PDF Version

November 9, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 32

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Before

we begin today, I'd like to welcome some very special guests to the Speaker's

gallery. With us today we have Cyril and Jim Costigan, who are sons of the late

Mr. Cyril Costigan, who was a World War II veteran and whose memory will be

honoured by a Member's statement today.

A very

great welcome to you, gentlemen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Member's statements today

we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Bonavista,

Mount Pearl – Southlands, Labrador West, St. John's East – Quidi Vidi, Harbour

Main and Cape St. Francis.

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour to be able to speak in the House today.

When you

hear Bonavista, the thing that comes to mind for many is John Cabot; however,

for most people who live there, it is Betty Fitzgerald.

Betty

has been a pillar of the community for countless years, serving on council for

28 years with 20 of those as mayor. A trailblazer, Betty was the first female

elected to the Bonavista town council. During these years she has seen the good

and the bad, taking it all in stride and working hard for the betterment of the

town she loves. However, after 28 years, Betty decided to retire from public

life.

Even

though Betty is leaving public life, that doesn't mean she's going to be any

less active. Before and during her time as mayor, Betty was an avid volunteer.

It wasn't uncommon to see her lead the charge in organizing a parade, a luncheon

for seniors, promoting or sitting on several committees, or anything else that

was community oriented.

Betty is

passionate about the Matthew and T. K.

Kelloway seniors club and I'm assured that she will continue to work with these

organizations.

Please

join me in congratulating Betty on her many years of service to the Town of

Bonavista.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl – Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, it's my

privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the tremendous success of a

very community-minded sports organization within the City of Mount Pearl.

The

Mount Pearl Men's Slo-Pitch Softball League began in 1978 when a group of guys

came together to form six teams and began playing ball at St. David's Field.

This proved to generate great interest within the community and has continued to

thrive and grow ever since.

Currently, the league is comprised of 16 teams and over 200 players who play out

of the new Richard Levandier Softball Complex, named after a tremendous

community volunteer and past president of the league. Much of the success of

this league can be attributed to all the players, past and present, who

understood and accepted the spirt of the league which was to play ball, have fun

and meet new friends.

Besides

playing ball, the league is very active in the community in making numerous

charitable donations and participating in various community events in Mount

Pearl. There is so much more to this league than softball. It's about

friendship, it's about family and it's about community.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl

Men's Slo-Pitch Softball League on 40 great years of sport, camaraderie and a

commitment to their community of Mount Pearl.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize a very special group of people in Labrador

West – the Labrador West Big Landers.

January, Junior Humphries formed a Special Olympics group who meet every

Wednesday for events and activities such as holiday parties and cake decorating.

They now have 21 athletes and over 20 volunteers who have dedicated their time

and efforts to make this a success and to participate in community events like

the Berry Run.

Recently, the group visited the Labrador City fire hall and they plan to join

the Community Living Association for their annual bus ride around town during

the Christmas season to view all the Christmas lights.

The

community outreach has been tremendous. The forestry department asked them to

participate in the annual torch run and the Community Gardens has offered them a

plot, so growing vegetables will be in their future.

Later

this month, two members of Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador will visit

Labrador West to conduct a coach's clinic. They will train volunteers who coach

these athletes.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the efforts of the volunteers and

committee in making Labrador West an inclusive community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Choices

for Youth recently received a $25,000 Orange Door Award grant to help prevent

and end youth homelessness in Canada. The grant comes from the Home Depot Canada

Foundation.

I am

happy to rise to congratulate Choices for Youth for the invaluable work they do

in the District of St. John's East – Quidi Vidi and across the St. John's metro

region. The grant will support the organization's Youth Leadership Council, a

group of young people who work to break down barriers for youth.

Choices

for Youth is non-profit, charitable, community-based agency that provides

housing and lifestyle development supports to youth, operating 10 core programs

to support over 1,000 young people each year in the St. John's metro region.

Choices

for Youth is one of eight recipients across Canada of this grant.

Congratulations to Choices for Youth.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking them for the vital work they do for

at-risk youth.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, on this

Remembrance weekend, I rise to pay tribute to the late Cyril I. Costigan.

Born

July 31, 1921, Cyril served as a World War II veteran, enlisting on June 6, 1940

at the age of 18. He went on to serve until August of 1946, serving in places

Following World War II, he began service with the Merchant Navy before returning

home to the province in 1959.

married in 1947 to the love of his life, Mary K. Hawco of Holyrood and raised

nine children: five boys and four girls. At the time of his passing on April 20,

2017, at the age of 95, he had 15 grandchildren and 16 great-grandchildren. I

had the pleasure last week of presenting his wife, Mary Kay Costigan, with her

96th birthday certificate.

During

his life, Cyril loved to volunteer with the community, especially with the Royal

Canadian Legion and minor hockey. In 2012, Cyril was also given the Queen's

Diamond Jubilee Medal, which he cherished greatly.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to pause for a moment as we reflect on the life

of Cyril I. Costigan, an outstanding Canadian who dedicated his life to serving

our great country.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize Jamie Wilkinson, who was awarded MusicNL's

Unsung Hero award for his tireless work to foster music in our province.

Jamie

was raised in a very musical family in Flatrock. His mother, Madonna, says Jamie

always loved music and played his first drum kit at the age of three.

Jamie

played with the Celtic Fiddlers, performed with the pit band at the Arts and

Culture Centre and was a member of the popular band REDLINE. But Jamie's highest

impact was fostering music through his teaching career. He left a profound and

lasting mark as he found ways to match every student with a perfect song or a

piece of music to showcase the best they had to offer.

Jamie

accomplished all this while living with a serious heart condition. Such was his

love of music that even waiting for a heart transplant in Toronto, Jamie joined

three orchestras.

Jamie

passed away in May at the age of 39, but his musical legacy lives on in the many

students he taught and inspired. He was so deserving of the Unsung Hero award.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in remembering Jamie Wilkinson today. Rest in

peace, my friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the

dedicated and accomplished graduates of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

recently had the privilege of attending Memorial's fall convocation in St.

John's and Grenfell Campus in Corner Brook, where graduates from throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, across Canada and around the world earned their

degrees.

Their

tenacity and creativity will serve them well as they begin the next phase of

their lives, building a brighter future for themselves, their families,

communities and our province.

We are

firmly committed to providing affordable and accessible post-secondary education

in Newfoundland and Labrador. This government values Memorial as a world-class,

post-secondary institution and we appreciate its valuable contribution to our

social, to our cultural and our economic development.

Remembrance Day is this weekend, I would also like to acknowledge our university

as a living memorial to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who gave their

lives during the First and Second World Wars. The university was founded in the

hope that freedom of learning would ensure their sacrifice is never forgotten.

As this

fall's more than 900 graduates clearly demonstrate, this proud legacy remains

strong.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating our newest graduates.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We join with the minister in

congratulating and recognizing the many bright and accomplished graduates from

Memorial University.

minister, I, too, had the distinct pleasure of attending a number of

convocations. I would leave each ceremony with a renewed sense of pride and

encouragement, having witnessed the wonderful group of individuals that

accomplish great things and were prepared to move on in to the workforce, each

of them ready to make an impact.

Unfortunately, it's through decisions by this government that today's graduates

have an uncertain future if they wish to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So while

we congratulate the more than 900 graduates and wish them all the best, we

encourage government to consider those graduates and what the future holds for

them.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm happy to celebrate

the years of work and study that has gotten this fall's 900 graduates to the

momentous occasion of their convocation.

Congratulations also to the faculty and staff who contribute to making Memorial

a world class post-secondary institution, even in spite of this government's

successive cuts to funding for the university and to student financial

assistance programs.

I ask

the minister: What measures is this government taking to help these graduates

find work and to stay in this wonderful province?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.'

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 in this hon. House to announce that on Tuesday,

November 14, I will be providing the Fall Fiscal and Economic Update to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

This update follows on the release of the 2016-17 Public Accounts in October,

and will highlight the province's economic outlook at the midway point of this

fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, since taking office our government has faced

unprecedented challenges due

to the fiscal mismanagement of our predecessors. Through a balanced approach to

fiscal management, we have made progress in reducing the annual deficit from a

projected $2.7 billion, or $4.38 million a day that we had to borrow from the

former government, to just $1.1 billion last year.

Our plan

is a multi-year, whole of government strategy that covers fiscal, economic and

social policies. We are focused on improving public sector efficiency,

strengthening our economic foundation and delivering programs and services that

are important to the public in a smarter and more efficient way.

Mr.

Speaker, returning to fiscal balance and creating the conditions necessary for

economic growth and private sector job creation remain our main priorities as a

government. I look forward to once again updating the people of our province on

our progress towards these goals.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We, as well as the

people of the province, certainly look forward to this year's update.

It is

interesting to hear the minister speak about the success of government's

balanced approach. I'm not sure many, aside from his colleagues next to him,

would agree with such an assessment. Since taking office, we have witnessed a

government operating with no clear direction, no clear plan. That lack of vision

has manifested itself into two failed budgets and (inaudible) irresponsible

decision-making result in 300 taxes and fees that have driven economic

indicators in the wrong direction.

Mr.

Speaker, you need not take my word for it; just simply read the latest Auditor

General's report. The AG stated the numbers in the fiscal policy is unlikely to

be reached by 2022-23. Government's plan to return to a balanced budget would

only occur either by revenues increasing in a sustainable manner or expenses

have to decrease if achieving targets by 2022-23 can be done. No clear plan for

this has been put forward.

I can

only hope, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that this

government is now prepared to present a clear, sustainable, realistic plan that

relates to our province's –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

Member's time has expired.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I look forward to seeing

what he will be presenting next week.

I note

the government's plan is focused on private sector job creation. I say to the

minister, taking care of people's health and social needs and maintaining a

strong public sector to do so, something that stimulates our economy, should

also be part of this government's priorities.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

rise today to announce that new, more secure driver's licences and ID cards are

now being delivered across the province.

Last

month we unveiled the new tamper-proof, laser-engraved polycarbonate cards,

which help prevent identity theft.

The new

system for issuing these cards is now live for those using our online services.

Over the coming weeks, all Motor Registration Division offices will also begin

using it to serve customers who visit their locations.

Mr.

Speaker, the existing system was acquired through a public procurement process.

Through a joint procurement agreement with the other Atlantic provinces the new

system achieves cost savings of 68 cents per card. We also have eliminated the

imminent cost of replacing the existing system's hardware.

I am

pleased to report that the new, more efficient system will not have a negative

impact on jobs, but will allow our staff to serve customers faster. It also has

rigorous safeguards to protect our customer's private information.

This

initiative is part of The Way Forward

commitment to pursue service delivery that is “Digital By Design.” It is just

one of the changes at Motor Registration Division over the past two years that

improves services to our customers.

April, we also introduced an advance appointment booking system for Motor

Registration Division in Mount Pearl, which is producing excellent results and

helping reduce wait times.

We look

forward to sharing news about additional service improvements in the coming

year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, I feel

very positive about what's happening. We support any measures to protect

residents of the province from identity theft, fraud or forgery. Hopefully,

these new security measures on driver's licences will do that.

I should

also add, while the new appointment service seems to be working well – and I can

attest to that – I'm hearing from people that are not aware of the service, or

for some reason are not using the service, that there are still lineups for

hours at Motor Registration.

I look

forward to increased measures to further improve those wait times.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. It's good to hear

about service improvements at the Motor Registration Division in Mount Pearl,

which serves so many people daily in this province. The priority should be

faster customer service, given the historically long wait times that have

occurred. I notice the minister didn't give us any figures on that.

If it is

the case that this new initiative will benefit both customers and employees, it

will be good news, but that news has to be gotten out there to the public.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL to update this House on

the department's progress on occupational stress injury presumptive coverage for

first responders in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I thank the Member opposite

for the question. We are actively pursuing improvements to the policy around

PTSD and mental health. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here and talk today – earlier

today I was talking to my staff, we're arranging a meeting with interested

groups.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, it's certainly good news to hear that you're doing some work on this.

We know Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia – Nova Scotia just last

month – passed various forms of legislation to ensure that front-line

responders, both career and volunteers, are protected in our province.

I ask

the minister: Will you also review legislation that has been brought in by other

provinces to ensure a broad range of first responders are protected in our

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Definitely, Mr. Speaker.

We'll do a complete jurisdictional scan across the country. As I just said a few

minutes ago, we will meet with all interested groups in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the minister is going to do that cross-jurisdictional scan and also meet with

groups. I think it's also important to meet with actual front-line responders

themselves, and also those who have been known to be treating front-line

responders: psychiatrists, psychologists, other health professions and so on.

instead of just the groups, Minister, will you also meet with those that are on

the front lines in Newfoundland and Labrador every day protecting the people of

our province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to

the hon. Member I've been engaged with Fire and Emergency Services and a lot of

people on the front lines through the Fire and Emergency Services since we took

office back in 2015. Our next step as a government and minister responsible for

Fire and Emergency Services is to work with WorkplaceNL to develop some kind of

program for first responders.

I have

met with first responders on a regular basis. I have met with Fire and Emergency

Services. There's a meeting being arranged in Corner Brook with police, RCMP,

Constab and the fire department. We're well aware of it.

Like I

said to the previous Member who asked these questions before, presumptive cancer

– we got it done. First responders – w e will work with first responders to get

something to help the first responders who protect all of Newfoundland –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the response from the hon. minister. I'm aware there are programs

underway. Minister, with all due respect, this is about what happens to first

responders after they become ill.

I know

you did bring forward presumptive cancer legislation for firefighters. I'm glad

that you added what we wanted to see in there, that you did it for volunteers as

well as career firefighters. I hope this happens the same thing with PTSD.

I ask

the Minister of WorkplaceNL: Will you also include a retroactive component of

your policy or legislation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you had 12 years to bring it in.

You were actually the minister who was responsible and wouldn't bring it in. The

paper that you had, that your government had, it only included professional

firefighters.

This

government is willing to work and we are working with first responders. We will

do a scan all across Canada. We will do what's right for the first responders in

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because we respect what they do. We're

not going sit for 10 years like the other government did and do nothing. Now,

here's what you have to do.

We are

dealing with them. We will find a solution and we will thank all the first

responders by ensuring their families are going to be secure and their

livelihood will be secure in a responsible manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take

grave and serious offence to the comments by the minister opposite. If he knows

what he was talking about, he would know that PTSD and impacts on first

responders are better known today than it ever was before. It's only in recent

times that the accumulation of exposures of traumatic events on first responders

is recognized as an impact to first responders. It's only recently recognized

that when you work in an area where you're impacted by trauma on a daily basis.

So for

you to stand up and go: The previous administration, b'y, you had 12 years to do

it. Well, I say to the minister: People didn't understand it until the last

couple of years, including this hon. Member. It's important you do what you do,

as people understand, as policies evolve, opportunities evolve that you bring

forward legislation and I'm glad you're doing it. Minister –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I'll say to the

Leader of the Opposition, this is a serious issue. I don't want to turn this

into politics, but I can tell you one thing, when we first took over and I had

the responsibility for Fire and Emergency Services, I sat down with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Firefighters Association. They had two things on their

agenda: one was presumptive cancer for the volunteers and second was the

post-traumatic syndrome, which they said we had a priority trying to get that

government to listen to it for years. So don't go saying this just came about

for the last year or two. It was on their agenda and you were responsible.

We will

work with first responders. We will thank them for the work they do. We will

help to protect their families, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you one thing, I don't

need a lecture from that Member who had the opportunity and wouldn't do it.

We will

get it done.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe if

the Member listened more he'd understand more about it. He says he doesn't want

to turn it into politics. Well, he did that himself, Mr. Speaker, as he always

does. Blame it on the previous administration, blame it on somebody else,

because that's what they do over there, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to hear the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL is working on changing a policy

because first responders – not only firefighters, but all first responders –

need it.

I'll ask

the minister again: Will you consider a retroactivity clause for your policy in

your new legislation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, that as a

person responsible for Fire and Emergency Services and deals with a lot of first

responders – and I've been dealing with the minister on a regular basis on this.

She's going to be (inaudible) stand. We're going to be supporting that.

I can

say to the Member opposite, we just don't talk politics. We brought in

presumptive cancer within a year. We brought it in for the 5,700 volunteers

across the province. So we don't blame it on this government. We take concrete

steps to get results, which we have done.

We made

a commitment; I made a commitment that we will work with WorkplaceNL and the

minister. His door has been open. We made a commitment that we will work with

him to get all the first responders to see how we can protect the families. We

will –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, over and over we

hear the minister opposite get up and say, I wasn't going to speak to this, but

I'll only take a minute. He never takes a minute. And he says I won't make it

political, then he makes it political; I won't blame you, and then he blames us.

He does it all the time, Mr. Speaker. We're well accustomed to it.

My very

important question on this very important issue, which they seem to be dodging,

is very simple to the Minister of WorkplaceNL: Minister, will you consider

retroactivity?

Nova

Scotia just did it; Nova Scotia's minister talked about the importance of

retroactivity. They just passed their new legislation.

Minister: Will you consider – I'm only asking you if you'll consider that as you

talk to front-line responders in Newfoundlanders and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

WorkplaceNL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, as I said,

WorkplaceNL is reviewing its policy as it pertains to mental health issues,

including PTSD, and we will take everything under consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, according to an

article in La

Presse on Wednesday, the federal government is interested in financing a

regional transmission line linking Quebec to the Atlantic provinces. Federal

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said, “I am encouraged by what I have heard

from elected officials from both provinces.”

I ask

the minister: What elected officials has the federal minister spoken with – you,

the Premier – and certainly the content of those discussions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we

read the

article yesterday, and the translation that came following that

certainly supports Minister Carr as the federal government willing to consider

investment in things like transmission and so on within the Atlantic provinces.

There

have been discussions around energy transmission related to the Atlantic

provinces for a number of years. CFTA, which was the Canadian Free Trade

Agreement, which came into effect on July 1 of this year, it has publicly been

known. It was publicly disclosed and talked about, the free flow of electricity

through Quebec and how the rules would be designed to allow that to happen for

the first time in our history, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

When it

comes to negotiations with Quebec on other issues – one around 138, the economic

corridor that would occur – Mr. Speaker, this government is all about

partnerships and relationships.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

If we can find a benefit for

Newfoundland and Labrador –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to

clarify with the Premier, I'm asking: Have discussions taken place with Minister

Carr in relation to a possible transmission link, and is it tied to development

current or future in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what I will say

to that is all levels of government, especially from my office as the Premier of

Newfoundland and Labrador, we meet with our Atlantic colleagues on a regular

basis, all of Atlantic Canada, and from time to time, at least once a year, we

will meet with a number of the governors that come out of the New England area.

Mr.

Speaker, there is interest, if the price is right, to actually produce some kind

of corridor. As I said, it's part of an investment by the federal government

into transmission in Atlantic Canada. Certainly, we would welcome that. We

always look for opportunities to actually – if there are wealth opportunities

available for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, well, we want to explore that

because that could bring benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Surely,

goodness, they need some benefits given the monumental task that we have to deal

with, with Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the current Nalcor CEO, Stan Marshall, has a different contract from

that of other previous CEOs, which allows him to hold potential conflict

interest in competitors like Fortis, competitors that do business in the

hydroelectric sector in parts of North America and surely have an interest in

talks about electricity transmission.

I'll ask

the minister: Has Nalcor CEO been involved, or will he be involved in any way,

in any discussions about a national electricity transmission line?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Allow me

to correct the

preamble to the Opposition Member's question. Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Marshall's contract comes in line with the

Conflict of Interest Act. That was the change in the contract, was to bring

in the requirements of the Conflict of

Interest Act . So I'll correct him on that.

Mr. Speaker, at

this point under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement – and I discussed this

in the House, I believe, back in May, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Free Trade

Agreement does include some causes around energy transmission. Across the

country they asked us to please engage in bilateral discussions with Quebec. We

will do that. It has not started at this point.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

advise the minister, we don't know what was determined by the conflict of

interest tribunal and review because they wouldn't release the report to the

people of the province to see it. So I'll certainly take exception to her

commentary about the conflict of interest.

Has the

Nalcor CEO recused himself as minister, as he said he would, or been recused by

government to avoid any appearance of possible conflict?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure

the Member opposite will take exception, and I take exception to this as well,

Mr. Speaker. Mr. Marshall's contract was brought in line with the

Conflict of Interest Act . That was the

change within the contract. It was very important for this government to ensure

conflict of interest was covered in the contract, unlike the former

administration.

Now,

having said that, we have gone through the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to

make sure Mr. Marshall is not in any conflict on any files. I went further, Mr.

Speaker, to ensure that Mr. Marshall understood the perceived conflict of

interest on Fortis.

I can

say this, Mr. Speaker: We have yet to engage on the discussion around

transmission.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

just remind the minister that the prior contract for the CEO disallowed any

holding of shares of any competitors in the hydroelectric and, particularly,

Fortis. The new contract she brought in allowed holding of 5 per cent shares in

Fortis – very different, Mr. Speaker. That's what the issue is all about.

Mr.

Speaker, will any future agreements have transmission infrastructure beginning

in Labrador as the beginning of the east-west hydroelectricity grid?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part

of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the internal trade agreement within our

country, there has been a discussion. This government has been very forthright

with our colleagues across the country saying that we believe that energy

transmission in this country should be free flowing. Mr. Speaker, I've been

saying this for many, many years. This government has been saying it. We need

the free flow of electricity in our country.

Mr.

Speaker, our colleagues across the country have asked us to engage in a

bilateral discussion with Quebec. We have agreed to do that. Those discussions

have yet to occur. We are in discussions about the development around the

Labrador Trough, around mining opportunities as the Premier said, and we're

pleased to continue those.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know

the challenge we've had for decades is the free flow of transmission from east

to west in regard to the hydroelectric capacity current and future in Labrador.

I'll ask

the minister: Would your government support a federal Quebec transmission line

that excludes Labrador and would go south through Quebec, rather than start in

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY :

Mr. Speaker, we can't deal in potential fairy-tale things. I'm saying to the

Member opposite and to entirely the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that

under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, we are going to have a discussion with

Quebec, as requested by all our colleagues in the country, on transmission.

We have

yet to do so. When we do so, we'll understand more about what we can possibly

discuss. But I will say this, Mr. Speaker, anything this government does will be

in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the best

interest of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be served if new transmission

infrastructure spending by the federal government starts in Quebec and goes

south.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What the minister has just

said, she seems to think that she would support that – that she wouldn't support

that the condition needs to be that it starts in Labrador and goes east to west.

So I'll

ask the minister again, get up and confirm, is that your position, a starting

position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS: COADY:

Mr. Speaker, there's one

thing I dislike, and I'm sure the Member opposite would equally dislike it, is

when people put words in your mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS: COADY:

I did not say that. I did not

say anything of such that he has indicated.

Mr.

Speaker, for the benefit of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we're

entering into a bilateral discussion with Quebec to talk about the transmission

of electricity. That is incredibly important. As we all know in this province,

we have energy to transmit to other provinces and to the United States. It is to

the benefit of the province that we'll be entering in the discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind all hon. Members to

please respect the fact that I've recognized a Member and I'm only going to hear

from that Member, please.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

your protection.

In the

article, Mr. Speaker, the Natural Resources Minister is quoted as saying our

province has agreed at the request of the other provinces and federal government

to discuss with Quebec a proposed transmission line.

Could

the Minister of Natural Resources confirm if the province is acting at the

request of Ottawa, or is this something that was driven by the initiative of

this government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One more

time, let me reiterate and repeat: Any discussions with any province will be in

the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

If we talk about transmission, no matter what the issue is, we do so with the

evidence that Newfoundland and Labrador will be a better place to live.

There

have been a lot of questions today in this House of Assembly about transmission,

where transmission begins and where it would end. Mr. Speaker, you talk about

the hypocrites, the doublespeak today.

Why

doesn't the Member answer this question: Why did they allow the Emera

transmission line to start in Newfoundland and Labrador, bringing no benefits?

They get 20 per cent of the free power. They have no issue about where

transmission ends and begins. They're trying to protect their legacy of Muskrat

Falls.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Here we go again, Mr.

Speaker. The Premier says there's no benefit, but in the AG report that's just

been released, he recognized $1.1 billion in revenue that they're saying they're

going to generate by '22-'23, which includes up to 75 per cent for Muskrat

Falls.

So you

can't have it both ways. You can't generate revenue and not support it. Which is

it, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, thank you once again.

If we go

back just a few years ago when the Member opposite, a few of them, sat in a

room, I think it was in some summer – I think it was in July, whatever the year

was now, but they determined that the rate of return for hydro and the hydro

assets would be nearly 9 per cent.

The

profit that comes from the rate of return is coming out of the pockets of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the profit that we're talking about.

I will

guarantee you this: the rate impacts on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

whatever the profits are, will go back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, from Nalcor and

his own CEO, the profits they're talking about, which they have indicated, is

coming from excess sales. So you can't have it both ways.

The

Premier said in the past there's no market for excess sales, yet he's building

it into his fiscal forecast. Very simple, we've asked a number of questions and

he still hasn't been able to answer the question.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Has any discussions taken

place in regard to the 2041 contract expiring?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, allow me to be abundantly clear and I'll speak slowly this time.

Mr.

Speaker, the discussions that we're having with Quebec arise from a public

disclosure by the Premier and the Premier of Quebec around mining and around the

development of the Labrador trough.

We have

yet to engage in any discussions on transmission at this point. The discussions

are solely around mining and we are having great discussions around how to

develop and how to do economic development in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment. It is: Why did you

flip-flop and today order an environmental statement on the Grieg aquaculture

project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I take kind of

exception to that. This is an important issue for all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, especially in the Burin Peninsula, Placentia West – Bellevue,

Burin – Grand Bank district. They've been heavily involved in this.

What we

have done today is that we have to ensure and protect the environment, but we

also have to be cognizant of the economic impact, so we're creating a balance

here today. We are working with the company. We're working with all the

agencies. We're saying, okay, we want an environmental impact study done so we

can look at the impact of this project as it follows through the court system.

We're

working with the company, we're working with the people from down there and

we're working with the MHAs –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

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 two weeks ago he told me I didn't care about the Burin Peninsula,

and I told him I cared about the environment. Now today, all of a sudden, he

cares about it as well, so I'm glad to hear that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

When we asked the minister in

the House of Assembly on October 19, actually the exact date, about the

environmental impact statement, the minister would not answer the question. As I

said, he made other references.

Why now

are you ordering an environmental impact statement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, just for the

record, the previous government, they allowed three projects to go ahead without

environmental impact studies – three that they allowed without it. So they

obviously understood at the time the guidelines that were put in place, the

regulations in place, were sufficient or they wouldn't have allowed it.

Mr.

Speaker, what happened, we met with the company. The department officials met

with the company. We explained the process. This company is committed to this

area. They're committed to it, but they're also committed to the environment.

This is not if we take one or the other; we have to strike a balance. Salmonid

Council in a CBC interview said we know it's here, we just have to strike the

balance, and that is what we are doing here today to strike the balance for

economic and –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South for a quick question; no

preamble, please.

MR. PETTEN:

Why is it taking you so long

to pay attention to a project and make a decision on an environmental impact

statement after sitting on your desk for two years collecting dust?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment for a quick response, please.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, first of all,

what a shame to the people down in the Burin Peninsula. What a shame that this

project came in for one year, not two – once again, not two. For all the work

that's been done by both MHAs in the area, all the councils in the area saying

that we're collecting dust – with all the work that has been done, all of it

done. It's shameful for you to make such a statement that here we are as a

government trying to protect the environment, but understanding the economic

impact for the area.

For the

Member opposite to make those statements, which are totally inaccurate, which is

totally false, Mr. Speaker – we're here to find the balance. We will find the

balance to protect the environment and for –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Any talk

with Quebec and the federal government regarding our energy is of the utmost

importance to the people of this province. But as we know, we had to hear about

it in the media.

I ask

the Premier: Will he finally keep his promise on an open and transparent

government and tell people what's happening now and keep them informed every

step of the way?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, the interim Leader of the Third Party noticed something in the

media today. This was actually in the media in July. It was in the media much

before that, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, at the Council of the Federation.

I met with Philippe Couillard, the premier of Quebec, and we did a joint

announcement which was publicly articulated in July of this year.

I'm not

so sure if she missed that or not, but it was publicly articulated. As a matter

of fact, I even brought down some of the copies of the press releases. I can

share that with you, which we announced in July.

The CFTA

was publicly announced with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which we were

successful in being able to negotiate. That was put out publicly. I have copies

of that here that I can share with you just as a reminder.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, everything we do

is –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your

time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

That's

one of the most disingenuous answers I've ever heard. We've learned in the

media, with regard to Minister Jim Carr's announcement, that the government will

be talking with Quebec about transmission of electricity to the Maritimes

through Quebec.

I ask

the Premier: What will be the role of the existing Maritime Link in any

transmission deal with Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I have to

address the

preamble. Suggesting that this was disingenuous, I have a press

releases right here: July 19, 2017. I was only responding simply because the

Member opposite was accusing me of doing something and not making it publicly

available.

The

discussions that we are having ongoing with Route 138 and the mining trough in

Labrador West trying to create employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

we have put that out there publicly. So to think that this was disingenuous on

my part, Mr. Speaker, is simply not fair, not factual. Everything is out there

in the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the enormity of

the complexity of the Muskrat Falls Project is perhaps one of the most critical

issues our province has ever faced. People are afraid of increasing power rates.

They are afraid for the fiscal situation of the province. They are afraid of the

reliability and stability of the project. They don't trust Nalcor and even

worse, they don't trust how government is dealing with it.

People

no longer know who is in control. Now more than ever, it is absolutely crucial

that all parties work together. We need to use every parliamentary tool

available to guarantee accountability and transparency and re-instill in the

people a sense of confidence.

I ask

the Premier: Will me make true co-operation possible in this House and strike a

select parliamentary committee to specially deal with the legislative oversight

of the Muskrat Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time is expired.

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

very serious issue facing our province. Muskrat Falls has consumed this

government. Mr. Speaker, I have worked diligently and methodically to bring the

project to a better place. I can't change the past, however. I can't change the

past. I can't change why this project moved forward, the assessments and

assumptions around this process.

I can

say this government is committed to a public inquiry. We've said that. The

Premier has said that. It's very important to get to the answers of these

questions.

Mr.

Speaker, I've been consumed with ensuring that we have better oversight. We've

expanded the Oversight Committee and put independent people in the oversight. We

have a new board of directors as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time is expired.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre for a very quick question; no

preamble, please.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: After two days in a row, how can he assure the people's confidence

in this project, if not by collaboration with the various Members in the House

who have been elected by the people? This is not playing politics. This is good

politics, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier for a

very quick response, please.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, can I get 60 minutes and speak to this? Because I will tell you

that we have put in – the Oversight Committee has been enhanced with independent

oversight. The IAC gave members, like the Members opposite, the friends, whoever

she would have wanted to, if they wanted to be part of the Nalcor board. For the

first time in the history of this province, it was completely independent. The

board has been enhanced.

We're

calling for an inquiry. I will say to the Members opposite that a select

committee, as she's suggesting right now – guess what? The power rates would be

tripled by the time the work was done on that, Mr. Speaker.

We will

use the necessary process to keep the rates down for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. It's a priority of ours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Presenting Reports

by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

here today for the House a report of the Standing Orders Committee dated

November 9, 2017.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further reports by Standing

and Select Committees?

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

here today, in follow-up to the Premier's answer in Question Period, a copy of a

press release dated July 19, 2017, which is entitled, “Newfoundland and Labrador

and Québec Set Out to Develop a Cooperative Agreement.”

I table

this for the benefit of the Members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Child And Youth Advocate Act, Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, the Prescription

Monitoring Act, Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice today that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, Serious

Incident Response Team Act, Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to apologize in advance because the next motion is quite lengthy, but I

have to read it in its entirety.

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion:

That the

following Standing Orders are amended to come into force on the date of their

approval: 1. Standing Orders 4(6) and (7) are repealed and the following

substituted:

(6) The names of the candidates shall be printed on the ballot

paper in the order of their surnames; or if there are two or more candidates

with the same surname alphabetically arranged in order of their other names.

(7) Each

Member present in the Assembly who wishes to indicate his or her choice for the

Office of Speaker shall proceed to one of the voting booths at the Table and

mark the letter X in the box beside the name of the candidate for whom he or she

intends to vote.

Standing Orders 8 to 11 are deleted and the following are substituted:

Annual

Calendar

8(1)

Unless otherwise ordered, the House of Assembly shall meet each year (

a) for the

winter-spring sitting, commencing not later than the first Monday in March and

concluding not later than the first Thursday in June; and (

b) for the fall

sitting, commencing not later than the first Monday in November and concluding

not later than the first Thursday in December.

(2) The

House shall not meet on the days which are paid government holidays.

(3) During the sittings held under Standing Order 8(1), there shall be (

a) one

constituency week for every three sitting weeks unless varied by the calendar

provided by the Clerk under Standing Order 8(5); and (

b) a break commencing

after the end of the sitting day on Maundy Thursday until the third Monday

following that date.

(4) In a

calendar year in which there is a general election, the government may indicate

to the Speaker that the commencement of a sitting will be postponed or varied or

that there will not be a sitting and the Speaker shall inform Members.

(5) On

or before January 31 of each calendar year, the Clerk, following consultations

with the Government House Leader, shall distribute to all Members a calendar

indicating the intended sitting days for the next calendar year.

(6) On

or before January 31 immediately after the commencement of this Standing Order,

the Clerk shall also prepare and distribute in accordance with Standing Order

8(5) a calendar for the sitting days of the current calendar year.

(7) If

the government advises the Speaker that the public interest requires the House

to meet at any time because of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, a

reason for the recall must be provided and the Speaker shall (

a) advise Members

that the House is to meet at the specified time; and (

b) advise Members of the

reason for the recall.

(8) The

winter-spring or fall sittings of the House referred to in Standing Order 8(1)

may be shortened or extended by the passing of a motion with notice made by the

Government House Leader which motion shall be decided without debate or

amendment.

Daily

Sittings

9(1) The

time for the meeting of the House is (a) 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. on Mondays,

Tuesdays and Thursdays inclusive; (b) 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. and 2 p.m. until

5 p.m. on Wednesdays.

(2) At

5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday the Speaker shall adjourn the House.

(3) At 5

p.m. on Wednesday the Speaker shall adjourn the House.

(4) When

the House adjourns on Thursday, it stands adjourned, unless otherwise ordered,

until the following Monday.

Business

to stand over

10. All

business not disposed of at the termination of a sitting day shall stand over

until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the stage where its

progress was interrupted.

Extended

sittings

11(1)

The Government House Leader may move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Monday, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons but notice of this motion must be given

at a previous day's sitting and once put by the Chair is not debatable.

(2) Notwithstanding Standing Order 11(1), at midnight on Monday, Tuesday and

Thursday, unless the closure rule (Standing Order 47) is in operation, the

Speaker shall adjourn the House.

Standing Order 24(3) is deleted and the following is substituted: 24(3) On

Wednesday except when otherwise ordered by the House, after motion, of which due

notice shall have been given, the following shall be the order of business: (

a) from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m., motions of which notices have been given by the

government and government orders; (

b) from 2 to 5 p.m. following the ordinary

daily routine of business (

i) motions of which notices have been given by

private Members (ii) motions of which notices have been given by the government

and (iii) Member's orders.

Standing Order 25 is repealed and the following substituted:

Statements by Members

25(1) On

each sitting day up to five Members, other than Ministers of the Crown, may be

recognized to make a Member's statement

(2) Each

statement shall be no more than one minute in duration.

Standing Order 91 is repealed and the following substituted:

Form of

petition

91(1) A

petition may be either printed or written and must be in substantially same form

as the form of petition contained in the appendix.

(2) The

prayer of a petition must appear on each page of the petition.

(3) A

the Clerk.

Standing Orders 93 and 96 are repealed; and

7. The

petition template in the appendix is repealed and the following substituted.

I'm not

going to read this one. This is just a description of what the petition should

look like. Again, this is notice of the motion which we shall debate at another

time.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

deaf and hard of hearing children in the public education system of Newfoundland

and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to a quality education

because of the lack of appropriate full-time resources; and

WHEREAS

from 1964 to 2010 deaf and hard of hearing children were provided with a

full-time quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, but deaf

and hard of hearing children currently placed in mainstream schools receive only

a fraction of a school day with a teacher qualified to instruct deaf and hard of

hearing children;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to undertake an immediate complete and thorough

assessment of the supports in place for deaf and hard of hearing children by a

committee of at least two independent and recognized experts in the field of

deaf and hard of hearing education, and to accept the recommendations of these

experts, and in the interim, take measures to honour the support commitments

made to all current and future students upon closure of the Newfoundland School

for the Deaf in 2010, to ensure that all deaf and hard of hearing children are

provided with access to a quality education equivalent to hearing classmates as

well as access to sign language.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I'm

pleased, Mr. Speaker, to stand again and to present this petition to the House

today with well over 200 signatures from people around the province. We have, of

course, people from St. John's; we have people from Torbay; signatures from

Mount Pearl; signatures from Brigus South; signatures from Musgravetown. People

around the province who are absolutely concerned about what is happening to our

deaf and hard of hearing children in our so-called inclusion educational system

right now, and I say so-called because this government is proving they really do

not understand what inclusion means. Inclusion is not just having children all

together in a classroom no matter what their needs are, unless those needs are

being met.

What

we're hearing from parents of deaf and hard of hearing children is that the

needs are not being met. Maybe some are getting the full needs they need, but by

far they are not. That's why I'm happy to stand and present this petition

because I really absolutely believe that the minister has to know what's going

on is wrong. The report of the Premier's Task Force on Improving Education

Outcomes didn't even mention the inadequate supports for deaf and hard of

hearing students. It didn't even acknowledge that the deaf were in the schools.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to rise today and present a petition on behalf of the people of the Ferryland

District.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Mutton Bay Bridge, located in the Trepassey area, is approximately 50 years old

and had a bridge inspection report completed in 2015; and

WHEREAS

the inspection report identified significant structural issues with both the

substructure and superstructure portion of the bridge; and

WHEREAS

the 2015 inspection report recognized the substructural condition as poor and

repair within one year; and

WHEREAS

the superstructure condition was identified as fair and called for inspection in

one year and expansion joints repaired within three years; and

WHEREAS

the deck is identified as fair and repair within one year, identifying immediate

repair of handrails; and

WHEREAS

the 2015 report advised a repair date of 2015 and recommended the structure

should be rehabilitated or replaced with bottomless arch soon and in the interim

deck asphalt and approach asphalt should be repaired, as well as guiderails with

hazard markers installed;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to immediately attend to the repair

recommendations and confirm replacement date of the bridge, in accordance with

the 2015 inspection report and that this is a serious issue that impacts the

lives and safety of the travelling public.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a piece of infrastructure on the Southern Avalon that, along

with some road upgrades, we've been lobbying for in the past number of months

and last year. This one in particular has caused some grave concerns obviously

to the residents, those who live in the immediate area and certainly as part of

the Irish Loop. We know the tremendous economic return and other developments

ongoing in the region that supplies traffic in and out.

This

piece of infrastructure has no remediation done to it since 2015 when the report

was done, and the engineering and inspection report was done, which is with TW.

Even the immediate repairs or emergency repairs have not been done. We have a

situation where the rails are off the bridge and into the river below. There's

some concern with the decking and the stability of that decking. We're not sure

if a recent engineering has been done to determine the safety of the piece of

infrastructure.

I know

under the Roads Program by this government, somehow this bridge never got into

their five-year Roads Program which calls into question, what we've always asked

about: How are all these assessments of roads and bridges being done in the

province? If you can't see the overall list, how do you know where a piece of

infrastructure ranks on it?

Basically what they did, they picked a bunch of roads and bridges and ranked

them and said we're going to do this. We call on government to act on this, and

act immediately.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the adult dental program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Provincial Drug Program under access and 65Plus Plan were eliminated in

Budget 2016 ; and

WHEREAS

many low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care;

and

WHEREAS

those same individuals can now no longer access dentures;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the adult dental program to cover

low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of

life and dignity.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've had a chance to speak to this, and I've had a very positive

response from people who've watched the telecast and who've been outlining and

signing the petition about the impact this is having.

While I

understand there are economic challenges in this province, and I have no doubt

they're decisions that have to be made, but sometimes the decisions that have to

be made have to be relevant to improving the stake that people have in this

community. Taking away dentures and cancelling the 65Plus program is doing a

detriment to quality of life, to people's oral health, to their ability to be

active in their communities.

In a lot

of cases, it's actually having a psychological effect. Unfortunately, I had a

psychologist call me, one of her patients had dramatically lost weight, had some

psychological issues because of it, because of not being able to have dentures.

She was very, very concerned about her physical health and what it was doing.

She was down to 87 pounds because she couldn't eat because of the mental anguish

she was going through. All it would have taken was to do the dentures.

I have

to give credit. In this case it took a lot of interventions. It took going

through the minister's office. It took pushing. It took specialists, when

psychologists are starting to come in and write letters to you. It took all of

that, and this family to go to bat, to be able to get intervening supports from

the minister's office and to get this covered.

While I

applaud that being done there, I am worried about the thousands who don't get

that opportunity, who are still going through turmoil, who themselves are facing

physical ailments because of this. Their quality of life and their dignity of

life is eliminated here, because there are minimal amounts of money being saved.

There has to be a better way of doing this. We have to look at reinstating this

and giving people a proper quality of life.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Order 2, third reading of Bill 17.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that Bill 17,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No 2, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm sorry; I recognize the

Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I know

we don't always stand and speak in third reading, but we may. I want to do it

because there was a point that I brought up in Committee, I think it was, or it

may have been in second reading, and pointed something out to the minister. I

was hoping to get more of an answer than what I got.

It had

to do with the fact that the terms of the regular members of the committee are

all two years. My concern about it, the fact if they all start at the same time,

you could have terms all ending at the same time.

When the

minister stood and spoke at the end of second reading, he did acknowledge that

staggering issue had been something he'd thought about. I hadn't used the word

staggering, but that's what it is. Are you going to stagger appointments to make

sure that not all two-year terms are ending at the same time?

I had

pointed this out in my questions and then so had the Member for Mount Pearl –

Southlands. He said that, within the legislation, they will have the capacity to

make sure that the committee that we have will take care of staggering

opportunities. I think maybe there was a bit of hesitation in what he was

speaking of there, but the point that he was making was the capacity is there in

the legislation to take care of staggering opportunities. He says that they will

make sure that it is there and certainly that will bring that point to the

particular Labour Relations Board.

My point

is it's not in the legislation, so I don't know why the minister says that the

capacity to stagger is in the legislation. Obviously, the capacity to stagger is

there, but it's not in the legislation. It seems to me that at the beginning of

this process, the legislation needed to say that with the first of these

appointments, you actually did have to start some kind of a staggering program.

What the

minister is almost saying is that there's nothing to stop us from doing it and

I'll make sure the board understands this, but it is not in the legislation and

it would have been such a simple thing to do. I really felt I needed to stand

and point it out again in third reading.

Now,

whether the minister wants to respond, I don't know; he may. But it would have

been such a simple thing to do to have that taken care of in the legislation.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly thank the Member opposite for bringing this to the floor again. As I

stated and I think as we went through it in the second reading and we went

through it in the Committee of the Whole, I think through the Independent

Appointments Commission, staggering is already there. The people that we have

representing, if you look closely at what is existing there now, they were all

appointed at a different time. So if they were appointed at a different time,

they are going to be coming off at a different time and as a result of that we

do have, within that, flexibility so that we do not have all members coming off

of the board at the same time.

Really,

without having it built into the legislation piece, what we have there by the

actual appointments that have been made through the IAC gives us that, because

it's already staggered there. That should not be a problem. We fully understand

that we would not want to have a board that's composed of 10, 12 people and that

all 10, 12 people would come off the same time. That would not be good practice

and it's certainly not practice because, as I said, the capacity right now, with

the appointments that are made, some of them came on at 2015, some of them are

coming on at 2017 and some are coming on at – so in the existing structure that

we have, that opportunity is there. It is a really, really good point, because

we cannot have everybody going off and taking corporate knowledge with them.

That's there now, and I'm comfortable knowing that if this is going through, we

still have the ability to do that.

MR. SPEAKER:

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.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

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

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2,” read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of

Assembly Retiring Allowances Act And The Portability Of Pensions Act, Bill 21,

and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Government House Leader have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act And

The Portability Of Pensions Act, Bill 21, and that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

All those in favour,

'aye.'

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act And The Portability Of

Pensions Act,” carried. (Bill 21)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances

Act And The Portability Of Pensions Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the MHA for Virginia Waters – Pleasantville, that Bill 13,

An Act To Amend

The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 13,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.” (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

rise in this hon. House to speak to Bill 13, an amendment to the

Highway Traffic Act . Today, we are proposing amendments which will

allow for increased penalties for select offences.

The Highway Traffic Act

is a very significant piece of legislation in our province, which regulates

drivers and motor vehicle use on our highways. It is important that we, as a

government, regularly review the act to keep current with changes in safety

codes, vehicle design and other highway safety improvements.

Mr.

Speaker, last month, amendments to Highway

Traffic Act came into effect, which include tougher penalties for impaired

drivers in this province, and I want to acknowledge the support of all Members

in this hon. House for Bill 68. These amendments include new rules that will

help ensure our young people develop safe and sober driving habits.

Impaired

driving has devastating and far-reaching effects on our communities and our

families. According to a 2015 report from Statistics Canada, our capital region

has the highest impaired driving rates per capita for any municipality in the

country.

We know

that impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in our country. On

average, four people are killed every day in impaired driving crashes in Canada.

Nearly 60 per cent of motor-vehicle crash deaths are related to impaired

driving.

We've

all heard heart-breaking stories about impaired driving in Newfoundland and

Labrador communities. It is time for us to change the story on impaired driving

in our province. The impaired driving amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act are a step in the right direction.

Mr.

Speaker, we also know that there are many other unsafe driving practices on our

highways that are also endangering lives. All too often, we witness first-hand

the drivers who are using cellphones or other electronic devices, or even

engaging in activity such as applying makeup, for that matter.

In late

2016, during an RNC blitz targeting distracted driving and speeding, police

issued 421

summary offence tickets over three weeks. Of those tickets, 125 were

for distracted driving. Recent statistics show that 90 per cent of fatal

collisions and 29 per cent of incidents causing major injuries involved some

form of distracted driving.

Mr.

Speaker, time and time again we've all witnessed blatant disregard for safety on

our roadways. We've seen the driver who carelessly weaves in and out of traffic

or we heard the news stories about the person who has been caught speeding

excessively, and we've certainly all heard the sad stories of loss of life on

our highways.

I've met

personally with individuals and families who have had their lives forever

changed because of incidents on our highways. I can tell you how profoundly I've

been impacted through meetings with groups, such as Stand for Hannah, who are

coping with an unimaginable loss.

The

people of Newfoundland and Labrador want change, Mr. Speaker, and want to make

our towns and our communities safer for everyone. A recent Aviva poll on

distracted driving indicates that Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest

percentage of support for technology options that blocks texting and other

messaging functions while driving. In fact, support was at 86 per cent compared

with 78 per cent support across Atlantic Canada.

Today,

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our efforts to improve road safety in our

province. Although the Highway Traffic Act

is frequently amended, a thorough review of penalties under the act has not been

conducted in a number of years. This has resulted in some penalties that are

very insignificant, so our goal is to find ways of increasing compliance and

enhancing public safety.

Increased fines have been proven to alter behaviour and serve as a deterrent.

Our research and our jurisdictional scans include many examples of decreases in

violations when penalties increased. For example, when the City of St. John's

raised the fines for blue zone parking violations it resulted in a decrease in

the offences. With that in mind, my department undertook a comprehensive review

of all penalties under the Highway Traffic

Act that are currently less than $100. The proposed amendments will result

in significant increases to a number of offenses with an aim of continuing the

dialogue and enhancing public safety.

Driving

with an invalid or no driver's licence is an offence which presents an immediate

risk to safety on our roadways. Mr. Speaker, driving with an invalid or no

driver's licence, the penalties currently for this offence are low in relation

to the seriousness of the offence: $50 for the first offence, $100 to $200 for

the second offence, $300 to $500 for subsequent offences. It is proposed that

penalties be increased to $300 to $600 for the first offence, $800 to $1,100 for

a second offence, and $1,100 to $1,600 for subsequent offences.

The

issue of uninsured drivers is also a great concern for our government, and

offenders of insurance laws are passing on unnecessary costs to abiding

citizens. Operating a motor vehicle without insurance already carries a

significant fine from $2,000 to $5,000. However, failure to provide proof that

an insurance policy is in force only carries a fine of $25 to $100 today.

Increasing the fine for failure to provide proof of a valid insurance policy

will help curb this behaviour. The proposed amendment for not providing an

insurance policy will increase to a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $175 for a

first offence.

Mr.

Speaker, driving with an obstructed windshield also poses a considerable threat

to public safety, which not only impacts the driver of the vehicle but also the

passengers and pedestrians. I'm sure we've all seen the driver who fails to

clear snow from the roof of their vehicle and it comes sliding down, obstructing

the windshield when they brake. Currently, the fine for this offence ranges from

$45 to a maximum of $180. Under the proposed amendments, this fine will increase

to a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $235.

Mr.

Speaker, we are all aware of the public discussion in our towns and our

communities around the modification of vehicles that comes to the forefront time

and time again. Unauthorized modification of vehicles, such as an aftermarket

lift kit, which raises the vehicle above the regulated height, places the public

at risk. It not only changes the handling of the vehicle, because of the shift

in the centre of gravity, but it also changes the impact zone if the vehicle is

involved in a crash.

Modification of vehicles and equipment can also generate nuisance situations

such as excess noise from a modified exhaust system or extremely bright lights

from LED light bars. Motorcycle noise from modified exhaust systems has

certainly been a topic of discussion in our towns and our communities. Increased

penalties will help address this matter. Furthermore, a school bus picking up or

discharging children with defective safety equipment or vehicles with defective

brakes or bald tires also presents a very serious public safety risk.

The

current fine for such offences carries a minimum fine of $20 and a maximum fine

of $90. It is recommended that these penalties increase to $100 minimum fine and

$170 maximum fine.

Mr.

Speaker, we know that vehicle inspection requirements are a vital part of the

public safety program. All commercial vehicles are required to have an

inspection conducted annually, and twice annually for school buses and

ambulances. Furthermore, inspections are required for passenger vehicles upon

sale, and all vehicles when ordered by a peace officer because of concern of

mechanical fitness. These inspections help ensure that vehicles on our roadways

are mechanically fit and reduce the risk of vehicle failure.

The

current fines for these violations are low in comparison to the potential

seriousness of this offence. Through these amendments, the minimum fine of $60

will increase to $100 and the maximum fine will rise from $120 to $160.

There

are a number of other increases to various penalties under the

Highway Traffic Act that we are also bringing forward through these

amendments. Fines relating to vehicle plates and stickers, notifying the

registrar of changes in information and driving too slow or in the wrong lane

are some of the other items being addressed in these amendments to the act as

well. In most cases, the amendments will result in a minimum penalty of $100 for

these types of offences.

So as

you can see, Mr. Speaker, the new legislation builds upon our commitment to

making our roads, our highways and our communities safer for everyone.

I also

want to acknowledge the input we received from law enforcement in our province.

Every day these officers are patrolling our roadways and see these offences in

action. I want to express my gratitude for their willingness to continuously

work with us in our efforts to improve road safety in this province.

I also

want to acknowledge the feedback we received from our stakeholders including

taxi operators and mayors on the Northeast Avalon. Through our various

legislative changes, our objective is to help the people of our province develop

safe and sober driving habits.

respectfully move these amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act to ensure continued support of road safety for everyone

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's

indeed another privilege here today to get up and to be able to speak on this

bill and represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

I listened to the minister

for the last, I think, 10 or 15 minutes, or whatever it was, 12 minutes maybe,

talk about Bill 13. There was a lot of things that the minister brought forward

that are not in Bill 13, but it was bringing in initiatives that government

probably brought in over the years or something like that. She talked about

impaired driving and the City of St. John's is the highest city in Canada, and

she also talked about distracted driving and stuff like this.

everybody is aware in the House, and everybody is aware right across the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have major issues. We have issues on

our highways these days that are so devastating. It's just so devastating to

families, it's devastating to communities and it's been devastating right

throughout this whole province.

I'll be

corrected perhaps, but I'm sure that this was probably one of the worst summers

and falls that we've had in a long, long period of time. I know that the

fatalities on the provincial roads this summer have really been hard on

Newfoundland. When you hear tell of families, a child left with mom, dad and

brother gone, it's so heart wrenching that it's unbelievable actually.

I know

there's a lot of talk on the Veterans Memorial Highway out in the Bay Roberts

area and a couple of accidents that are after happening out there. People are

trying to find solutions, but a lot of these fines and everything else that are

brought in today – we all have to take responsibility for our roads. We have to

take responsibility for our driving habits. We have to take responsibility for

making sure that we don't allow people to be impaired when driving; we don't

allow distracted driving and stuff like this.

This

bill today, Bill 13, I'm hoping that the increase in fines do play a role in any

safety. The priority, bar none, on our roads and with any legislation that we

bring in here to the Highway Traffic Act

should be about safety.

I went

to the briefing; I spoke and I asked a good few questions at the briefing. I'm

looking at some of the fines and the increase from $25 up to $100, and from $100

up to $175; they're nice increases and stuff like that. So there were a lot of

questions that I asked during the briefing. During that briefing I said: Why are

we doing these things? We not talking about impaired driving, we're talking

about your windshield cracked, proof of insurance, and there are a couple here

that I'll talk about a little later that really surprised me they were so low,

actually.

The

department officials said the increase in fines was based on feedback they had

from various mayors. The gentleman doing it said I even had some from mayors in

your district, either Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Torbay, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer

Cove or Bauline, and he said from the public prosecution and also from

enforcement. He noted also that these fines, while they're gone up, there's no

jail. As you look at the bill itself it shows the amount of days that you could

also be sentenced to a jail term, from one to four and stuff like that.

What I

did, I went back to the mayors in my district and I called them, because I

wanted to know their concerns. I told them of the increases and stuff like this

and they were, along with me, anything that will make our highways safer, make

our highways so people don't have accidents, whether snow is coming off your

roof and goes down in front and causes you to have an accident or whatever, but

their discussion basically to the RNC and I guess to the department was they

wanted more presence in the area, with more enforcement and stuff like that.

They felt that the enforcement piece is huge for a lot of communities in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have

talked to a lot of people also and we talk about highway safety, and that's what

the minister spoke about earlier. I think highway safety also, if you talk to

people, they'll tell you whether it's the Veterans Memorial, whether it's the

Trans-Canada, whether it's the Torbay Bypass or whatever, that the number one

thing when you talk to people, they say the biggest reason people will slow

down, people will abide by the rules, is the presence of RNC and the RCMP on our

roads.

I just

wanted to go to that point because it was mentioned in my briefing that the

mayors in my area were the ones that came forward with this. I just wanted to go

and see what their concerns were. Like I said, their concerns mainly were on the

presence and the other thing that they were concerned about mainly is speed. A

lot of times we're finding now, in some areas, that speed plays such an

important role, especially on smaller roads in districts. We're noticing now – I

will just give you an example: the Indian Meal Line in Torbay. One time, 15

years ago, there were probably, I'd say, 25 homes on Indian Meal Line. Now, on

that line that goes from my district to the Member for Conception Bay East –

Bell Island, I'd say there are probably 1,500 homes, and the speed on that road

now is unbelievable. There's after being accidents and everything else. These

are the concerns that we got.

Again,

Minister, I applaud for anything with safety, and there are some things here

with safety, but I wanted to just reiterate that it was said that the mayors

were – but this was their concern, so I think that the major concern that people

are having is they want to see presence and presence, they think, is the number

one way that we can reduce what's happening on our highways.

I also

talked to law enforcement. I spoke to several members of the RNC and I explained

the bill and what was coming in. I gave the example of a dirty licence plate.

You, being a former law enforcement officer yourself, would understand this.

With a fine of $25 for a clean plate – you yourself, another law enforcement

officer, the Member of the Opposition here, leader, and a good officer at that

he was.

Anyway,

I just spoke to him and, in most cases, I think both would agree that sometimes

when this happened, say, with a snow storm or a drift or something behind your

house, if you came up behind somebody and noticed that their licence plate was

covered with snow, more or less it would be to haul the person in and give them

a warning and say, listen, you probably never noticed this this morning, or it

could be some mud or something that got threw back on your car, at your licence

plate, and it would be a warning.

Now,

moving that to $100 probably will make it a fine that's worth prosecuting when

it comes to the cost. So I don't know if that's the reason why the fines have

gone up from $25 to $100.

There

are some interesting ones. There is one there that really interests me was class

of licence. The current fine is $50 and now it's going to be moved up; the

second offence is $100, $200. But that's a pretty interesting one, too. So

someone who's driving a front-end loader or a heavy equipment truck and has a

regular licence is only to get a $50 fine. I don't want to see people on the

highways that are not qualified to drive specific equipment.

I know

myself when I drove, I had a class licence that I had to have because I drove a

fish truck one time and it had air brakes, so I had to get my air brake

endorsement. I don't know if it still continues because that was probably 15

years ago, but in order for me to be able to drive that truck, I had to have

that endorsement. It's pretty amazing to see that people are allowed on the

highway with just – and that's all they'd get is a $50 fine. I think that's a

pretty serious offence and we need to make sure that we really do have qualified

people on the road.

Now, one

that I looked at also was slow driving. It's a hard fine for any police officer

to be able to give to a person. I look a lot of times when we see slow drivers

and not to – my mom and dad were seniors in their driving and I'd be in with

them a scattered time and they would drive slow. Sometimes people do drive

slowly for some reason. It may be their age; maybe they're nervous. I know my

mother never liked to drive in the dark and stuff like that. Sometimes that's an

interesting one to do.

To move

it from $45 to $80 – and I'm sure once that person gets hauled in, there is some

discretion used and see what the thing is, but it is important because sometimes

slow driving does cause accidents and sometimes because people are in a rush.

Today, it seems people are in a bigger rush to travel more so than they ever did

before. So it is a serious offence, but again moving that from $45 up to $100

and $235.

What I

did do, I asked and the minister said there was a jurisdictional scan done

across the country. In the briefing, I asked if there was one and they told me

there wasn't. They said – and you can go back and just ask because I'm sure. So

what I did, I went and checked the same fines. Now, they're named a little bit

different. We say failure to keep an identification plate clean; in Ontario it's

called a dirty plate. We changed ours: it was $25 to $100 and the new fines are

going to go from $100 to $175 and in Ontario it is $85. There's no high or low

or stuff like that in there.

Also,

driving without a proper licence, it's called, the one we mentioned there, we

moved it from $50 to $300 to $600, high and low. I'm going ask a few questions

when we get into committee on that because I really don't understand that part

of it. In Ontario it was $260, but most of the fines that we moved from $25 to

$100, in Ontario right now they just have the flat rate of $85, is what it looks

like to me.

I just

want to make the point that anytime we do anything to make our roads safer, it's

a real good thing. Sometimes, some of these – failure to change your name is an

interesting one, too, that I looked at. It says failure to notify the registrar

of a change in name on your registration. Sometimes you can see that that can

happen. I suppose you could get married or something like that and then you

don't change your name, it doesn't happen. Again, a lot of these as you know

will be under – I guess you know more about it than I do, Mr. Speaker. It would

be under the discretion of the person who hauls them in, but it's interesting,

stuff like that.

Driving

a motor vehicle with the windshield covered with snow, an obstruction of your

vision. That's another one that I know we all probably over the years, we've all

been a little bit guilty of that. You clean off the roof and you clean it all

off and there's still one little blob that will end up coming down when you're

coming down the road, but it's very dangerous. It is so dangerous. When you

think about it, a blob of snow coming down and blocking your vision – because

sometimes what happens, the wipers can't clean it off, so you have to get out of

that car and stop it.

Those

are obstructions that people need to know that there are fines. I'd say in some

cases you'll find there are a lot of people who don't realize: Listen, you can

get a ticket for that now. It's going to be $100 to $235, in that range. I think

those are the things we have to educate people about because I'm sure nobody

wants to have a big blob of snow come down on their windshield when they're

driving on any road or any thoroughfare in the province.

Mr.

Speaker, it's interesting, though, I know the fines have changed and there's no

– like I mentioned earlier with the jail time. It drives me completely crazy –

honestly, it really does – when I listen to the news in the mornings and you

hear the night before that some person got picked up last night and owes $4,000,

$20,000, $30,000 in fines.

I'm sure

everybody in this House is in agreement with me that just seems like it's

absolutely – I really don't understand it sometimes. I'm wondering why we don't

– like for a person with proof of insurance, and it's gone up now for invalid

driver's licence, for example. I'll give you that one.

The

third offence, it was $300 to $500 but it's moved now from $1,100 to $1,600. I'm

wondering, Minister – and I hope it does work, that it will deter people from

doing it, but I'm wondering, do they really care? Because when I look at a

person that owes $40,000 or $30,000, I think – the Justice Minister is here now,

too. I'd like to say to the Justice Minister, I think there has to be some way

that we have to make sure that these people pay their fines and we don't have

this.

It is

not fair to the law-abiding citizens and people in this province who will go pay

their fines and go do what it takes to make sure their vehicles are safe and

everything else when we have people out there who really don't care. It is just

a bug with me. It just drives me completely crazy, when I'm sure – and you also,

I know you do, you're shaking your head. It does have an effect on so many

people in this province. We say why are we abiding by the rules when you see

people out there getting away with what they get away with?

So while

these rules are coming in, I hope they're coming in for the safety – the

minister did say that. She talked about other aspects of, like I said,

distracted driving, impaired driving and the different regulations for what we

need on our highways to make it safer.

Also, I

don't know how we'd do it, but I spoke to another person the other day. He owns

a garage. We talked a little bit about different safety and stuff like that. I

know years ago when everybody had to get their inspection on their vehicle, it

had to be inspected in order to get your stickers every year, but I'm just

thinking out loud now. I'm wondering if for some of the vehicles we see on the

road today, whether the windshield is broken or whatever, it just seems like

someone can go buy a vehicle and they get the stickers. It looks like the

stickers are good on it for a while and they really don't care.

So I'm

wondering, Minister, if you're looking at vehicle inspections for vehicles of a

certain year or something like that. Would that be something we could do?

understand why it was brought in and, hopefully, traffic enforcement would be

able to identify vehicles on the road that shouldn't be on the road safely, but

sometimes it's hard to identify a vehicle when you just go along and see that

the vehicle looks okay, but the person puts on their brakes and all you hear is

the squeaking and the bumping and everything else. So is that vehicle safe

enough to be on the road?

Again,

I'm not saying we should inspect every vehicle, but maybe it's something we

should be looking at. Maybe it's something we should be looking at under the

Department of Transportation and Works, that we do periodic checks. I know they

do every now and then, but I think it's something we should be doing. Again,

it's all about safety. It's all about safety on our roads.

The

other thing I just wanted to talk about and we are talking about safety and

stuff like that. I know talking to another friend of mine who works in the

insurance industry. He showed me on his phone, the selling of a vehicle and the

main reason to sell the vehicle was because of where the sticker was. So selling

the vehicle in July and the sticker is good until next June. That was the

selling feature on the vehicle. That's wrong, because that's probably another

uninsured driver out there. Again, that's another issue with safety on our

roads. We have too many uninsured drivers that are out on the roads also.

support this bill. I will be asking some questions, like the reasons why the

fines have gone like they have and why we don't do things a little different,

more so like other provinces. I just want to make sure that everything that we

do here is for the right reasons, and is for the reasons of safety on our

highways.

Again,

Minister, I know your

preamble, it's like what I'm talking about here, a lot of

it is not about the bill and it's more about what we talked about in safety and

stuff like that. But talking to the people, like I said, the mayors in my

district, we all should be able to work together and make sure that presence on

the highways – which I believe is the biggest factor to any highway safety; the

more presence we have, the safer our highways will be because people will abide

by the laws and the rules.

Fines

are great. Fines are a way to make sure that people realize that I can't have

snow on my roof, I can't have a cracked windshield, I need to make sure that my

name is changed on my registry and that I get it changed. Again, like I said to

you, Mr. Speaker, those will be judged by the person who is hauling you over

what they are.

But we

have a big problem in our province. It's a huge problem and my heart goes out to

all the families that have lived through what they had to live through on the

highway. We have too many happening. It's way too much that we're putting

families – we're breaking them up; we're breaking up communities.

I just

hope that everybody looks at this bill and says, okay, it's another means of

safety. But the only way that we can keep our roads safe is if we abide by the

rules ourselves, keep our speed limit down and make sure that we're very

cautious of how we're driving. It's not only us. It's somebody else; it's some

other family that needs to be safe.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you to the hon. Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis for his

eloquent words and I share many of the concerns that he has as well about –

MR. K. PARSONS:

(Inaudible.)

MR. B. DAVIS:

The beautiful district.

MR. K. PARSONS:

(Inaudible.)

MR. B. DAVIS:

No. Don't get carried away

over there.

Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand here today and speak to Bill 13, An

Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act. At this time, with our government moving

forward on improvements to help ensure the safety and increase safety on our

roadways, it's a win for all of us in this House of Assembly.

I, as

well, was surprised at the lowness of the fees as we started to look at them,

but that's why we're addressing them here today. We are trying to bring those

fees more in line with the work that's required to police them, for the

enforcement of them, but also to increase the tolerance of what people have to

expect when they do something wrong.

Since

becoming the parliamentary secretary for Service NL, I've seen time and time

again the level of interaction that our department has with the public on a

daily basis. There are not many services that the general public participates in

that Service NL does not touch them in some way.

We have

a high level of interaction that comes with a responsibility as well to ensure

that we are providing the best possible services that we can to the people of

our province. Service NL, through the Government Services Branch, is responsible

for highway safety legislation in the province through the administration of the

Highway Traffic Act .

Mr.

Speaker, the Highway Traffic Act is a

very significant piece of legislation, with more than 215 provisions, as well as

17 associated regulations. The act gets amended on a fairly regular basis, since

its original enactment, to improve the highway safety and adapt to changes in

vehicle technology, driver behaviours and other conditions that may come up.

Some of

the amendments we have made recently include changes for allowing for the

licence of certain three-wheel vehicles like the Polaris Slingshot. When new

types of vehicles are introduced to the marketplace, we have a duty to ensure

that those vehicles are up to the standards that everyone needs to expect for

safety.

Last

May, we also amended the act so that the registered owner of a vehicle can be

charged when a vehicle is being observed illegally passing a school bus or

speeding in a school zone. Most recently, we have a made a significant change to

the Highway Traffic Act with regard to

impaired driving, as our minister alluded to earlier. Requiring new drivers to

maintain zero blood alcohol level is a beginning of a generational change to

encourage safe, mindful drivers.

Like any

review, it is important that we look at the information before us and determine

what we can improve on. It is important for me personally to make sure the

people of Virginia Waters – Pleasantville and, in turn, our province at large

are as safe and secure as they can be.

One very

important fine increase is about failing to produce proof that a policy is in

force when a driver is pulled over. Driving uninsured is a large issue in our

province, as the Member opposite has mentioned as well, and something that we

really need to address. Increasing the fine to $100 and a second offence and

subsequent offence to $175 will hopefully help to deter some of the people

getting behind the wheel that are not insured.

Traffic

issues are something I'm very familiar with through my time on city council. I

was lucky enough to develop close working relations with the RNC and I'm glad to

see Chief Boland and the new Deputy Chief Woodruff in the gallery here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. B. DAVIS:

Congratulations.

It shows

the great support and community-minded nature they have. They want to make our

communities safer for everyone to be in, and I've had the pleasure of working

with both individuals on numerous occasions for policing traffic with the City

of St. John's. So thank you to those individuals for the great work they do and

the great work that the police forces in our province do.

witnessed first-hand many of the issues that there are in our communities with

traffic. Traffic complaints are one of the most things that you receive as city

councillor when I happened to have that hat on. While on council, I sat on

policing traffic, we dealt with many of the traffic issues around our community.

Most of these problems can be addressed with traffic-calming initiatives, having

meetings in the community, talking to the people who are driving through their

neighbourhoods. These initiatives include speed limit reductions, enhancing road

paints, speedbumps, roundabouts, driver feedback signs, increased enforcement as

discussed earlier, bump outs, as well as many, many more initiatives.

It is my

hope that these fine increases that we're talking about in the changes to the

Highway Traffic Act today will come

together with the efforts of the RNC and the RCMP and will have a positive

impact on people's driving habits within our province.

One of

these continuing issues include making amendments that improve the quality of

life for the residents, such as increasing fines for modifications of tailpipes

of cars or motorcycles. It's a very big issue in my district and in St. John's,

but right across our province. The fine has now been increased five-fold for

your first offence to $100 and, in turn, subsequent offences to $160. This

change will hopefully help curb the problem people are facing in our downtown

and around our cities and towns during the warmer months.

As my

time on council, recent complaints from residents in St. John's, this is a very

huge issue in the summer in particular, but hopefully something that we can try

to curb with these changes.

In the

case of the Highway Traffic Act there

are a number of penalties that were less than $100, which warranted updating,

and many of those were in the $20 to $25 range. We needed to address those

concerns. The purpose of any penalty is to act as a deterrent or to change

negative behaviour. When it comes to highway safety, there is no room for such

negative behaviour.

The RNC

does a fantastic job, I know, in my own district with their education on fines

and giving little tidbits of information to drivers through their Twitter feed.

We've all seen them: If it's snowing today, make sure you clean off your

windows; you could get a ticket for that. Nuances that make driving in our city

much safer and our province much safer, and I thank them for that.

Every

day thousands of people travel on our roadways in our province. Each vehicle

carries a mother, a father, a child, a grandparent or a friend. We tend to take

safety for granted, but we need to stop doing that. It is incumbent upon all of

us to take into consideration every time we get behind the wheel, but all too

often this is not the case. Updating the

Highway Traffic Act like we're doing here today is about trying to change

behaviours.

These

updates are about changing the way generations think about driving and

understanding the responsibility each person has and takes on their shoulders

every time they sit behind the wheel. It is our goal to make new generations of

responsible drivers, and that has to start here today.

Every

infraction under the Highway Traffic Act

has the potential to have far-reaching consequences for everyone travelling on

our roads. That is why it is important for us to take steps, such as Bill 13, to

make changes and improve wherever and whenever we can.

Driving

without insurance, failing to comply with vehicle inspection requirements,

modifying a vehicle, operating a vehicle without proper equipment – all of these

offences have the potential for serious harmful impacts.

important update in Bill 13 is the offence for slow driving. It has been

increased to $100 for the first offence, to $235 for subsequent offences. This

has often gone unnoticed. Slow driving can be just as dangerous as speeding.

We have

all fallen behind slow drivers on a highway and seen people pass at dangerous

times taking their lives and others lives into their hands just to get ahead.

Passing on a solid line, passing on a turn and many other reckless actions can

be caused by slow drivers.

Slow

drivers can cause people behind them to get frustrated and cause accidents. So

making those fines for breaking speed limits either way will hopefully take that

a little bit more seriously.

It is

also important for us to note that fines for failing to observe

traffic-controlled devices, prohibited parking or stopping, this is especially

important in our districts and in communities with schools, even more so with

children in elementary school age.

Many

children assume crosswalks are safe zones and cars will automatically stop at a

flashing orange light or anything like that. We sometimes assume that ourselves.

We're all guilty of walking across the road without looking because we see the

flashing lights. We should always be looking. It's important for people who are

driving to always stop at those places.

This

amendment will also make the roads safer for construction workers who are

working on our roads and highways. It is our wish for people who see these

blinking red and orange lights that instinctively want to stop then, not slow

down and not continue on.

Road

workers are taking their lives in their hands to make our roads safer and more

enjoyable for those who have to travel on them for work or leisure in all types

of weather. We owe them the courtesy to stop when required, instead of rolling

through caution signs.

Changing

the fines for failing to observe traffic controls, from the low end of $100 for

first offence and then so on to $170, is increasing how serious we are taking

the offence and how serious drivers should as well.

As the

Minister of Service NL stated, research shows that increasing penalties help to

decrease the number of offences. The lower the number of offences means the

lower number of offenders. With less offenders comes less unnecessary tragic

deaths and more people arriving home safe and sound after their trip.

In 2016,

there were 44 fatalities on our highways; 44 people lost their lives on our

roads. Most of these deaths were preventable and were caused by someone

speeding, someone texting something or someone not giving the road the attention

it deserved. It is our goal to make sure that in the coming years those numbers

never get that high; one is too much.

We are

doing our part, Mr. Speaker, to bring those numbers down. The hard work of the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has been able to reduce accidents in the

jurisdiction they police by 25 per cent over the last four years. Now it's our

turn to help lower those numbers.

I agree

with the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis about the presence that law

enforcement has on curbing bad behaviour. I have to say, we have to do that

better, too.

I know

there are some complaints about these fee increases, but, Mr. Speaker, they are

unfounded.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Fines.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Fines, and are unfounded.

Those people claiming that this is just another revenue, it's not true.

Mr.

Speaker, it is our hope that with these amendments you will see a significant

decrease in the number of violators. In turn and in fact, the ideal outcome

would not be collecting revenues at all, as it would mean the behaviours are

changed and in turn making our highways and roadways much more safe.

Our

government hopes that the amendments we are proposing will once again remind

motorists of the responsibilities they have when they drive on our roadways

through our towns and communities. Our government is making these changes to

ensure safety and well-being of everyone in our province. Whether you are a

driver, a passenger, a worker, a pedestrian or a cyclist, you should be able to

be around the roads and feel safe and secure.

Road

safety is everyone's responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and it's time the fines

reflect that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand this afternoon and speak to Bill 13,

An Act to Amend the Highway

Traffic Act, an important bill in many ways. And I think the minister, the

parliamentary secretary in particular and also my colleague from Cape St.

Francis have pointed out very well the reasons for being concerned about what is

happening on our highways with the increased – certainly seems to be – number of

fatalities this year in particular. I don't know the stat on that, but certainly

I think we would all agree that the fatalities have gone up.

We do

need to do what has to be done to try to make the roads safer, make drivers more

aware of their responsibility. Because very often roads are being blamed for

accidents when in actual fact – and in some cases that's definite and in some

cases ruts in roads and that kind of thing are causes of accidents. We also know

that human behaviour is probably the most significant cause of accidents on the

road and fatalities on the road.

We have

to try and find ways in which to impact human behaviour, and we all know from

various experiences in this room that that's not easy, whether it's parents

trying to impact the behaviour of children or law enforcing people trying to

impact the behaviour of drivers. It's not something that's easy to do, and we do

have punitive measures to try to do that when it comes to driving and driving

infractions. I do applaud the government for wanting to get at that.

Now,

this bill, I think, does a bit of a mix because when the briefing was held, you

know, the department officials said that the reason for increasing the fines was

to dissuade motorists from committing offences under the

Highway Traffic Act . Some of the offences in this bill are offences

which, in actual fact, could really be very dangerous. For example, driving with

so much snow on the windshield that one can't see out the windows.

I would

say it's not just the windshield. I've seen cars – not often, but I've seen cars

after a snowstorm with a windshield, just the wipers having cleared a small

space and, with their glove, just having cleared a bit of space on the driver's

window, for example, or on the other side and the rest of the car completely

covered in snow.

That, in

and of itself, is something that we can obviously see would be a safety factor,

but then here as well we have things like identification