PDF Version

October 30, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 48

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Good afternoon everyone.

Today, I would like to welcome in the public gallery members from the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as persons from the disability community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Lake Melville, Placentia West - Bellevue, St. George's - Humber and Stephenville - Port au Port.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Speaker, our hearts are broken in Lake Melville after losing a good friend, retired German Air Force Colonel Helmut Röhrig. He was in command of German flight training at 5 Wing Goose Bay from 2002 until 2006.

A proficient Tornado fighter pilot, Helmut was an inspirational leader amongst those deployed, as well as those of us living in Labrador. His civic priority was community integration offering numerous German cultural events while participating with the locals in snowmobiling, fishing, golf, music and the international Rotary Club. Over the years, Helmut and his wife Gudrun hosted many of us at their farm, filled with Labrador memories, in Sensweiler, Germany.

In 2006, to ensure a legacy of appreciation, Helmut created a fund to continue German Air Force support of several Labrador community causes. He returned often to rekindle friendships and support ongoing military training at Goose Bay.

In a few weeks, the Rotary Club will organize the 33rd long-term care facility Christmas party, sponsored by the German Air Force.

As family and friends gather in Germany to celebrate the life of Colonel Röhrig, I would ask this House of Assembly to extend our appreciation for his legacy of international friendship and co-operation.

Danke schön.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I stand in this hon. House to recognize the Victory Pentecostal Church located in North Harbour, Placentia Bay in the beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

On September 22, I was honoured to join Pastor Troy Seabright and the church community at the Victory Pentecostal Church to celebrate their 100th anniversary followed by a beautiful service on September 24.

It is safe to say that they are a small church with a big heart. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to the church for allowing me to celebrate such a tremendous milestone with them.

I ask all hon. Members of the 50th General Assembly to please join me in congratulating the Victory Pentecostal Church on their 100-year celebration and wish them great success with their future endeavours.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.

S. REID: Speaker, William – or Bill – Pardy is one of Pasadena's leading citizens. In his life he has done many things. He has been an economic and community practitioner with over 40 years of professional experience in Canada and internationally.

For 12 years he was a councillor and mayor of Pasadena. As a successful businessperson and volunteer, he is known for his combination of hard work and an aptitude for creativity, innovation and problem solving. Besides his work and experience at home in Pasadena, he has lived and worked in Quebec, Scotland, Ukraine, The Gambia and has completed numerous assignments in Europe, throughout Africa, Asia including China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and India.

In his humanitarian work, he has been a supporter and contributor to people in some of the poorest countries in the world. Mr. Pardy is an avid essayist with articles and essays published by universities in academic and other journals and throughout various media sources.

Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join with me in recognizing the work of Mr. Pardy for all the work he has done and continues to do at home and around the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Jim Mercer of Stephenville Crossing, originally from Bell Island, is a man of many talents. Jim is probably best known for sharing his love of music with communities in Bay St. George. Jim volunteers countless hours, contributing to numerous community events, fundraisers, prisons and retirement homes.

Playing music has been a hobby of Jim's since receiving his first button accordion for his birthday at the age of four. After his retirement from social work, his hobby turned into a passion. Self-taught, Jim is proficient in many instruments: piano, guitar, mandolin, saxophone, fiddle, banjo, button accordion, piano accordion and the list goes on.

In recent years, in an effort to keep traditional music alive among the youth, Jim has been visiting the schools in Stephenville and giving accordion lessons to students from Grades 4 to 6 on their lunch breaks – yes, on their lunch breaks. His young accordion group is often the main attraction at many local events in the community.

In 2020, Jim received the Governor General's award, the Meritorious Service Medal, for his efforts to preserve and pass on traditional music and for creating programs that promote traditional instruments and folk music integral to the heritage of Newfoundland's West Coast.

I ask all hon. Members to thank Jim for his dedication to sharing his love of music with so many others.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to celebrate the opening of new Memorial University Faculty of Nursing learning sites in Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: Sites outside of Memorial's St. John's campus, such as Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and Happy Valley-Goose Bay create opportunities for students who want to become nurses to receive their education closer to home.

We take great pride in increasing opportunities for people to earn their nursing degrees. We also take great pride in the number of nurses who we have recruited to work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This year, every nursing graduate was offered employment to work in our province. Since April, 239 new nurses have been hired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we continue to provide significant financial incentives, including signing bonuses, educational bursaries and incentives for nurses working abroad who want to return home.

We are focused on retention. We have offered retention bonuses earlier this year totalling $10 million, incentives to nurse practitioners who commit to work in family care teams and are implemented recommendations from our collaboration on the Nursing Think Tank. All of this is the result of government's plans to transform our health system.

We encourage nursing students, graduates and nurses who work abroad to visit to learn more about the ways we are working to add more nurses to our health care system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

We applaud every student who chooses to become a nurse whether at the St. John's campus or campuses at Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Gander or Grand Falls-Windsor. We believe these nursing students ought to be offered job opportunities, right at their point of entry in our nursing programs.

Our province needs them and wants them here. We ought to make this clear, right from the start. Let's encourage them to see their future here and plan to settle down here. Our health care system cannot function without nurses. We've seen too many of our experienced nurses move away or leave their profession because their concerns have not been listened to or properly addressed.

They have been accused by their own government of not working hard enough and demanding too much. That is the root cause of the crisis in retention. Things have to change and every step in a better direction is important. Nurses have raised concerns about travel nurses being offered benefits far in excess of their own. They see nurse recruitment efforts abroad getting a higher priority than nurse retention efforts here at home.

Yes, we need nurse recruitment and we welcome those who come, but retaining the professionals we already have and offering jobs to those who already have training, these are crucial steps in restoring our health care system.

We will stand by nurses and keep the heat on this government because our nurses need better.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement.

We, too, celebrate this expansion. Newfoundland and Labrador needs these new graduates to remain here in our province. So we call upon the government to treat retention of all workers as a main priority so that our public health care system can return to a healthy state.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

The Seniors' Advocate did a survey on the percentage of seniors who could not afford their medication.

I ask the Premier: Do you recall the Advocate's statistic?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While my head has a lot of statistics in it, that's not one that I could accurately state today in the House. That said, we're always working with seniors to ensure that, given the high cost of living currently, we're doing everything we can and we will be doing more. But we are trying, of course given the cost-of-living issues, to address all of their issues including arguing to the federal government to remove carbon tax from the home heat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: The actual statistic, for the Premier's knowledge, is 25 per cent. Twenty-five per cent of seniors say they can't afford their medications.

Does the Premier know the percentage of seniors who did not purchase medical devices for lack of money?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to our seniors. We are committed, as the Minister of Finance has suggested, we increased the seniors' supplement. We are giving back to, not just the seniors, but to everyone across the province. We'll continue to make sure that we are doing everything we can to support them.

Again, I point to the fact that our voice was heard with the prime minister and any senior on a fixed income now no longer has to pay carbon tax on their home oil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Premier that carbon tax has not been eliminated. It has been paused and the only reason it has been paused is because there is an election coming.

The only way carbon tax would get eliminated is when the Liberal governments get eliminated. It's that simple.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Does the Premier know the percentage of seniors who went without food or did not purchase the food to meet their dietary requirements?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me address the

preamble. With respect to the carbon tax, it was this side of the House that argued with the federal government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: It was us who made sure that the federal government understood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

A. FUREY: And while this is a good first step, surely, the Members opposite can appreciate it is a good step for seniors on fixed incomes who had to pay carbon tax otherwise on home heat, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, the hypocrisy has not been lost on anyone in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They know who introduced carbon tax to the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: They knew who voted to increase it, so they know exactly what this Liberal government did when it comes to carbon tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: The answer for the Premier's information on the statistic about food is 60 per cent. Sixty per cent of the seniors say they went without food or did not purchase the food they needed to meet their dietary requirements.

Does the Premier know the number of people who said their family does not have enough money to live on?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I really appreciate the question because it is an important one. But I'll go back and I'll thank the Premier for his diplomacy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm not having Members shouting back and forth. I need to hear the question.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I'll thank the Premier for his diplomacy and tenacity in ensuring that the prime minister removed over 17 cents in carbon tax from home heat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: So thank you, Premier.

This is in addition to the $500 rebate that the province is giving – especially for seniors – those that live with oil heat and qualify for the program. We've given free driver's medicals, Speaker. We've ensured a 15 per cent increase in Seniors' Benefits. We're doing everything that we can to support our seniors and to support families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I'd like to point out that that statistic that I talked about is 30 to 40 per cent. Thirty to 40 per cent of people seniors say their families don't have enough money to live on.

I ask the Premier: How many people in this province are relying on food banks right now?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to point out a statistic that is familiar to everybody in this province, including the seniors who would be struggling right now. The fact is that if it wasn't for this government, they'd be paying double in their electricity rates because of Muskrat Falls – $5.2 billion – we're paying $192 million every single year because of decisions made by that side of the House to ensure that seniors' electricity rates do not double.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Are Members ready?

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I said before, one day Muskrat Falls is a great thing and then, the next thing, it's not. When they want to talk about hydroelectricity development and green energy, Muskrat is a good thing. When they wanted to talk about poverty, it's not a good thing. This is not about Muskrat Falls. This is about the seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador who are struggling right now to make ends meet.

Premier, all of this highlights the need for a poverty reduction strategy that's indexed to inflation.

Why has it taken this Liberal government almost a decade and we still do not have a poverty reduction strategy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

Allow me to address some of the

preamble. I can tell you who did not think the Muskrat Falls project was valuable, was Commissioner LeBlanc and he did a full inquiry on the Muskrat Falls and called it a debacle. Speaker, I can say over and over again that it's costing this province – last year we paid $192 million in rate mitigation to Hydro to ensure that the people of this province, including seniors, including those in poverty do not have their rates doubled, Speaker.

This is absolutely the truth and I can say to the Member opposite, the poverty reduction is foremost on this government's mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, last week, the Liberal government announced virtual physician coverage, 24-7.

I ask the Premier: Will doctors providing virtual care under this new contract be paid the same rates as other doctors in our public system?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what won't be happening with doctors in this province, despite the fear mongering of the Member opposite, they always look for the bad in the good announcement. This will provide additional primary care for individuals throughout the province.

The Member last weekend with media said that we will have a drain of physicians, like travel nurses in this province, Mr. Speaker. That is not the case. In fact, if he did his homework he would have seen through the RFP, which is a public document released, that this company will not be able to poach our doctors, there will not be a drain of doctors from this province.

I wanted that correct for the record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I'll quote from the minister's press conference, again, I quote: The proponent that we've gone with has guaranteed us access to physicians. There's another quote that says: They will have 24-7 virtual physician coverage – he's talking about New-Wes-Valley – which should help keep that site open, provided we have a nurse practitioner for the site. That doesn't sound like 24-7 guaranteed coverage.

I ask the minister: How many nurse practitioners are currently working at that site?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are recruiting nurse practitioners as the Member opposite knows. We've actually decreased the number of diversions from our category B medical sites throughout the province; we continue to do that. Primary care for our emergency departments will help reduce the number of diversions. More importantly, it will provide primary coverage virtually with a physician for all patients initially on Patient Connect; eventually all patients throughout the province.

Again, how is this a bad thing, I ask the Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Obviously the minister doesn't know the answer to that question, otherwise he would have told us in the first 10 words instead of carrying on for 30 words.

Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to refer to fear mongering; we like to refer to it as accountability. It's our role in the Official Opposition to ask questions and we'll never be accused of fear mongering. We're doing what's right for people in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: No apologies, Minister.

Speaker, it has been almost a full year since we began sending cancer patients to Toronto because of a shortage of radiation therapists. Patients, at a scary time of their lives, are sitting alone in Toronto hotel rooms.

Speaker, when is the Liberal government going to start providing cancer care at home?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to stop having to send patients to Toronto, but the alternative is that they don't have the care that they need. We have been able to reach an agreement with Toronto, Mr. Speaker, that they will provide the care they need while we are recruiting.

The reality of the fact is that we recruited six individuals to that unit, Mr. Speaker, in recent months. We continue to recruit. We do want to get the extra unit open, but we do need to ensure we have the proper staff so that people can be provided the treatment in the fourth unit safely and properly. Until then, we will continue to send them to Toronto so that they have the care that they need, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, it is no good to recruit in the front door when the stampede is continuing out the back door. The fourth machine has been shutdown for over a year and the failure rests at the feet of the Members opposite.

How many more hundreds of cancer patients are going to have to leave the province before government fixes the retention problem?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if the Member heard my previous answer, but we've recruited six individuals to that unit in recent months. We will continue to recruit.

There is a shortage of those specialists throughout the country, Mr. Speaker, that is a known fact. We have been successful in recruiting six individuals to that area of health care. We will continue to recruit, Mr. Speaker. It is competitive but we have had success. We'll continue to ensure that we recruit to that area so we can get the fourth unit open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, the failure is that they couldn't keep them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: That's your failure. You can recruit all you want but if you can't keep them, it is a revolving door, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker, again we can recruit all we want but this government has failed to hold on to these professionals leaving the province for more pay and better working conditions elsewhere, that is the problem.

Hundreds of our residents are not getting the critical cancer treatment within the 28-day national standard. When is this going to stop?

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

T. OSBORNE: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can continue to say we recruited six individuals to that area of health care delivery, recently. We will continue to recruit, Mr. Speaker. Yes, of course, we want to get people below the benchmark wait times, Mr. Speaker. It is more important that we provide the health care while that unit is shutdown and we send them to Ontario to ensure that we provide the health care that is required.

We make no apologies for ensuring that people have the health care that they need. Unfortunately, there is a shortage across the country in that area. We have put in place, Mr. Speaker, market adjustments to help retain those individuals recently. We've made that pensionable. I know the Minister of Finance is working on the pensionability issue for all market adjustments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, whenever government is asked about what they've done for seniors, the Premier issued an answer, as did the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that they've increased the Seniors' Benefit to combat the cost of living for them, but it's not indexed.

Speaker, across the province, the Seniors' Advocate has identified that 40 per cent of seniors cannot afford to eat a proper diet.

What measures can we expect now to address this crisis? Seniors know well that the Liberal sugar tax did not help the seniors afford their food.

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

S. COADY: I can say what did help – what did help was the Premier's diplomacy in making sure that 17 cents of the carbon tax is removed from home oil heat, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: That will certainly help. What else helps is the fact that we do have a program to support seniors and others –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, you have 25 seconds.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

What does help is the $500 that we are giving from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to support people that heat their homes with oil. What does help is a 15 per cent increase in the Seniors' Benefit that can be stacked upon the Income Supplement as well, Speaker. We've been able to cut the cost to driver medicals as well, giving free driver medicals. These all help seniors, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: If this government didn't bring in the carbon tax on home heating fuel, then we probably wouldn't have the issue with the cost of living we currently have as one indicator that we currently have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: The Seniors' Advocate, I repeat, states that at this point in time 40 per cent of seniors can't afford to eat a proper diet. After Thursday's questions on the cost of living in this House and the plight of Newfoundlanders, I received an email from a couple in my district: 2½ years is how long this couple has been waiting for an occupational therapist to visit their home in Bonavista to avail of the home modification program through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

SPEAKER: Get to your question.

C. PARDY: How is 2½ years an acceptable wait time for this couple?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I want to address the Member's

preamble because it's unbelievable how there's no accountability for facts or truth. It is absolutely wrong to – I was the minister in the summer of 2019, carbon was coming, it was being pushed top-down. At that time, we made a decision that was best with the circumstances we were in for the people of this province and home heat, we got an exemption there.

Speaker, day after day, to talk about what's –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

If Members continue, they will be named and lose their speaking privileges. It's hard to hear the Member speak.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: We come in here day after day and talk about seniors and the high cost of living. The cost of living right now in Newfoundland and Labrador and across this country is higher than it's ever been. It's terrible. There are many reasons, Speaker, and they don't like us to talk about the project they sanctioned for $6.6 million and then it became almost $14 million; $190 million year over year that (inaudible) –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, I've asked two questions in the House this afternoon. Forty per cent of the seniors cannot form a proper diet and I asked: What are you going to do for these seniors?

The second one I'd asked is the couple in Bonavista has been waiting 2½ years to get a visit from the occupational therapist. Is it acceptable? If not, what are you going to do about it?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, if there hadn't been as much noise there I might have got to addressing the question.

As the former minister for seniors in this province, when I was in the department we had $286 million, the most ever in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador in poverty reduction initiatives. We have continued to build on that and we're going to continue to do what we can for seniors in this province, Speaker, in these very trying times.

I know there was a shuffle of critics over there on the weekend but the new leader cannot distance himself from the decisions that he made. You can't pick and choose who you care about in Newfoundland and Labrador. We care about rural areas as well and we'll continue to support and keep nurses in communities. We won't make big, impactful decisions without consulting, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Speaker, we are in to question 15 or 16 now and we still never got an answer. It's hard to deal with Question Period like that; still no answers.

Speaker, the minister has promised a feasibility study relating to alternatives and costs incurred by citizens of Marystown due to the closure of the Canning Bridge. One such alternative is the utilization of a Bailey Bridge while we await construction of a new bridge.

Will this Liberal government make this study public?

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

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to respond.

As I mentioned last week, I was in Marystown and we had a public meeting. We discussed a number of options to make transportation from the north, south and south, north in Marystown while we had to close down the existing bridge.

One of the options put forward was looking at the idea of a Bailey Bridge. We are currently studying that. Once we get our analysis completed we'll be sharing that with the Member, with the House, with the community and the public generally and determine what the course of action we can move forward.

The stipulation I made in Marystown was quite simply this: If it is technically feasible to do it, we will. If it's not, we won't.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: I appreciate the answer.

I would ask the minister: How much longer are we going to have to wait for the feasibility study? How advanced is that since October 5?

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

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, I guess the answer to the question is as soon as it's completed, we'll obviously make that available. It's a very technical analysis that is required. We have our consulting engineers involved. We have our staff involved. We will be consulting back with the town and the community before we make a final determination. That's going to take several more weeks but, once it's completed, we'll be sharing that with the public, with the House and with the Member.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Speaker, there's snow in the forecast and for those experiencing homelessness in our province, they are still waiting on solutions. Unfortunately, last week the answer was in rat-infested conditions.

How will the minister get those who are currently experiencing homelessness in our province in out of the cold?

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

P. PIKE: Thank you for your question.

Last week, when the people that we moved complained about where they went, we immediately went there. The City of St. John's, as well, went there and did full inspections. We moved the three individuals that were there to a different location.

But I've got to tell you, we have to encourage people who are experiencing homelessness to look at our shelters. In our shelters, we offer wraparound supports for those individuals who, hopefully, we can then ease them into housing units. That's where we're to with that.

I'd also, if I can –

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Speaker, in a scrum on October 26, the minister mentioned that a company or consultants have been hired to do a full review of public housing units.

Can the minister please explain the scope of their work and when can we expect to see those results?

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

P. PIKE: Thank you for your question.

The first thing I'd like to say before I begin is to talk about – if you wouldn't mind – the news today of the fire was really heartbreaking – the fire we had down on Lime Street, as well as down at Livingstone. Our thoughts are with the families that were displaced during this fire. It's something that nobody wants to hear. We also thank our first responders and the people that live in that neighbourhood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PIKE: I just want to say that our staff, our social workers have been on site since the fire this morning and, as well, working with the Canadian Red Cross to help those individuals and provide shelters and places for them to get in out of the cold.

So we'll continue to work –

SPEAKER: The hon. minister's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: We haven't seen a consultant's report, Speaker.

Minister, during Estimates this spring, it was noted there were a number of unfilled positions in the Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture Department, contributing to extensive delays in Crown Lands and processing time.

I ask the minister: What is the vacancy rate in your department?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.

I wasn't the minister that was in Estimates at the time. A former minister who has done fabulous work in that area – there are vacancies in Crown Lands; we recognize that. I visited the office in Corner Brook a couple of weeks ago and the first question I asked was in terms of the vacancy rate.

There are some challenges. We're working on those challenges in terms of recruitment. It's not the norm. The former department I was in, as well, there are always challenges in terms of recruitment but we'll keep our feet to the fire in terms of recruiting others to come in to help with those files in Crown Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, again, we are hearing of staff department being overworked, understaffed and struggling to keep up with the needs of the people. While the department is slow to respond, residents are being taken to court over their own homes.

Will the minister address the vacancy in positions?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

E. LOVELESS: I thank the Member for the question.

As I said, the first question that I asked in terms of the vacancies: Where are they? How many? I recognize that. It's not that the department is slow in responding. The challenge of recruitment is a challenge, no matter if it's government or outside of government, but it's a challenge that I'm aware of. I have my sleeves rolled up and I'm going to address it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, winter months are quickly approaching.

What has the Liberal government done to ensure the province does not experience a fuel shortage?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

Certainly, winter is fast approaching. What I can say is the same as we always do every year. We certainly keep in touch with suppliers, distributors. It's, basically, a weekly conversation that we have in our department. We're cognizant of the fact that we are reliant on outside supply but it's something that I leave in the very solid, dependable hands of staff within IET. We'll continue to do that.

But I would invite anybody if they ever have any concerns to feel free to reach out to us at any time. You can never be too proactive when it comes to these things.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, during the discussion after the state of the province, the Premier stated when questioned about housing: This did not catch us entirely by surprise. In the House of Assembly on October 16 while discussing the housing crisis the Premier stated: “You can't have a plan for something that hasn't occurred yet.”

I ask the Premier: Which is it, was the government fully seized with the housing crisis or did the Premier just misspeak again?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I'm sure the Member opposite has reviewed the Budget Speech from last year. We certainly put in a tremendous amount of money. The Budget Speech for this year put in over $140 million, that included $25 million for those experiencing or at the risk of homelessness; $17 million to maintain and modernize provincial social housing; $16 million for rental assistance programs; $10 million in grants for homeowners in low income; and, of course, $70 million for affordable housing program to help construct over 850 affordable homes.

Certainly, Speaker, we have been working very hard in ensuing that we address social housing, but we're also equally seized with keeping housing more affordable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

The Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation projects 60,000 homes need to be built in this province over the next six years to even meet the current demand.

Why hasn't this government released a plan that acknowledges and meets the targets set out by the CMHC?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I've already read into the record some of the considerable investments that we're making in social housing; some of the considerable work that is being done. This is on top of work that has been done previously, Speaker. This is just this year, I've read into the record.

Not only have we invested in social housing but we've also invested in a five-point plan to ensure that we keep housing affordable, things like the new residential rental property rebate; things like ensuring that surplus buildings and land belong to the government are made available; things like secondary and basement suite incentives; things like ensuring that we have a housing development loan program; things like homeownership assistance programs.

Speaker, I can continue to go on but we're doing our best for housing.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Speaker, the Premier has announced he will apologize to residential school survivors of Nunatsiavut. We need that apology to be sincere. Most survivors are now seniors, but his government has continually failed to address quality of life issues our elders in Nunatsiavut face.

I ask: How can we accept the Premier's apology is sincere?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

My mind goes back to 2017 when the prime minister came to this province and he offered an apology. It took place at the Lawrence O'Brien Arts Centre in Goose Bay. I happened to be there at that time.

On the heels of that, the former premier made a commitment to carry out apologies to the residential school survivors in our province. People who were impacted – their pain and their trauma was real – impacted by institutions where they attended with people that were entrusted to provide and care and nurture for them.

We have been working on these apologies since that time, Speaker. COVID delayed things a little bit. One apology has happened and I'm really pleased that my department have been working very closely with the Nunatsiavut Government and the Premier has fully committed and will be making his way to –

SPEAKER: The hon. minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Speaker, yes, residential school survivors, their trauma is real – was real, is real. They demand quality of life.

Speaker, I ask the Premier – the Premier: Will he address the quality of life issues residential school survivors' face: the ability to heat your house so you're not cold; the ability to buy food so you're not hungry; the ability to access adequate health care so you're not bumped off medical flights; not receiving a cancer diagnosis until it is too late; now cripple from treatable conditions because the treatment comes too late.

I ask the Premier: Will he address quality of life issues facing our residential school survivors?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I didn't get time to answer all of the Member's questions.

She asked was the Premier sincere. She's seen the advisory, I imagine most people in this House have, the Premier is spending three days, six apologies. This is about the residential school survivors. We cannot lose sight of who this is about and if they were not ready, this would not be proceeding at this time.

This is something that we have been working on for months and months and months. The circumstances around the apology are very heavy. I actually listened to an individual who has suffered a lot of pain and trauma on the radio this morning, CBC, and they asked would he be going to see the Premier. Yes, he said, I will be going. I want to hear what he has to say.

We cannot lose sight of that and I think we need not question the sincerity of the Premier when the House is sitting and he committed to three days and six apologies. I'm glad to see that this is finally coming to fruition, Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

In accordance with

Section 60 of the Financial Administration Act , I'm happy to table the Public Accounts for 2022-23. We, again, have an unqualified audit opinion from the Auditor General.

SPEAKER: Are there any further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

That in accordance with Standing Order 65, the Public Accounts Committee shall comprise the following Members: the Member for Exploits, the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for St. George's - Humber, the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 31, 2023.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 1, 2023, but shall continue to sit to conduct Government Business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 2, 2023.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

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

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Act, 1997, Bill 61.

SPEAKER: Are there any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to institute a six-month pause on approving industry projects on the Southwest Coast and urge the government to initiate an independent inquiry.

WHEREAS a Cumulative Effects Assessment will be conducted to include industry risks on water systems; and

WHEREAS there will be meaningful consultation hosted by the Newfoundland and Labrador government to openly discuss the proposed projects, specifically the Cumulative Effects Assessment, government role, as well the role of Local Service Districts and Indigenous bands; and

WHEREAS, if approved, there is a regional benefits package, during the entire project lifespan, of company profits provided directly to those affected in the region; and

WHEREAS, if approved, each company must be required to open an escrow account before any project commences to completely fund decommissions and land rehabilitation;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to institute a six-month pause, with time extension possibilities, on approving industry projects on the Southwest Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I present this on behalf of those people and all the people who have signed this petition. I do so, not necessarily because of my own personal views, but because every citizen in this province has a right to be heard.

I've actually presented petitions in this House of Assembly on one side of an issue and then on the other side of the issue, because I truly believe that all citizens do have that right, to have their voices and their opinions heard in this House of Assembly, pro and con for any particular issue, subject or project.

There's no doubt there are some people here that are against a project, in totality, but there's also a lot of people who just have concerns about the process. I understand the minister has said in this House, and I do appreciate that, that compared to Nova Scotia, our process has been much more thorough.

But in the meantime we do have a very, very significant document, several thousands of pages – technical information – and a lot of people are just looking for more time to be able to digest all that technical information, make informed decisions and to have another opportunity to be able to present their concerns, if they have any through an environmental process and to the government, just to make sure that the project is done right.

I will also say that there are people who have concerns about the impacts it might have on the power grid. I understand that Hydro has said that if you hook up to the grid it would be the responsibility of the proponent, but there are people wondering will upgrades be required to the grid because of all these projects, and will those costs end up being passed on to ratepayers? And there's a concern about that. There's also a concern about cumulative effects, health effects –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

P. LANE: – that could come from this project.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, the tendering process or procurement process in our province, on occasion, results in long wait times that impact local businesses and negatively impacts economic development in the District of Bonavista. While due diligence is essential, greater efforts must be made to reduce the time period involved in order to maximize economic development.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish and adhere to reasonable timelines for the tendering process to be brought to its conclusion.

I'd like to be able to highlight two examples in the District of Bonavista, which serve as the genesis for this petition. There was a call on October 27, 2020, for office space in my district for CSSD. The business placed their $8,000 deposit on it, and they kept the space open because they were going to be available for the office space for CSSD.

Well, the start date was October 27, 2020. This spring, 2½ years later, the business or the company got their information that they were not successful. I say before I move on to my second example, think – $8,000 tied up and the second thing, a fleet of office space tied up waiting for a decision and I would say that's unconscionable and that should not happen.

The second one I'd like to mention is a more recent one. I was fortunate enough to become an MHA in 2019. One of the first visitors in the office was a business lady who was interested in purchasing the Trinity Train Loop. She walked in and said that she's been trying since 2013 to occupy this property, Trinity Train Loop in Trinity. Well, finally in 2023 the RFP was issued. It was issued on January 20, closing March 3.

Now the House is wondering where are we now with that tender? Well, we are now October 30 and there is no response back from the bids on the Trinity Train Loop. We're looking at half a year. This lady's fear is it's going to be as long as the businessperson who had the office space and waited 2½ years. We have to do much better.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

The closure of the Canning Bridge in Marystown has had a devastating impact on residents, fire and emergency services and the local economy.

The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure are well aware of the poor condition of the bridge, most recently documented in a bridge inspection report completed in January 2020, which confirmed the Canning Bridge was in poor condition.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately begin the process to replace the Canning Bridge.

The process has started, and I'm pleased to say that, but there is a group that's been formed in the Marystown area. All very prominent citizens, very much community leaders. They brought forward at the public meeting on October 5 – and I will say publicly that I do support their initiatives and how they're organized and what they're doing.

One of the things that they brought to the floor of the assembly when we met on October 5 at the hotel in Marystown was the implementation of a Bailey Bridge to kind of get us through the interim, because the impact is so great. People don't understand that, yes, it's an inconvenience to people that are looking from the outside looking in, but you ask somebody from Beau Bois, Little Bay, Shoal Point, Johnny Green's Neck, the north side of Marystown how this is affecting them and you'll get some pretty stark answers.

I think a Baily Bridge is something that I can support. I have no problem with that, but I just want to make sure that the government is looking at it that way as well.

The other thing I'd like to mention while presenting this petition, I noticed on one of the signees here, she's actually a worker that I was with on the weekend – they had a Halloween dance for the disabilities community, and she was there and she was telling me some of the impacts just on her being able to take care of these two adults with special needs. The thing is that we always talk about low income and fixed incomes and stuff like that, but the other thing I'd like to mention is that it's the middle class that are hurting too because of this, and you are adding this now on top of the cost-of-living pressures that are already on these people.

I just want to let the people know, the low income, the fixed income, the middle class, and everybody on the south side and in the Marystown area that I support them. I would support a Bailey Bridge, if it's a feasibility comes back and it's a great option, but I want to make sure that the people of Marystown know that I want that option explored and I want to hear the answer when it's prepared and ready to be presented here at the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

P. PIKE: Well, I'd like to respond because I attended that meeting as well. There was a lot of support there for getting a new bridge in Marystown. There are also a lot of questions around the Bailey Bridge and if we could find a Bailey Bridge that would be long enough to go across. That's being explored now by the department.

The other thing that we were exploring as well is some sort of social busing, social transportation so we can help people living in the area to get to where they want to go on the other side. Because as we all know, anybody that knows Marystown, realizes that on the other side of Marystown is where all the services are. So if we could help there in some way, that would be great.

Myself and Minister Abbott, we certainly did propose that at our meeting. We would like to have a discussion with yourself and the people on that committee in the Town of Marystown, the council and so on. We would like to sit down and have a chat with them about that, just to see if that's something just in case the Bailey Bridge is not feasible.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

Route 10 on the southern Avalon forms a large

section of the Irish Loop. This is a significant piece of infrastructure and is the main highway along the Irish Loop. This highway plays a major role in the residential and commercial growth of the region.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that immediate brush cutting is required on Route 10, the Southern Shore Highway, as large sections of brush along this highway is a significant safety hazard for the high volume of travelling motorists who travel the highway daily. This work is essential in the prevention of moose-vehicle accidents along the Route 10.

Speaker, I've done this a few times now along the way, but it's certainly encouraging to see, after I was out the weekend in the Bay Bulls area, that the department was out and doing some brush cutting. Where they were doing it, the guardrail was totally engulfed in alders along the side of the road. They got a good portion of it done. Hopefully, they're back at it again today. I don't know, I left before they were there today. I hope they're there.

But with that being said, they need to get out and do the maintenance. So now with snow coming tomorrow, that probably shuts that down while they're going to be doing snow clearing or doing sanding of the roads. In the summertime is when this needs to happen.

I've been on this now a nice bit in regard to bringing a petition for it. Maintenance is where it's to and to prevent all this. I've said they've done a great job. It looks clean. They've got a place to remove the snow in that area, but when you get further up in the district, up in La Manche and Tors Cove and further along in Cape Broyle and Calvert – going to a function last week, we met a moose on the way back and you don't get a chance to experience it until you're there and you say, how did you not see that?

The alders and the brush are on the sides of the roads. It's thick and you just can't see anything and you're up there on a rainy night, it's something that's vital for our area. I get a lot of people when I go to functions: Can you get something done with the brush cutting? It's hard to see when you're driving, especially in the nighttime when it's literally right on the sides of the road.

So it's something I hope the minister in his next budget will be able to look at that. I know that there's a tender out that supposedly closed on October 19. I'd love to have an update on that when he gets a chance.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Once again, I bring this petition: the anti-temporary replacement worker legislation. These are the reasons for the petition:

The anti-temporary replacement worker laws have existed in Quebec since 1978, in British Columbia since 1993, and the federal government has committed to introduce the legislation by the end of 2023.

The use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, as well as residents.

Any temporary worker legislation has shown to reduce the length and divisiveness of labour disputes.

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

The use of temporary replacement workers undermines that right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I bring this petition forward again from the residents of Labrador West who are seeking to see this legislation enacted. They want to see it be in line with the federal government when they bring theirs in 2023. It has been in Quebec and it has been in British Columbia for quite some time.

We want to make sure to maintain that balance between worker and employer. For me, from seeing it, is the idea that this will help restore that balance and make sure that these labour disputes don't drag on needlessly.

I know my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Labour, we've had some discussions and we will continue to have some discussions, but I think this is the way that we can fix that balance. Like I said, we see the federal government committed to doing it; we've seen some of our cousins in the federation with Quebec and British Columbia have done it and others provinces, I believe, are also exploring the options right now as the federal government is bringing this forward.

So once again, I ask our minister to take this under serious consideration and do this.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition is to reinstate the freight boat, the marine shipping service between the Island portion of our province and the Northern Labrador communities.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to return the marine shipping services between the Island portion of our province and our Northern Labrador communities.

This marine freight service was removed in the spring of 2019, resulting in freight having to be trucked to the port of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, then shipped to our northern communities. Since then, the additional shipping has directly impacted prices of building materials; vehicles, including trucks and off-road vehicles; household goods; and many essential services for our communities.

Our Northern Labrador communities are totally isolated, with no road access, and marine transportation services are limited to five months in the summer, on average. With the cancellation of the direct marine freight service from the Island portion of our province to our communities, residents are witnessing exorbitant price increases of basic needs impacting overall quality of life.

Now, Speaker, I talk a lot about quality of life and this NL Nutritious Food Basket came out just recently. It shows that the North Coast is paying, for a family of four, $1,868. That is almost $1,900 and that is $632 more a month than on average in Newfoundland and Labrador.

But if people can't relate to that price difference impacting people on the North Coast trying to access nutritional food, well then I'll draw your attention to what they're paying for a jar of jam. Speaker, my glass of water is about 500 millilitres. For a jar of peanut butter, it's $9. Actually, it's $9.59.

So, Speaker, what we're facing now is not a crisis. We've got a crisis on top of a crisis because the price of our food has gone up significantly but also the cost of heating our home has gone through the roof. People can't afford to heat their homes. People can't afford to access nutritional food.

Speaker, that's having an impact on quality of life. People who are on fixed incomes, like our elders, our elders in our community are being squeezed because they're losing autonomy. They're losing control over their lives because a lot of times, now, they can't afford to heat their house so they have to welcome people in to their house to live with them to help support the ability to heat their house. That's removing autonomy from our elders.

Our low-income families are really, really struggling because if you can't adequately heat your house and feed your children, your children will be taken from them and a lot of our families have files open with Children, Seniors and Social Development. Some of them are closed but some of them remain open.

Basically, not only are we jeopardizing quality of life, we're jeopardizing future generations.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member's time is expired.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 9.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 6.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting the Quarry Resources in the Province, Bill 58, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

An Act Respecting the Quarry Resources in the Province, Bill 58, and that said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting the Quarry Resources in the Province,” carried. (Bill 58)

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act Respecting the Quarry Resources in the Province. (Bill 58)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act, Bill 59, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act, Bill 59, and that said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Mineral Act,” carried. (Bill 59)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act. (Bill 59)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, Bill 60, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, Bill 60, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act. (Bill 60)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act. (Bill 60)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 60 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 10.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that

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

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 No. 2.” (Bill 56)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise today to introduce Bill 56, titled

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

Confidentiality is an essential consideration for the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol Act, more commonly known as Clare's Law.

The purpose of this bill is to add Clare's Law to ATIPPA

Schedule A in order to protect the confidentiality of those who utilize this new safety tool. Before we get started on the details of the amendment, let me remind everyone about what Clare's Law is and what it aims to accomplish.

The spirit that underlies Clare's Law is our government's belief that people at risk have a right to know if their partners have histories of violence or abuse. We knew there was more that could be done to protect individuals by providing information they need to make informed decisions about their own personal safety. Clare's Law will allow those feeling unsafe in an intimate partner relationship to request information from the police about the risk of experiencing violence. I think we can all agree on the importance of preventing this type of violence in our province.

Clare's Law is named after Clare Wood, a British woman who was murdered by her partner in 2009. Clare's family fought for a disclosure protocol that would enable individuals to obtain information from police about a partner's documented history of violence in hopes they may safely leave relationships when a risk of violence may be present.

The purpose of the amendment before us is our belief in the importance of ensuring that users of this legislation are safe and protected. There is an elevated risk if abusers become aware that their partners have made an application for disclosure to police. It is essential for the provincial government to take necessary steps to protect the information of people who wish to avail of the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol Act.

Currently, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary records generated during the processing of applications under the act would be subject to ATIPPA. This presents a significant risk of harm as even the refusal of access could cause an abuser to infer their partner has made an application. Adding

section 6 and 7(1)(

b) of the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol Act to

Schedule A is intended to exempt records generated during the processing of application under the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol Act from release in the event of the nature of request.

Applicant records processed by the RCMP would be accessible under both the Access to Information Act of Canada and the Privacy Act of Canada. The federal government takes applicant safety seriously and have advised they will apply all appropriate exemptions contained in their legislation.

By adding Clare's Law to

Schedule A, it will join other pieces of legislation for which protecting the confidentiality of vulnerable people is of the utmost importance. As there are similar provisions in the Adoption Act, 2013; the Adult Protection Act, 2021 ; the Children, Youth and Families Act ; and the Fatalities Investigations Act.

During consultations on Clare's Law with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner agreed with the approach to protect records collected under this process in order to ensure applicants are protected. The proposed amendment will do just that.

Given the sensitive nature of Clare's Law, significant due diligence was taken to help determine how this protocol could be applied in a provincial context, through consultation with other jurisdictions, engagement of provincial police forces and working with other stakeholders. Taking the appropriate time to get this legislation and regulations right is something I believe we can all agree on.

In closing, this amendment will help protect vulnerable people from their abusers or would-be abusers, finding that they are subject of a Clare's Law application.

Speaker, we are on the cusp of making Clare's Law a reality. Some Members may wonder when the regulations and protocol will come into force and I'm happy to report that passing this amendment removes the final hurdle on the road to making this happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 56. I ask for the support of all Members in passing this bill. I look forward to participation from Members on all sides of the debate today.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the former Minister of Justice, current Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, who spearheaded this. It was his initiative that got this moving and I just happen to be here to get it over the finish line but I wanted to thank him for all his work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

As I review the Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015, Bill 56, we will have no issue in terms of supporting this important bill.

We know from what the minister has noted and from briefings that we've heard that this is a very important step. It is focused on confidentiality and we agree that that is of the upmost importance, especially for those individuals who will utilize the process that's involved here. The purpose of this amendment is to protect those users and they would be potentially the individuals who are at risk. Therefore, the issue is whether they have the right to know.

Now, of course, we know that there's a delicate balancing act here that's in play that we have to look at: The balancing of the person's right to privacy versus the person's right to have disclosure and have knowledge of this information. This amendment, the Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, is very important. It will designate, from our understanding, several ways for the police to disclose a person's history of abusive behaviour to those who may potentially be at risk from such behaviour.

As the minister has highlighted – and I think it needs to be addressed as well from my position in terms of the importance of this bill and how it relates to Clare's Law – when we look at Clare's Law, we see that it's directly focused on the issue of interpersonal violence or intimate partner violence. We know, as well, that that's a serious issue in our province.

I certainly could quote the statistics with respect to how people are subjected to violence and this statistic would be actually wrong, Speaker, because we know that violence is under reported. It's grossly under reported in terms of being reported to the police. So the thing that we need to acknowledge here is that certainly, not all, but most of victims or survivors, if they are fortunate enough to survive, are women and girls.

So I think what we need to really understand this amendment is we need to look at what is it that perhaps prompts women and girls not to report that they have been the subject of violence. It's a multi-faceted issue but I think it can be looked to as the fear perhaps of reporting to police, the intimidation factor, the perpetrator may be close to them. It may be a person that they know. It may be a family member or a partner, of course. Sometimes it is people and persons in positions of authority and trust. It could be employers.

There are many reasons why an individual, a woman or a girl, does not report these types of offences where they have been subjected to violence and that they have been abused. They may be in denial. They may believe how this could happen to me or believing that it could never happen to me. They may be blinded by some idea that it is love or what they think is love.

But, nevertheless, the reality is they may be at great risk. That is what this piece of legislation here today is focused on. It is about the potential for risk that many face or they may be at great risk, so that is why this particular piece of legislation is very important.

Let's just look at the practical implications of this legislation. The goal is intended to reduce intimate partner violence. Now we know that Clare's Law was intended for that purpose. It was passed by this hon. House of Assembly back in 2019, but yet has to be proclaimed in law.

Now that is obviously very disconcerting. We are looking at almost four years and it still has not been enacted. Now, I understand the issue and perhaps partial explanation for the delay is because this is a very delicate matter. When you are balancing competing interests of the right of the person to have privacy and yet, the right of the victim to have the information about someone who is potentially putting them at great risks, but still, four years?

Reasonably when this law was passed back in 2019, we would think that perhaps maybe a year, maybe 15 months to develop and to understand the implications to look at the protocols. Give them ample opportunity to realize these protocols and that they would have to be fixed in regulation rather than legislation.

So we know that's what's happened here. This has to be fixed in protocol, in regulations. That it will be, my understanding is, amendable at the ministerial level, which is outside this hon. House. It is outside the House of Assembly. It is outside the Legislature.

We understand that when there are competing rights and interests, a person's right to privacy versus a person's right to know this information, that that would take time. But again, it is very disconcerting and very troubling that it still hasn't been enacted. It still hasn't been proclaimed. I think that is something that we need to be concerned about because, obviously, I'll be asking the minister about the potential victims of intimate partner violence and are they continuing to be exposed to unnecessary harm until this, Clare's Law, is enacted and proclaimed.

So that is very concerning; I think that will have to definitely be addressed. I know that the minister, in his comments, indicated that this is the final hurdle and that's really great to hear. We're very, very pleased to hear that this is it; this is the final step. Hopefully, that means that this law will be proclaimed forthright and we're very hopeful that's going to happen.

Speaker, the other thing I wanted to mention is when I heard the minister, he indicated that the RNC, the RCMP and Privacy Commissioner have all been consulted; so that is very good hear that those entities have been consulted and are very supportive of this legislation and so that's great.

One thing that has concerned me is that – and perhaps the minister can address this when we get into Committee or in his response here – when this law was passed in 2019, it was my hope to see that government would publicize the developments with respect to the protocols and inform, not only the Opposition, but the public about how things were progressing, if there were any changes and that people would be fully aware of the rules.

Perhaps the minister can shed some meaningful light on that, because that is a very important part of when we're seeing this law being passed that there is response to the public and the public are engaged, that there's consultation involved as well.

I know that the minister has stated that they have engaged in due diligence, that they consulted with other jurisdictions, that they've consulted with the police and other stakeholders. We look forward to hearing exactly what stakeholders were consulted and the input that they have had with respect to this particular last piece of the puzzle.

Again, I'm happy, as critic for Justice and Public Safety, to see this further protection that's provided under ATIPP. I think when we look at the implications – for example, if a convicted offender is trying to find out if someone was asking about their particular past before this bill, before this Bill 56, they would be basically subject to ATIPP.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Okay, would not be subject to ATIPP. Now there is further protection under ATIPP. All of that request, so if we have a convicted offender out there who was trying to find out if someone's delving into their past that request by that convicted offender, including any emails, would be subject to ATIPP.

This is good. This is a very important, good step. It will protect the confidentiality of that individual. That person who feels that they're potentially at risk, that victim, survivor who feels that they're potentially at risk will be protected. The convicted offender will not be able to find out who they are. We have to applaud that. That's an important step.

Again, we need to see further action on this. Government needs to get Clare's law finalized once and for all, so that the innocent victim and survivor can be protected completely when it comes to – I mean, it will not provide complete protection and we've heard from certain groups out there that say well, we don't want this to provide a false sense of security for victims either, or survivors, but it certainly will help protect them. It will give more tools and more safeguards to help them in that regard.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I, too, want to speak to this important legislation. I can remember back earlier in our mandate, shortly after this government took office, following the election in 2015, it was the former minister, of course, who was passionate about this. Again, my thanks are to him and, of course, our current minister and department because as we can all appreciate it is a very important piece of legislation. I appreciate the Member opposite for her comments because I know she also appreciates this and sees the value.

But as Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality, I want to unequivocally state, Speaker, that violence of any kind will not be tolerated in this province. I'm pleased to be part of this initiative as well and working with my colleague and my staff, of course, from the Office of Women and Gender Equality.

This initiative that will be announced, of course, we're going through the House right now, will certainly increase the safety. It will be an extra tool to help increase the safety for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

As we know, Speaker, women and gender-diverse people are the targets of gender-based violence attacks and sexual assault attacks. We know that. Statistics prove that. Also, I can reflect, I just had a recent FTP, federal-provincial-territorial conference this past summer in PEI, this topic was also discussed at that national table. Not all jurisdictions have implemented this legislation, but we will be a leader in that regard.

By preparing to proclaim into force the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol of Clare's Law, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is increasing the safety for all individuals in intimate relationships who are at risk of violence from their partners.

Just a bit of background on it, Speaker. Clare's Law is named after Clare Wood, a British woman who was murdered by a former partner back in 2009. The Wood family fought for this disclosure protocol that would enable individuals to obtain information from police about a partner's documented history of violence in hopes that they may safely leave a relationship when at risk of violence, which may be present.

My career prior to this, I was a journalist and I'll never forget some of those intimate partner violence cases that I covered. I can't help but wonder should that legislation have been available back then in the early 2000s and whatnot, would some of these women – would they still be alive today?

One case in particular that I followed actually for an entire summer was a woman went missing and there was a complete search throughout the Black Hills toward Signal Hill and Cape Spear. I'll never forget that, covering that case and seeing the searchers search the woods for her body. We came to later find out that her body was indeed discovered in parts in a suitcase in another location in our province.

I can't help but wonder had that woman known that her partner, at the time, had a violent history, that this person was later released in the news that indeed did have, would it have made a difference? I can't help but wonder that. It's those sorts of stories that will never leave me.

So being the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality, I'm passionate about this. I'm happy to see this. I'm grateful for my colleagues, that they see the value in this and our government as a whole.

I just wanted to say that, Speaker. I look forward to the further comments in this House because I know everybody here in this House of Assembly supports all the initiatives that we can to protect the people, in this case, women and gender-diverse people in particular here, Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll just speak briefly on the amendment to Bill 56. This act is being amended to add the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol Act to

Schedule A. It's really important to talk a little bit about the amendment and also to include Clare's Law. I know the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality spoke eloquently about her first-hand information about domestic violence and that we should be doing everything here in government to ensure that vulnerable people in relationships are being protected.

The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, ATIPPA, contains an element called

Schedule A. Most of my reference will be in relation to that.

A lot of people out there in the general public don't really know much about this. They hear references to Clare's Law so that's basically the only context that they can relate to it. But the legislation or pieces of legislation that's listed here takes precedent over ATIPPA. Therefore, when an individual requests information that's been gathered and recorded under legislation identified under

Schedule A, there is no duty to disclose that information, therefore it remains private. A lot of times that privacy is about ensuring that vulnerable people are protected.

Some examples of the legislation covered under

Schedule A are not only about the relationships with abusive partners, some of the examples of the legislation covered under

Schedule A include

section 64 to 68 of the Adoptions Act, 2013 also some sections of the Patients Safety Act and another point to raise, as well, is that it's under

section 5.4, the Energy Corporation Act related to Muskrat Falls and commercially sensitive information.

So just looking at this now, the goal is to ensure that abusers cannot use ATIPPA to obtain documents that show information the police might have disclosed about them and to whom. So it's about privacy and protecting vulnerable peoples in abusive relationships.

All records pertaining to an investigation or activity conducted under Clare's Law will be barred from release to the public. Speaker, we support this amendment. As the minister spoke, Clare's Law was passed in this House of Assembly in 2019, but it's not yet enacted.

We're pleased to support anything such as amending this act to bring Clare's Law into law and it can be active in protecting vulnerable people and serving the purpose that it was brought forward to this House in 2019.

The one thing I also want to add is legislators. When we're looking at amendments, we must use caution; caution has to be exercised when debating exemptions to

Schedule A. While some might be in the public interest, as we spoke about and was spoken passionately about, it might be in the public interest or in that of the affected party such as adoption records where we need to protect people as well. Others exemptions could potentially be for nefarious purposes such as those as related to the Energy Corporation Act . So we've got to use care and caution.

But for us, here, in the Third Party, we support this amendment. We're hoping now and we're looking forward to a time when Clare's Law will be enacted, Speaker, and we'll have some questions for the minister in Committee.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to talk on this bill for a few moments, Bill 56. I can't speak for the entire House, but by the looks of it, I think we're all unanimous in our support of Bill 56. I know that my hon. colleague from Harbour Main has taken the lead on this bill for our caucus. We've had discussions around our table and outside of this Chamber on the importance and the significance of this bill, and we're certainly following her lead to be fully in support of it. And just to ditto that, I know the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, in his

preamble, said something like – to paraphrase – the spirit that underlies is the government believes that the security of those who may be in harm's way of domestic violence are assisted.

I know not only government, I think we all need to do whatever we possibly can to make sure that those who may be in harm's way, domestic violence situations, intimate partner violence, we do everything we can to assist them.

On Saturday April 29, myself and the Leader of the Official Opposition, the MHA for Stephenville - Port au Port, we went to Bonavista. In Bonavista, there was a group that was having an awareness and a fundraiser, and that group in Bonavista is named Saltwater Community Association Inc. They wanted to be able to better prepare for those women who would be fleeing gender-based violence. What can they do?

Since that time, they've established the Bonavista Peninsula Status of Women's Council. There are other established councils in the province, but they want to make sure that they look after that region, Clarenville-Bonavista Peninsula, to make sure that anybody fleeing violence can have a place to find safety and refuge in and close to the homes where they are. The closest now would be Marystown or Gander.

So we wanted to Iook at that in our district. I stand to be corrected, but I think the only council that may not be supported by government now may be this one, on the Bonavista Peninsula, that supports the whole peninsula. Now if there are others I stand corrected, but I'm sure I'll hear that at some point in time in the future. I commend them for starting it, and I know that if government can find it within their financial means to use them within their umbrella for funding; it would be a good thing.

We often think that when we have this act and we look at Clare's Law, we always think that violence happens somewhere else. It doesn't happen close to home. Somewhere else it happens. We need to be cognizant of it, but it doesn't happen close to home. We said that we don't have much data to support it that we see frequently, but The Telegram , this summer, reported that we see a 53 per cent increase in gender-based violence reports to the RCMP. That is significant: 53 per cent increase.

Probing a little further on gender-based violence, from the Clarenville to the Bonavista region in 2019, there were 113 reported incidents of gender-based violence. I'll repeat that, in the Bonavista to Clarenville region in 2019 there were 113 reported incidents of gender-based violence. In 2020 the number grew to 144. So to think that it always occurs somewhere else is wrong. It occurs everywhere and the initiative, such as Bill 56 and others, they help to make sure that we provide the security for those that might find themselves in harm's way.

The federal government recently announced – and I heard my hon. Member for Harbour Main question many times – they committed to eradicating gender-based violence in 10 years. She asked the question several times; this province still doesn't have a violence prevention plan. I say, imagine, we're going to do what we can to support others, but in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we do not have a violence prevention plan. We need to do more in that capacity and I thank the hon. Member for bringing that up and she brings it up around our table quite frequently.

I don't need to speak more on the bill for the sake of redundancy and repeat what anybody said, Speaker, but we certainly support Bill 56. We were wondering about Clare's Law, when it was coming into effect. We're glad that this is the last hurdle. I would assume that probably Monday of next week it should be in full force in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not going to speak on this very long, just to say that I support Bill 56. I think, as has been said numerous times now, anything that we can do in this House of Assembly to protect the most vulnerable, protect women and families, protect gender-diverse people, that's what we need to do.

We passed Clare's Law in this House of Assembly a couple of years ago, which was a very good move, but obviously this legislation is needed to accompany Clare's Law so that when somebody does utilize the provisions of Clare's Law to find out about an intimate partner, that partner would be none the wiser for it and hence that person will not be adversely impacted were the partner to find out. That's really what this is all about.

So just to say for the record, for Hansard , that I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, if the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Thanks for what sounds like the full support of the House on this amendment to ATIPP to make sure that we have the right protocols in place to proclaim the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol Act .

Thanks to the Members from Harbour Main, the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality, Members from Torngat Mountains and Bonavista and Mount Pearl - Southlands for their comments as well.

I just want to remind everyone, and some people have said it, that this act was proclaimed. We're not here to debate the act and the merits of the act. I think the House unanimously supported that act a few years ago. It is unfortunate it took a few years to get here, at this point in time, but this is the last hurdle. But what we are here to debate today is whether we should exempt records generated under this process from release under ATIPP.

Again, thanks for the support from everybody in the House and look forward to questions in Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 56 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

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

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

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

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 No. 2,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 56)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 56.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We're now considering Bill 56,

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

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, so this bill has been passed. When will it be finally enacted?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Chair.

Hopefully we'll get Committee done today and we'll do third reading later this week. After that, as I said, it's the final hurdle and I expect that the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol Act proclamation will be extremely soon to follow after we finish third reading of this act today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, that's great news.

Why have we been waiting four years?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Chair.

I'm not going to hide from the fact that four years was too long to get this protocol in place. It's great that the House did pass this act back in 2019. There has been a lot of work that went into developing the protocol which will exist under the regulations. There have been consultations with almost 50 groups through engageNL, with Indigenous governments, organizations, with women's organizations, offender rights groups, legal groups, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, RNC, RCMP, internal consultations with Women and Gender Equality and IAR. There was time to do that consultation.

The protocol itself is substantive. There is some detail in that to ensure this is being done properly. It did take some time. Definitely a little bit longer than everybody wanted, but we can see the finish line.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

That's great to hear, 50 groups. That's very encouraging.

Another aspect of Clare's Law that we need to consider and has to be particularly sensitive to the circumstances of women and girls in Indigenous communities because of the lessons we've learned from the recent Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Was there consultation with any Indigenous groups or organizations?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Chair.

Yes, there were definitely consultations with Indigenous governments, including Nunatsiavut, NunatuKavut, Innu Nation, Miawpukek, Qalipu, Sheshatshiu First Nation, as well as Newfoundland Aboriginal women's groups, the Newfoundland Native Women's Association, First Light St. John's Friendship Centre, Labrador Friendship Centre, on and on and on. I can certainly provide the full list to the House of all those consultations. But as you can hear from naming a few, it was extensive.

CHAIR: The Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

That's excellent and if you could provide that list that would be great. But that's wonderful to hear.

Is the minister worried with respect to potential victims of intimate partner violence that they have been exposed to unnecessary harm in the last four years since this was passed, Clare's Law was passed?

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

J. HOGAN: I'm sorry; can I just ask the Member to repeat that question?

CHAIR: The Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Are you worried that potential victims of intimate partner violence were exposed to unnecessary harm in the process, in the four-year process of waiting for this to come to where it is today?

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

J. HOGAN: Yeah.

So, of course, over the past four years, all of which I wasn't a Member of the House of Assembly, I don't know if worried is the right word, but I feel terrible that anyone who is subjected to interpersonal violence in this province, whether it was before or after this amendment comes into force.

Just to be clear, too, that once the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol Act is proclaimed, it's one tool that an individual in this province can use to prevent ongoing abuse or prevent abuse from happening in the first place. But it's not going to solve the problem altogether. I want to be clear that this government doesn't think that.

There are all kinds of other options that we need to continue working on in this government and in this province to lower the rates of interpersonal violence in this province, including things like education for young individuals in schools to know the harm, that they can be causing intergenerational trauma. I mean, people learn this thing from their parents and their grandparents and we need to continue to work on that. This is one thing that we are doing to try to lessen the risk of that happening again.

CHAIR: The Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Minister.

I concur. We need to be taking steps like these because violence is still far too prevalent in our province and to find new and better ways like this to protect our vulnerable, especially when we know that people need our help. This amendment really does indicate that we are hearing them and are trying to find new ways to protect them from harm. So I think that's great.

Does the minister have any idea from the law enforcement agencies, because I see that there has been good consultation with these agencies, how many potential individuals have been at risk? Now, I know that there is an under reporting of violence and that is clear. We know that the numbers of people who are victims of abuse are high, but has there been any idea from consultations with law enforcement of the individuals who have been at risk?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Chair.

I don't think we'd be able to give those, we wouldn't have those numbers right now until the protocol is in place, but I think you mentioned it when you were speaking during second reading and I think you just mentioned it again, that there has been chronic under reporting of this issue, not only in the province, but in the country. One thing I think this certainly will allow is for individuals who don't feel safe in reporting it to the RNC or the RCMP and potentially going through the court process, where obviously their partner would know that an allegation has been made against them, this will allow this to be done in privacy so that individual doesn't have to run that risk in the future.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Chair.

I just also wanted to build on the hon. Member who had some questions as well around the consultation. I just want to add some things in here to the record with regard to this because obviously violence prevention is pertaining to what we're discussing here today.

The establishment of an Indigenous Women's Reconciliation Council, I mean it's huge. It's something that this government has done and that came from a direct report from the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls recommendations that we received as a government from the Newfoundland and Labrador Indigenous Women's Steering Committee. That's one tool, as my colleague said, but it's about a number of tools to work together to do just that, to do what we can for prevention.

Also, a number of other things that government has done as initiatives are: a revised Harassment-Free Workplace Policy has been implemented; improvements to the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations including provisions to address workplace harassment and worker-on-worker violence; the updated Family Violence Protection Act has also been done; and the introduction of bail supervision and electronic monitoring programs.

These are just some. Obviously, the Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol, what we're talking about now; the protection of intimate images act is also something that this government has introduced; changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to allow for early termination or rental agreements in cases of domestic violence; also, we've implemented changes to the Labour Standards Act which follows victims of family violence to take a total of 10 days of leave a year should they be fleeing this.

I just wanted to add that in for the record, for the hon. Member's background info.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Minister, back in April of this year you told the media that you were drafting regulations. Can you just speak to the regulations and where that stands and what's been done in that regard with respect to the protocols?

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

J. HOGAN: Essentially the protocol is the regulations. As I said, we're working on that with all the groups through the consultations to develop those regulations.

Like I said, this is the final hurdle. Once we get this amendment passed, we're ready to proclaim it. You can take from that that when we're ready to proclaim it, obviously, the regulations and the protocol are done as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: You mentioned also that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been involved. Obviously, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has seen the bill and provided an opinion. Can you tell us about that opinion? Can you table it, perhaps?

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

J. HOGAN: The Information and Privacy Commissioner has agreed with the approach to protect records collected under this process in order to ensure that applicants are protected. Whether that was in written form or during a consultation, I can check, and if there's a written opinion that we're allowed to provide or we can provide, we'll do that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: The other questions really related to the consultations. I wanted to know if you've consulted with the Status of Women – so obviously that has taken place – and other women organizations that you've consulted with, and the RNC Intimate Partner Violence unit. You named a number of stakeholders that you've consulted with. Perhaps we could have that provided, that would be helpful too.

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

J. HOGAN: Sure, we'll provide a complete list, but just for today, some of the women's groups – and I hate to leave anybody out, that's why we'll provide the full list, but includes Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, St. John's Status of Women, Corner Brook Status of Women, Bay St. George Status of Women Council, Gander Status of Women Council, Labrador West Status of Women Council, NorPen Status of Women Council. We've done some consultations for sure.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, and that completes my questions.

Thank you, Minister.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Further questions?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.

Just looking at my questions now. Some of them were asked and answered previously. Just looking at the consultations you listed there. It's actually quite pleasing to see the level of consultations you said you went through with all the different groups and stakeholders about protecting people and people's privacy and making sure vulnerable people are not harmed by any loopholes. So I think that's a positive thing. This amendment, we're in favour of anyway.

Also, one of the questions that I had was about consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and you've already answered that saying he agreed with it. So that's a positive thing as well. Also, I have some questions on the protocol and regulations, but from your answer are you saying that the regulations now are drafted, ready to go once the amendments are put in place and the Clare's Law enacted?

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

J. HOGAN: Yes.

CHAIR: The Member for Torngat Mountains for further questions?

L. EVANS: Yes.

CHAIR: Thank you.

L. EVANS: I think the only questions I have left that wasn't asked was will the addition of Clare's Law to

Schedule A have any unintended consequences? I did talk about that earlier. For instance, will it allow government to share information in the aggregate for research purposes or in order to determine how well the act or protocol and regulations are working?

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

J. HOGAN: So I don't know of any bad, unanticipated consequences. Obviously the purpose of this is to keep the information to a very small circle of people, including the applicant, the RCMP and/or RNC. The RCMP and RNC would have obviously had this information anyways.

What can be done now though, I'm sure the RCMP and RNC will be able to gather data to calculate and determine how many of these requests are being made over a period of time, which I'm sure can be used for research purposes in the future but without disclosing anyone's personal information, obviously.

CHAIR: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Chair, that's the end of my questions.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Further questions?

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 56.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 56.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 56 without amendment.

SPEAKER: Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 56 without amendment.

When shall the bill be received?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 3.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister for Digital Government and Service NL that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 52.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl-Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague from Labrador West, I think he said all of the public buildings in his district, none of them are accessible. I had a person point out to me over the weekend, which I wasn't aware, that when you think about the courts – our main courts down at Atlantic Place – and if a person had to go to Atlantic Place to utilize provincial court that – I wasn't there to actually confirm it with my own eyes, but this person told me that there's not even a blue zone in Atlantic Place for a person with a disability to access the court. In 2023 that's absolutely shameful.

I want to read into the record, this is the actual recommendation. Because there was a committee that was put in place by the government, an advisory committee, to make recommendations on these matters, including this piece of legislation. Now the piece of legislation of course that we've come up with here, is that we're basically saying that the only way we're going to see that 1981 rule dissipate, if you will, is if a business is to make renovations to the building or to change the purpose of the building, the use of the building.

Other than that, as long as that business continues to carry on in the same inaccessible building, for the next 100 years, then it will remain not being accessible, unless they do renovations. That's what this watered-down, useless piece of legislation is doing.

But that wasn't the recommendation. So I'm going to read the recommendation, for the information of the minister, if she wasn't aware. And this was sent to me by someone who was on that committee, and the board recommends the following:

So they recommended, given the fact now that these people have had these buildings since 1981, this is 2023, that's 42 years or more – these buildings are at least 42 years old. And after 42 years we're going to give them another five years – that's what's recommended, another five years, that'd be 47 years at least – for all buildings to have adequate accessible parking, walkways, an accessible entrance, and washrooms, while ensuring access to the main common areas. I don't think that's much to ask. It's shameful that we've got to be asking for it.

After this act would be proclaimed, a person with a building in 1981 or older would have 20 years to be completely accessible. Which means 62 years old, in 20 years' time, a building in 1981 would be 62 years old to be fully accessible – at least 62. That's 1981. A lot of the buildings were built way before that. So at least 62 years old, an additional 20 years' notice to be 100 per cent accessible from the date that this legislation is proclaimed.

I think that we're doing a real disservice to people in this province with disabilities. And it's not just people, as I said before, who were born with disabilities. We also have to continue to remember we have an aging population and there are many people in this province, many seniors, who were not born with a disability but they developed a disability over time. Access is important to them.

To say that a person who has issues with access – they may or may not utilize a walker or wheelchair but the fact of the matter is they have issues with access and it's today that's it's too much trouble to have proper blue zones; to have some parking spaces for that building for those people to park close to the entrance; to cut down the curb on the sidewalk, whatever, just to cut back the lip – a curb cut-down as it's referred to – so if someone had a wheelchair they could get up onto the sidewalk to get to the building; to widen an entrance or to put some push buttons on a door; and, my God, imagine actually having a washroom for the general public that everybody is able to access.

My God, can you imagine? How dare people want such a thing? How dare they want a washroom?

Like I said, this is a growing population for our seniors. I think businesses would be in their best interest to do it anyway. I've said that. It would be in their best interests to do it anyway because with that growing population of people requiring these things, it would make good business sense to do it on your own anyway because look at the potential customers that you're losing because you're not accessible. As legislators, we have a greater role to ensure – we talk about inclusion all the time. We talk about diversity.

We talk about being welcoming and ensuring that everybody is treated fair, everybody is treated equal, yet we're going to pass a piece of legislation that does absolutely nothing to move this cause further. It does nothing. Next to nothing. Maybe not nothing but next to nothing, as far as I'm concerned.

Unless I'm missing something in this bill – and I hope the minister is going to clarify where I'm wrong because this is talking about making that change when there are renovations, making that change if the building changes use. It doesn't say making that change, period. Now, that's how it reads. If I'm reading it wrong, and I hope I am, then I hope the minister will set me straight and I will applaud the minister and I will vote for this bill. If what I'm saying is wrong, I will vote for this bill. I will applaud the efforts, but this is not very clear to me. It's not very clear to me.

Quite clearly, it says to me that we're only going to make these changes after somebody decides to change the use of the building or someone decides to renovate the building.

In terms of renovations, if the building is subdivided up into different pieces, only the part that is renovated has to be. Again, the way I read it, if you had a bar and a restaurant and there was an entrance here for the bar and over on the side there's the restaurant, the way I read this, at least, is that if the bar gets renovated, you have to make it accessible, but you don't need to make the restaurant accessible because it's two different aspects of that building. Again, that's how I read it. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I'm reading it. I look forward to the clarification.

If all we're going to do is say that we're not going to make changes until there are renovations or changes of use and so on or changes of property owners or whatever, then we're doing a disservice, because we have buildings that have been there for years and years and years and nothing has been done because of this 1981 rule.

Again, I will emphasize the fact that, beyond this rule here, I'm hoping that the minister responsible for public infrastructure is going to stand at some point in time and say, do you know what? I don't care about this 1981 rule, you're absolutely right. We cannot have public buildings that are not accessible and we're going to do an inventory of all the schools and courts and AES offices and every other government building that exists, that are out there, and we are going to commit to, at the very least, making sure publicly owned building and facilities are accessible for people in our province. I'm hoping that's going to happen.

As I heard someone say over the weekend, it's kind of hard to push this down the throats, so to speak, of business owners if government is not going to lead by example. They're going to have public buildings that are not even accessible. I would hope that that's going to happen, regardless of what we pass in this House, on this piece of legislation, regardless of the 1981 rule or anything else, I would hope we could have a commitment and a plan to finally ensure that publicly owned buildings are accessible for persons with disabilities in our province.

With that said, I will wait until the minister does respond and if I'm totally off base and I'm totally wrong with what I'm reading here, then I will apologize. I will support –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: Good. Get ready. Good. If I'm wrong, I will and I will vote for this legislation, happily, but that's not what I'm reading. So I look forward to the clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I'm happy to provide some more information and give some additional background that might help clarify things for individuals.

I also agree with the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands that it is good business to be accessible, so, obviously, we encourage all private buildings and private businesses and building owners to do whatever they can to be accessible, absolutely.

During second reading, we heard a lot about public buildings and, obviously, I think that's an absolutely fair point about public buildings not being accessible and I think after the Minister for TI will speak to that a little bit. But, absolutely, that is an absolute fair point. My personal opinion is public buildings, we should do whatever is reasonable to make them accessible.

I want to talk about the 1981 exemption and give a bit of an overview. Currently, today, as legislations in place, if the building is built before 1981 and a building owner is undergoing renovations, they just have to m