We cannot put anything in place that's going to protect 100 per

cent, no minister can. This minister can't, no minister can, but what you can do

is do it to the best of your ability to cut down the possibility of any paper

fraud. This is what this bill is bringing in, is minimizing the possibility and

protecting the consumer which is very important.

I will

be supporting the bill and, again, I just wanted to give a little shout-out to

the deputy and the staff at the office for their time and patience. When you're

there and you know this is coming up and there's a possibility of amendments

made, they want to make sure you have all the information and we want to make

sure we had all the information.

Also to

the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors, I spoke to them and I had

a very great conversation with one of their people also. They were giving us

information also.

Then, as

the former minister of Service NL, I had a good idea about this legislation, a

good idea of the consumer protection part of it. This was all encompassing for

my conclusion that I will be supporting the bill.

I just

have to mention something here. We're all elected in this House of Assembly and

we all have input in this. There is no one here – we all have the right to be

part of this, but what I find so funny is we see the Opposition Member and the

minister going back and forth and talking about the Government Service Committee

– so funny, two people in this Legislature, the two independents, not even on

the Committee. Not invited to it. Not even a part of it.

Two

people here – and I know I'm probably one of the longest if not the longest, not

in the House but probably the first one ever to get elected, not on the

committee, with the knowledge. This Member here has been here now what, nine

years?

MR. LANE:

Nine years.

MR. JOYCE:

Nine years, not on the

Committee, yet here they're going back and forth how we have to have a consensus

here in this House of Assembly. It is something to think about.

I'll

just give a good example. This morning, myself and the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands went up, had a great discussion with the deputy minister and staff

and we got enlightened a bit more, and we had some questions about this.

This is

why you can't just close in on the government Members, the Third Party and the

Opposition because there's going to come a time when myself and the Member for

Mount Pearl - Southlands, there may come up a time when they're going to need

our aye or nay. As two Members who have been in this Legislature, we want to

make sure that we have the best information possible to make the decision. But

if you're actually cut out of the process, forget two of them, there will come a

time, mark my words, I've been in this place long enough –

MR. LANE:

Could have been this time.

MR. JOYCE:

Could have been this time.

Again,

part of the reason, I gave the Opposition some information. I said go check some

of this out, as I knew. Sure enough, came back, we just got the information this

morning what I was saying yesterday.

So this

is just a caution to this Legislature, is that – and I'm the type, if you're

going to make a decision, stand up and make it, be a person strong enough to

stand up and make it, but also you need the best information possible to make

the decision. So I'll just say to the government, please take that into account,

somewhere take that into account, that's all. But I will be supporting this

bill. I think it's the best that could come in, that the minister could bring in

to protect the consumers.

I think,

also, from the Association of Realtors' point of view, this is a saw-off for

them also. There are some things there they didn't want, some things they

wanted. But this is more something, okay, we can live with, because I'm sure

there are other things they wanted to push. I'm sure there are some individuals

that say, okay, we don't want this done, but this is something that you can say,

okay, we can live with and we can work with.

Also,

with the department, I know they're saying that, look, we can't guarantee, but

this is the best that we can put in there. We all agree, there's no legislation

in this House that's going to be foolproof, but you do the best of your ability

to ensure and minimize the risk to the consumers, and I think this bill here is

doing that.

I just

want to thank the department and the Association of Realtors, and my colleague,

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, for arranging the meeting this morning

with the department. My final point, and I know I'm repeating myself, but I have

to get it through. There will come a time that myself or the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands is going to have to make a tough decision. If we don't have

the right information, we may make the wrong decision. So I'm just throwing this

out with no criticism to anybody, but just remember, this is in a minority

situation where you may need us. If anybody, for or against, we need to make

sure we have the right information before we make the decision.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

I just have a few questions

here, Mr. Chair.

Outside

the engageNL portal, who was originally consulted in drafting the bill?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

So the Member opposite is

asking me who was consulted in drafting – or rewriting the entire act, I should

say, the entire bill.

The

engageNL portal, we used the information we received from the previous

administration, 2012-2013 and we also had consultations with NLAR. They also did

their own consultations throughout the province, which I attended one, but my

staff attended many.

CHAIR:

The Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Did you consult other

professionals related to the industry such as lawyers, mortgage brokers, home

inspectors, appraisers and property appraisers?

CHAIR:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, when you're

writing a bill as such, JPS is always consulted and all departments within

government are consulted as it goes through the process, through Committee,

through Cabinet, back to Cabinet and probably back to Cabinet two or three

times. Each time, the departments and Justice and Public Safety are consulted

within government.

Did we

consult? We put it on the engageNL portal so everyone out there who wanted to

voice their opinion – I think there were 90 people, actually, responded to the

survey, Mr. Chair. Within that, it was classified as real estate sales, buyers

and general public.

CHAIR:

The Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

When will the regulations be publicly available?

CHAIR:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, one of the amendments that I'm about to put forward on clause 54 will

move the act to come into force September 1. In the original act it was January

1 but this was if we were to bring the bill into the House of Assembly in the

spring session. Of course, as the Member opposite knows, it went to the

Government Services Committee and here we are now in November.

CHAIR:

The Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

What is your plan to inform and educate the industry participants and the public

about the contents of this new act? How do you intend to make sure they

understand the legislation?

CHAIR:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, we'll be working with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of

Realtors as we move forward with the regulations and drafting the regulations.

Twitter and stuff just to inform the public. There is a news release, as you

know, that went out yesterday and probably another one will go out when we get

the bill passed.

Usually,

it's the individuals that are involved and engaged in this industry because it's

an act and it's pretty complicated. It's primarily the Newfoundland and Labrador

Association of Realtors, but there are also some people in the general public

that will be interested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

The Government Services Committee recommended that government review the

Mortgage Brokers Act . When will that

occur?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

That was one of the recommendations that came through the process and I

certainly understand why now, Mr. Chair. We are going to take it under

consideration. As the Member opposite would know, the Department of Service NL

has a significant amount of legislation, so we will definitely be adding it to

the roster and review for further determination.

I can't

exactly give you a date because you know the number of pieces of legislation

that we're working on.

CHAIR:

The Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

This is

not in the scope of that but related to it. NLAR is also advocating for

regulation of property inspectors. Is this something government is considering?

CHAIR:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

We've had some conversation

with NLAR and we're waiting. I don't know if the paper is in from them yet, I

haven't been advised. It may be. Just waiting on a draft paper for my staff to

evaluate and then there will be further discussion.

CHAIR:

The Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just

going to have a couple of comments. My colleague borrowed my bill.

I don't

want to make it too repetitive. I, too, will be supporting the bill, Mr. Chair.

I think overall it's a good bill. It's something that certainly needed to be

done. One of the things I take from this is that I've always said – I think a

lot of Members have always said – did you consult with the stakeholders, the

people who are going to be impacted most by this?

Certainly there were a lot of consultations. I actually attended one of the

consultations myself. I can't remember if it was the Holiday Inn or the Airport

Inn. I think it might have been the Airport Inn that was held by NLAR when they

were discussing all of these things, so I had a pretty good idea what it was all

about when it came forward. I certainly supported it in principle.

On the

clause in particular that was a little contentious, I would say I do have some

mixed views on it. Certainly, NLAR, what they wanted was that you could not be a

real estate agent and also be a mortgage broker at all. What the government

changed it to was that you could, but not on the same transaction. That was sort

of the compromise position.

NLAR

actually wanted to go and take it further, that you had to choose one or the

other, but they are satisfied with the compromise position that's been chosen. I

can see both sides of it. From the perspective of protecting the public,

consumer protection, I think the full separation would be better again.

There

are other things that could have been changed in here. One of the concerns I

still have, to some degree, it's a matter of how far do you take it in terms of

the consumer protection. Even with what's been proposed here, you could have a

situation – for example, we're saying that it would be a conflict of interest

for one individual to be the real estate agent and to be the mortgage broker.

We're saying it's a conflict of interest; that's why we're not allowing it on

that transaction.

Even

under this legislation, you could have a husband and wife, as an example. I'm

the real estate agent and my wife is the mortgage broker or vice versa and that,

even with this legislation, is allowed. While that's not something that's been

pushed by NLAR and it's not in this – and maybe it's something at some point may

evolve – personally I can see a big conflict and have an issue with that

because, really, it's almost like the whole blind trust thing.

believe blind trust is total BS, in my opinion, because you're depending on the

fact that, in this case, husband and wife, and you're representing the exact

same person. I know the financial information and my wife is trying to do the

sale and we're depending on the fact that they're never going to talk about it.

They'll never mention it across the supper table; they'll never mention it lying

in bed. It will never come up. It will never come up because they're going to

draw that line that this is a conflict. I can't talk to you about that honey,

that's what we're saying.

When you

look at it that way, or even in the case of in the same office, somebody has a

business and you have a mortgage broker here. I'm at this desk and the real

estate agent is at that desk and we're still dealing with the exact same person.

We're just kind of, on a leap of faith, hoping that there are morals and ethics

and all that good stuff – which I'm sure there is 99 per cent of the time.

Although we've seen an example, a very high-profile example where that wasn't

the case, so absolutely it can happen, but we're depending on the fact that I'm

not going to talk to the person sat right here about that same individual. I'm

not going to share information.

Even

with what's here I see gaps in terms of consumer protection. I would like to see

those gaps closed, personally. With that said, NLAR has not asked for it. It's

not here and there are a lot of good improvements. I'm not going to vote against

doing something good because it doesn't go all the way. I'm going to vote for

doing something good and I'm going to encourage the government to look at these

other issues and perhaps close those gaps as well, because it's all supposed to

be about consumer protection.

With

that said, Mr. Chair, just to reiterate, I will be supporting the bill. I would

echo the comments of my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands about the whole

Committee structure and the fact that while we're having a little bit of a back

and forth over how the Committee work went and the meetings of the Committee,

all this happened and myself and my colleague weren't even offered the

opportunity to be part of it.

Even if

we weren't voting Members of the Committee, we should at least have been given

the opportunity to attend the meetings, hear what was being said and offer our

input. Who cares if we couldn't vote on it? We all know when the vote comes it's

going to be the majority is on the government side. They're going to vote for it

one way anyway, more than likely. If it's being done totally right and everyone

agrees, it'll be a consensus anyway.

whether I have a vote or not, I should've had the opportunity to participate, as

did my colleague. If we chose not to go and not participate, fine, that's our

right, but as duly-elected people, elected by the people – not someone who was

elected to a party and then left, or got banished or whatever the case might be

– duly-elected by the people as an independent Member, we should've had

opportunity to be on those committees if we wanted to and to participate, and I

do want to reiterate that point.

As my

colleague said, it would make a big difference. Do the math. I would say, do the

math. There are 20 Members over here, 20 Members over there. One person in the

Speaker's Chair, we're down to 19. Another person at the head of the table here,

we're down to 18. The Minister of Justice off on leave, we're down to 17. Guess

what? If there was a major amendment to turn this around and it could've come to

myself and the Member for Bay of Islands and could've totally taken this off the

rails and off track. That's not what we want to do, because as I said to the

minister – and I know my colleague feels the same – we want to do the right

thing.

politics here; I couldn't care less about it. I really couldn't, but it is

important to understand, particularly – it should be a given. Whether it's a

minority or a majority, it shouldn't matter. We should all have input. We should

all be given that respect, but specifically, in this minority situation, more

than ever, we have the ability, these two chairs here, to determine how things

are going to go.

In the

future, we would ask for the courtesy and the respect to be part of the process

and given all the information so we can make informed decisions.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a

couple of questions, if I may, with regard to the cost or the potential

financial impact on the people buying, the consumer. I see here, a lot of

these, it looks like there are going to be administrative costs associated with

this, whether it's collection of fines, whether it's the setting up of training and continuing education.

I'm assuming most real estate brokers and salespersons have errors and omissions

liability insurance, but maybe some of them don't. Establishing a real estate

recovery fund, I can see an awful lot of administrative costs and requirements

coming into this.

Has

there been any discussion or costing out of the potential impact on a

transaction? I would assume these costs, then, would be passed on to the

consumer, to the person buying the house and sometimes to the person buying the

house for the first time. Has there been any discussion or costing out or

analysis of potential impacts of these on the person buying the homes?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, I would just like

to respond to a question the previous MHA had about code of conduct, or an

indication. I just want to let him know for the House that the REALTOR Code

exists. It's effective March 2016, and it was the Canadian Real Estate

Association that put this forward. Within this code, it actually does talk about

code of conduct and conduct unbecoming and such. So there is actually a document

and a code the realtors follow. NLAR follows this.

For the

second lot of questions: What are the fees that are required to work as a

salesperson? I guess it's the fees around the process. It's $1 million for

errors and omission, but under the current legislation an individual would be

required to pay about $2,000 to become licensed as a salesperson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

The costs are as follows: The

licensing exam is $1,500; the annual licence fee is $200, and the salesperson

bond, at present, is $160. Others costs could include NLAR fees if you're a

member. Of course, the errors and omissions, which is required, that's

approximately, it says, about $400 per year. Let's see if there's – yeah, so the

annual bond fee then will be replaced, of course, by the recovery fund that's in

this piece of legislation.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Just to clarify. I understand

that's right, there would be fees, but I'm just wondering, to the person who's

going to the real estate agent or the broker, will that affect what they're

paying or will that be absorbed in the fees that are already there or will it

have an impact on the fees?

In other

words, what I'm looking at, in effect we are setting up, for example,

establishing a real estate recovery fund that doesn't manage itself. There's

probably going to be lawyers involved; there's probably going to be people to

manage it, to do the paperwork. There's probably going to be, when it comes to

collection – then it's the other question, too. I'll come to that. When it comes

to collecting the penalties and so on and so forth, administering it. I would

assume, my knowledge, anything to do with administration, there's going to be an

increase in the cost.

What I'm

looking at right now, when you look at the fees real estate agents or mortgage

brokers charge, is there a potential here to result in an increase of fees to

the consumer, to the person buying the house to accommodate these extra

administrative requirements now, the training? Because someone has to pay for

it.

So it's

either the real estate agents, they're going to absorb the costs and the fee

structure that exists or they're going to find a way, well, we have to pay this

so it's going to be passed on to the consumer. Housing prices are expensive

enough as it is. I'm just wondering, has there been an analysis to the potential

impact on the person who's buying the house, who's availing of these services?

That's the first thing.

Secondly, I'm just wondering about – it's great to assign penalties, the devil

is always in collecting the penalties. It's great to assign it but I'm just

looking at the mechanisms for collecting it. Again, if you're hiring people to

collect the penalties, that's a cost that's to NLAR or to the real estate

agents.

I'm just

wondering again, will these get passed on to the consumer or are they going to

be absorbing those extra administrative costs within the fees structures they

currently charge? I'm just trying to look at what's the financial impact on the

person buying the home. Secondly, once they impose penalties, how do they plan

to go about collecting it?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, the recovery fund

will be within the department. The Department of Service NL will be managing

this. There will be no additional staff hired to do this. We have capacity

within the department to do this. The superintendent already monitors such

things under the prepaid funerals and insurance, and there are other acts within

the department that we do similar work and activities right now.

The same

thing for the fines, the superintendent of the

Real Estate Trading Act will be responsible.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

superintendent and the deputy superintendent are significant positions. This

bill will permit the appointment of these positions by minister rather than by

Cabinet. Can the minister provide the reasoning for this, and will these

individuals continue to be hired through the Public Service Commission?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Well, the Member opposite

almost answered the question at the end.

actual fact, the individuals that are hired through the PSC right now hold these

positions. So there's no need, because they're the individuals within the

department that would hold the positions. So the minister just adds the position

onto the person holding that role. So rather than having to take a sheet of

paper and go through the Cabinet process when somebody moves or goes to another

job – which is what happened in the department in the last 12 months – the

minister who is responsible for the department can assign the position to the

person who has received the job through the PSC.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Member for Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Consultations show 98 per cent support for a code of conduct. Clearly, that is

something people wanted.

When do

you expect to have a code of conduct in place, what will it include, who will

administer it, and how will it be enforced?

I know

that's four questions all in the one.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

So the code of conduct will be drafted as per the regulations, and we anticipate

it to be in place by the summer of 2020.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Will training be accessible

in all regions of the province?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

What I can say to that

question is the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors do training

right now. While everybody is not in the organization, the majority of the

people are in the organization. So if there are individuals that are not in the

organization that want the training, they can certainly reach out to the

Department of Service NL and we'll be working with them to ensure that they

receive the training as outlined in the act.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Consultations indicated that

respondents were equally divided on whether there should be different types of

licences, such as residential or commercial licences. It doesn't appear in the

act.

Can you

offer insight on that? No, okay.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Can you provide more detail

on the recovery fund and how that will work?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

So, Mr. Chair, under the

current legislation, the minimum required bonding for brokers is $15,000, and

for salespersons it's $5,000, and in the event a bond is needed to be called,

the amount would not necessarily be enough to cover all the deposits held in

trust. So what will happen is the proposed legislation will create the fund to

be financed by the industry participants and managed by Service NL, and

regulations will be set out in how the licensees will contribute to the fund and

administration of the fund.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you.

NLAR was

very clear that changes be made to address concerns on how the