April 15, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 6
The
House met at 1: 30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
I'd like
to welcome the Members back to this House of Assembly and, as you've all
noticed, we have some guests today I'd like to introduce.
First of
all in the Speaker's gallery, I'm very pleased to welcome David Diamond Terri
Jean Murray from Eastern Health, as well as members of the Burin Peninsula
Eastern Health team: Evelyn Tilley, Glenda Webber, Diane Dunphy, Mary Williams
Fewer and Heather Bungay. They are joining us this afternoon for a Member's
statement and I must say a very special welcome to you and all that you've been
doing.
Welcome
to this House today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the public gallery today,
joining us from the Town of Stephenville, we have the Mayor, Mr. Tom Rose.
Welcome
to you, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also joining us in the public
gallery, we have a student from Mount Pearl Senior High. He is job shadowing
today and his name is Matthew Biggin.
Welcome
to you, Matthew.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we'll hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune, Stephenville - Port au Port, Terra Nova and Placentia West -
Bellevue.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Towns of Botwood,
Peterview and Northern Arm, as well as Central Health on the joint hosting on
April 11 of their annual Volunteer Appreciation Dinner, hosted this year at the
Salvation Army Citadel in Peterview.
Each
year sees the event hosted on a rotating basis by the three communities during
Volunteer Week to honour the many volunteers in the region and to announce each
town's Volunteer of the Year. The guest speaker for this year's event was Robert
Hannaford of Northern Arm who spoke to the value of volunteers, with the evening
coming to a close with Christine Luscombe of Botwood, Woody Hibbs of Peterview
and both Maxine Fisher and Sheala Hart of Northern Arm being named their
communities Volunteer of the Year.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in recognizing the sponsoring
towns, Central Health and our volunteer community on this unique partnership and
shining example of regional co-operation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's an honour to stand today and pay tribute to a man that was the
embodiment of what it means to be from the South Coast. Calvin Sheppard – or
Calve as he was known – was hard-working, fun-loving and held in the highest
regard by all who knew him.
He
proudly married his life-long love, Margaret Yarn; they had two children, James
and Megan; and Calvin became the well-known owner of Yarn's Store Limited. I can
state personally that if you had the pleasure to spend time with Calve, he
immediately left a positive impression on you and you had yourself a true
friend. He had an infectious smile, a caring heart and treated all who knew him
with the utmost respect.
Mr.
Speaker, in the fall of 2017, many people were devastated to learn that Calve
had been diagnosed with brain cancer. He fought this disease courageously, but
on August 28, 2018 the stars on the South Coast shone dimmer when Calve passed
away at the age of only 59 years old.
I ask
all Members of this House to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Calvin Sheppard –
a man who was loved, admired and respected by many and whose memory will live on
for years and years to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
Sunday, March 24, the Bay St. George Sick Children's Foundation held its 24th
annual telethon at the College of the North Atlantic in Stephenville. Formed in
1995, their mandate is to lessen the financial burden on families with children
that need to travel outside the Bay St. George region for medical appointments.
Over the
past 12 years, the foundation has assisted hundreds of families, paying for over
800 trips, including 3,200-plus nights of accommodations, costing just over
$770,000.
This
year's telethon raised $52,303 over a nine-hour period, thanks to the generosity
from individuals and businesses throughout the Bay St. George region, as well as
those who made pledges from all across the country. I wish to say a sincere
thank you to the foundation's chair, Marsha McInnis, her amazing board of
directors, as well as the College of the North Atlantic, Eastlink and over 80
community volunteers who gave freely of their time to make this a success.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating the Bay St. George Sick Children's
Foundation on their successful telethon and applaud them for their ongoing
efforts for assisting families in need.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
venture to say that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian living in or outside
the province knows the ballad of “Saltwater Joys” or have sung to “The Pits” and
“Sarah, Sarah, won't you come out tonight.”
Formed
in Glovertown in 1985, Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers have entertained us
for more than 30 years. Throughout this time, band members' comedian Kevin
Blackmore, songwriter Wayne Chaulk and accordion player Ray Johnson have played
to sold-out audiences all across the country. Amongst their long list of
accomplishments, this gut-busting trio have produced 20 albums containing 85
original songs, been recognized as Music Entertainer of the Year and Artist of
the Year, received two ECMA nominations and been featured numerous times on CBC
and CTV.
Mr.
Speaker, on May 30, Kevin, Wayne and Ray will not be going up to the gravel pit;
they will be off to St. John's to receive honourary doctorate degrees from
Memorial University of Newfoundland in recognition of their tremendous
contributions to the social, cultural and artistic fabric of this province.
I ask my
hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Kevin Blackmore, Dr. Wayne
Chaulk and Dr. Ray Johnson on this milestone achievement.
Bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize a group of health care professionals who are making a difference on
the Burin Peninsula.
As
Members well know, issues relating to mental health and addictions have been on
the rise across the province. Ensuring patients could access counselling
services were crucial, but three years ago the wait time on the Burin Peninsula
was eight months long, sitting at 180 people.
Talented
members of the Eastern Health staff based in Marystown combined their expertise,
compassion and desire to do good for those they serve and, along with
government's support, changed the model of delivery from an appointments-based
system to a walk-in service. This has cut the wait time to zero, eliminated the
no-show and cancellation rate for appointments and has overall provided patients
with timely access to the services they need.
This
approach, which was pioneered on the Burin Peninsula, is now in play in other
regions of the province such as Labrador City, St. Anthony and Harbour Grace.
The
Burin Peninsula Eastern Health team will be officially recognized for their
efforts at the National Health Leadership Conference this June in Toronto.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in saluting Members of
the Burin Peninsula Eastern Health team. Each of you are making a difference.
Thank you for your work and congratulations.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to provide an update on the K-to-six Mathematics
Bursary Program.
Last
year we announced $40,000 annually for the program to encourage university-level
teacher participation and enhanced learning in K-to-six mathematics content and
instructional practices.
I am
pleased to report that there has been a great interest throughout the province
from school administrators, classroom teachers and specialists looking to ensure
and enhance their knowledge and skills in mathematics.
The
department has also received positive feedback from teachers and specialists
that have taken advantage of the Bursary Program.
One
mathematics program specialist wrote to say, “I would strongly recommend the
Mathematics Bursary Program to a colleague, as it is a wonderful opportunity to
enhance your teaching and learning proficiency in the area of mathematics. After
completing my course, I definitely walked away with a broader, richer
understanding of how to best teach mathematics in a K-6 setting.”
Mr.
Speaker, I encourage more eligible teachers and administrators who work with K-6
students, including substitute teachers, to consider availing of the bursary.
Applications are being reviewed on a regular basis.
By
implementing these recommendations included in the Premier's Task Force on
Improving Educational Outcomes and the Education Action Plan, we are ensuring
that students receive a high quality education that prepares them to succeed in
whatever path they choose.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for advance copy of his statement. The importance of good
mathematics education is vital to Newfoundland and Labrador's future, as we know
that the jobs of tomorrow will likely require youth to have a solid footing in
this subject. For example, in fields of engineering and data science.
Therefore, ensuring that our teachers, specialists and administrators have a
good understanding of the best modern practices for mathematic education is
important if we are to achieve that goal. But more importantly, we must ensure
that the actual testing outcomes are seen to be improving. Newfoundland and
Labrador still performs well below the national average, according to the last
report of the Council of Ministers of Education. We must do all that we can to
improve this situation and strive for nothing less than excellence.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I was glad to see this
bursary as one means of enhancing teaching standards of practice for K-to-six
mathematics and I'm glad it's flourishing, but I also look forward to seeing the
other promises in the Education Action Plan for 2019 and 2020, such as a new
assessment framework, new teaching standards of practice and revised courses in
the faculty of education so our younger students can get the best math
foundation possible.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, more than
80 per cent of the wild fires that occur in Newfoundland and Labrador are
preventable. In 2018, 106 out of 132 fires were caused by human activity, and 12
of those fires occurred before the normal fire season had even started in early
April – a time when many people have the misconception that spring conditions
are always safe for burning.
Although less area was burned in 2018 – we've very happy
about that – the number of fire starts was up compared to 2017. Fast action by
our excellent fire suppression crews ensured protection of more forest land last
year, and reflects the ever-constant need for vigilance in forest fire
prevention. I'm also very pleased to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that we will
be hiring 10 student firefighters this summer, who will gain valuable experience
and bring their youthful energies to a demanding profession. This new initiative
will be a fantastic source of employment for students in our forestry technician
programs as well as the related fields of natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, while spring is traditionally the time of year
to get outside and clear up our properties after a long winter, I cannot
overemphasize the importance of exercising extreme caution when using fire
during spring cleanup activities near forested land. Grass burning is a
long-standing spring tradition in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the practice is
not always safe. And while dead vegetation in fields and other open areas may
appear wet in spring, it can ignite quickly under warm or windy conditions – and
this is the cause of most fires that occur early in the season.
The 2019 forest fire season will be in effect from May 1 to
September 30 on the Island portion of the province, and from May 15 to September
30 in Labrador. Under the Forestry Act,
a permit to burn is required to burn brush on forested land or within 300 metres
of forest land during the
fire season, and failure to comply is an offence under this act.
Mr.
Speaker, I urge all residents, please, take every measure possible to not become
a forest fire statistic. Help protect our vital forest lands, as well as the
dedicated fire suppression crews that work tireless to fight fires when the call
comes in at great risk to themselves, by taking extra care to prevent forest
fires.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I thank the minister for the
advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, the statistics presented in this
statement are indeed very concerning. The fact that over 80 per cent of our
forest fires in our province are preventable and the fact that the number of
forest fire starts was higher in 2018 than 2017 should also give us pause for
thought.
As the
minister referenced in his statement regarding the grass-fire burning, I know in
my own particular neighbourhood it's not spring unless you can smell a grass
fire in the air. I remember on many occasions when the fire department would
have to show up and prevent tragedy from happening, but it can quickly manifest
into something very serious.
At this
time of year, people often take the opportunity to clean up around their
properties and it's certainly important to remind residents that brush and
forest fires can be very dangerous and destructive. I encourage all people from
across the province to take the necessary steps to prevent forest fires. This
includes the management of our forests. It's most important that we manage our
forests, harvest at the appropriate time, if not, Mother Nature will cause those
forest fires.
I
certainly wish residents, fire crews and certainly the new student firefighters
a very safe and fire-free summer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the copy of his statement. Horrific wildfires are causing
unprecedented devastation to human life and property on many parts of the globe
– surely, the effect of climate change. In our own province, we see human
activity causing forest fires, which put the lives of fire suppression crews at
risk and destroy valuable forest assets.
As we
may be facing hotter, drier and longer summers, and I think we're sure that's
going to happen, I suggest to the minister, it may be time to consider a law
banning grass burning as a practice, not just a caution to be safe.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As
recently as July 28, the Premier said his government's mission is to make sure
rates don't go much above 17 cents per kilowatt hour when Muskrat Falls is fully
online in 2021.
Can the
Premier explain why he has now adopted a target rate of 13.5 cents per kilowatt
hour –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
– which is not a Muskrat
mitigation rate but a subsidy to the shareholders of Newfoundland Light and
Power?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
any day that I get the opportunity to stand in this House and compare a very
credible Muskrat Falls rate mitigation to the CHEAP that we have out there, Mr.
Speaker, simply put, people in Newfoundland and Labrador can't afford your plan,
17 cents is too much for ratepayers or taxpayers to pay in this province. They
just simply can't afford that.
Mr.
Speaker, the unfortunate thing to do, or for me today, is standing here and
realizing that $500 million a year right now would go towards Muskrat Falls rate
mitigation that was never told to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador when
your party, the PC Party, sanctioned this in 2012.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier
knows that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro filed 14.67 cents per kilowatt hour
with the PUB as the rate immediately prior to Muskrat Falls coming online.
Does the
Premier agree that his plan to subsidize electrical rates down to 13.5 cents is
a plan to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Please
proceed.
MR. CROSBIE:
– substitute Light and Power?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the 13.5 per cent base that we put in place today would be what we would see as
the normal progression of rates that would be based on the Public Utilities
Board, Mr. Speaker, just over 12 cents a kilowatt hour right now. Any increase
in electricity rates impacts people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It impacts how
competitive we are as a province.
I know
the Leader of the Opposition there, under the Crosbie plan, is trying to defend
17 cents, Mr. Speaker, but that is even higher then when they sanctioned the
project in the beginning. What we put in place today is a rate mitigation plan
that properly reflects where we believe this province will be in rates in 2021
when Muskrat Falls generation comes online.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier
knows full well because his government required the tabling of it that our plan
fixes rates at 14.67 cents per kilowatt hour.
The
biggest factor in the Premier's rate mitigation plan is $200 million from the
federal government which they have not actually agreed to pay.
How does
an honest government spend $200 million, which is part of a wish list?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, once again we
hear the Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the PC Party, defending a 17-cent
rate mitigation plan; way too much for people in this province.
We know
that former PC governments had a problem with math. As a matter of fact, I can
remember when the former minister of Finance said that math was not his forte.
Well, neither is it the forte of the current Leader of the Opposition because he
double counted $150 million in his Crosbie plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
MR. CROSBIE:
Perhaps the Premier could explain that if the $200 million is not forthcoming
from the federal government, where's he going to get the $200 million?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, over the last 3½
years we've had a lot of success working with our federal government, when you
look at nearly $80 billion worth of transactions. This is about financial
restructuring. This is not about the federal government coming with a cheque,
we've made that quite clear this morning.
The
Public Utilities Board, in their interim report on February 15, said the
greatest opportunity, the best potential, their greatest potential for rate
mitigation when it comes to restructuring the financial arrangements with the
federal government, they saw that as there, it was possible and it was our
greatest opportunity.
Prime
Minister Trudeau agreed to that, Minister Morneau and I had a meeting, we're
working together expeditiously to achieve rate mitigation, and our current
minister, Seamus O'Regan, who's in town today, attended the meeting.
We know
we can achieve this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
MR. CROSBIE:
Now we found something out.
Now we
know that the $200 million is money which is going to be extracted down the road
from our children and our children's children, typical of the leadership of this
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
What does the Premier have to say to ratepayers who have invested massively in
mini splits, and now find out that under his rate plan their investments were
unnecessary?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, for the life of
me, I've never heard anyone say you should waste electricity, except for the
current Leader of the Opposition, the PC Leader.
He is
now suggesting that people shouldn't make wise use of electricity. Why would
anyone who represents Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not want to make sure
that people use their electricity wisely? Those who have made those investments,
I would say thank you to them, because it now puts us in the position where we
can use surplus energy, we can sell surplus energy and we can attract industry
to our province.
Mr.
Speaker, what I will not do is listen to the Leader of the Opposition that he
says we're putting this out to future generations.
The
single biggest challenge that we face in this province today is the impact of
Muskrat Falls on every single generation out into the 2050s. Is he proud of that
legacy?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
I ask
for co-operation.
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, it will be a
relief to get on the campaign trail where I can get away from listening to
continued whining from the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Yesterday was the 75th
anniversary of Hydro-Québec, and as part of the celebrations, Hydro-Québec
promoted the development of Gull Island.
I ask
the Premier: Is Nalcor or any of his officials in discussions to develop Gull
Island?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
First of all, Mr. Speaker,
very pleased to rise in this House today and listen first and foremost to the
Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the PC Party, just like we've seen
previously leaders, defend the decision on Muskrat Falls.
Yes, I
am looking forward to getting on the campaign trail too. Mr. Speaker, it took an
inquiry get the truth out about the decisions that had made with the Muskrat
Falls.
Now,
when it comes to the question, Mr. Speaker, about Gull Island or any future
developments, we are not talking about those kinds of developments. What we're
talking about would be transportation and mining, but I can guarantee you this.
We will never expose ratepayers or taxpayers of this province to a Muskrat Falls
project, regardless of what happens in the future.
I am,
like every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian, looking forward to 2041 when
we get the Upper Churchill back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Somehow I think Gull Island
went missing in the answer. Let's try our luck on the next one.
Hydro-Québec says we don't have a choice but to develop Gull Island with them.
Does the
Premier agree?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
No, I don't agree, Mr.
Speaker. What I look at when I talk to my colleagues in the Atlantic Provinces,
we have about 1,700 megawatts of coal power that will need to be displaced in
2030. If the answer to that or part of the answer to that is future developments
in our province, why wouldn't any responsible Premier take a look at that?
You see,
co-operation and partnership is what this government is built on. Keep in mind,
Mr. Speaker, it was the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the PC Party,
just a few weeks ago said the best thing we'd be doing is fight against all the
people that he's now suggesting are part of a solution for our future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, Ray Kroc,
founder of McDonald's restaurants, said that he could create faster than his
competitors could copy. I congratulate the Premier for attempting to copy the PC
Party platform to repeal the insurance premium tax, but would ask him –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
– why he intends to only go
halfway.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I'm looking
forward to a box of Kleenex that could actually have the PC platform on it
because that's what you could put it on: a piece of tissue.
Mr.
Speaker, we listened to people of our province and I can guarantee you it didn't
take the Leader of the Opposition to actually convince me about insurance tax.
We put in place a plan in 2016 that when we were in the position to do it, Mr.
Speaker, we would relieve people of this province.
I didn't
like the decisions that we made in 2016, but I'll guarantee you I like the track
that we're on today, being in a position to give back to the people of our
province, because they've asked us – regardless of what a former injury lawyer
would have said, we're here on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we
will give relief when relief is available.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, I must question again how you can stand by and watch the Pharmacy
Board force pharmacy technicians in this province to travel to another province
to do their exam and, upon their exam completion, register in that province and
then apply to the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board for registration
here. How does this make any sense?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Pharmacy Board is responsible for regulating the profession of pharmacy in this
province. They have that autonomy under the act and we have no role as
politicians in interfering with professional standards. There was a seven-year
transition put in place and two years of bridging money provided by this
government to enable those technicians, who wish to, to avail of it.
At the
end of that, it was the decision of the Pharmacy Board that that program would
terminate. Those people who went through it and were successful, I congratulate
them. Those people who did not, we have worked with them as far as possible to
try and accommodate their needs, but at the end of the day the decision is that
of the Pharmacy Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
But the
minister is responsible for the quality of health care here and that includes
every component here. So what he's saying is we'll take taxpayers' money, give
it to a technician to travel to another province to do an exam, register there,
then come back to this province and register with a board here that is qualified
to be able to do the registration here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It still
makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to people in the health profession and
it definitely makes no sense to those technicians.
Minister, you still have time to prevent the valuable health professionals from
being forced out of their positions. Will you work with Eastern Health to ensure
that the pharmacy assistants can work side by side with pharmacy technicians and
pharmacists in our health care system as other jurisdictions allow?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue of pharmacy technicians and their licensing lies very clearly with the
Pharmacy Board. Money was provided, courses were arranged and support was
provided to tune of in excess of $60,000 in the last year, Mr. Speaker.
At the
end of the day, it is about standards. Those standards are set by the Pharmacy
Board, not the Department of Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
been three months since the minister announced that ophthalmologists could offer
cataract surgeries in their clinics; yet, to date, there have been no surgeries
performed in these clinics that would be covered under the announced program.
When can
we expect people to be able to get life-altering cataract surgery in these
clinics as was promised by your administration three months ago?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
There is
a transition committee established under the arrangement that was put in place
by the Members opposite when they were in government to have surgeries and
procedures transition from the RHAs into private-based offices. Negotiations
with the NLMA are underway. We are now engaged in standard-setting activities to
make sure that the people who chose to go to a private clinic will do so with
protection around quality and standards.
This
will broaden access to cataract surgeries, but it has to be done right, and we
are getting it right, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Liberal levy has collected in total $160 million since it was announced. This is
almost half the spending announced last week by the Liberals.
I ask
the Premier: What is the estimated revenue for the 2019-2020 fiscal year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Member knows, the levy is going to be gone this year. There was legislation put
in place to eliminate the levy, when the levy was put in place in the beginning.
We
wouldn't have needed the levy if we weren't left with a fiscal mess by the Party
opposite, but to get more direct and answer the question, Mr. Speaker, it's
approximately $60 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
minister pointed out, they're going to remove it at the end of this year, but
we're asking why can't the Liberal government immediately put money back into
people's pockets by eliminating it tomorrow?
I ask
the Premier: Will you ensure that there is no levy charged on the residents of
this province for the 2019-2020 fiscal year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to say that today the Premier made the announcement
that we were eliminating the tax on automobile insurance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, that's putting
money back in the pockets of the people of the province. But day after day,
after day after day Members opposite stand and ask us to spend more money in
Question Period, in petitions, and they ask us to eliminate taxes.
Mr.
Speaker, we've employed a balanced approach on this side. We've gotten the
province back on a sound fiscal footing. We are turning the corner, Mr. Speaker,
from the mess that was left by the previous administration and I can guarantee
you that as we can provide relief, we will provide relief. We did it again
today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
I guess it's just a
coincidence that possibly tomorrow there will be an election announcement.
The
economic growth strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador was given to the Liberal
government in February of this year. Today, on what could be the last week of
their mandate, they release it.
Why
didn't the Premier produce and follow a plan the very first day he came into
office?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, what a joke –
what a joke. Receive a report today and tell everybody in the province exactly
how we're going to deal with the report today – what a joke.
Mr.
Speaker, we released the report today. We promised we'd release the report. We
did indicate that the report was to inform budget 2019 and we indicated that
we'd release the report, Mr. Speaker, shortly after the budget. I guess they're
going to complain that we actually did it before the budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
The McKinsey report reads:
Unemployment rate is significantly higher than the national and only about half
of Newfoundland and Labrador's population of labour force age are employed.
How does
the Premier expect the people to re-elect them when he has failed to provide job
growth in the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Oh my God! Mr. Speaker, we've
had nine consecutive months of year-over-year job growth in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, their budget of
2015 projected what the employment would be in this province. We have surpassed
it. We surpassed what they projected.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker,
Budget 2015 projected what capital investment would be in this
province. We have surpassed it. Budget
2015 projected what retail sales would be today. We have surpassed it, Mr.
Speaker. We have surpassed their projections of
Budget 2015.
As I
said last week, it was fudge-it budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
While I'm not quite used to
such a theatrical performance by the minister, I find it insulting, as do the
families and friends of the over 20,000 people that have had to leave this
province to find work.
The
McKinsey report notes that for the province to meet its potential, government
action needs to accelerate timelines, incentivize exploration and drilling.
I ask
the Premier: How can you increase timelines if you do not stop the federal
delays?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier and
the Minister of Natural Resources have gone and spoken to Senate, they've spoken
with the federal government.
We take
the role of government very seriously. We are doing what we can to reduce the
timelines. One of the recommendations in the report was to reduce the timelines,
another recommendation was to incentivize exploration in this province. That's
the reason. He wanted us to immediately tell people our response to the report.
Some departments are actually still working on some of the recommendations.
We made
an announcement in Holyrood a couple of days ago. We made an announcement about
MRO today. There will be several other announcements regarding McKinsey in the
budget tomorrow.
As we
indicated, it was to inform Budget 2019 and we will continue to work with that
and The Way Forward, to inform
The Way Forward and (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Interestingly enough, under
this administration, the $1 million McKinsey report recommends more money needs
to be spent on more reports.
I
thought in 2015 the people committed to paying Members opposite, Members of
government, to lead the province, not a $1-million report.
Can the
minister explain to taxpayers that this was a good value for taxpayers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the report is
suggesting that we can increase GDP somewhere between $5 billion and $12
billion, that we can add another 27,000 to 30,000 jobs in this province. If we
get just a fraction of that, the investment is well worth it.
The
announcement we made today regarding MRO has the ability to create hundreds of
high-paying jobs in a globally growing industry. If we can just do that one
announcement, that one project, it's worth the investment. It's talking about
several other sectors where we can improve and increase the number of jobs.
We are
determined to turn this province around. We're doing it. We're creating
employment. We've got a track record of doing so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
McKinsey highlighted top five
high-potential priority sectors. One of them was ocean technology, which we are
now playing second fiddle to Halifax. Two: offshore oil, which this government
has just sold out under the Atlantic Accord and now falling victim to C-69, and
the fisheries, which this government failed to get a federal fund to diversify.
Why have
you spend four years doing the exact opposite of what McKinsey says you should
have been doing to grow our economy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, another example
of why the Members opposite would be asleep at the wheel.
Mr.
Speaker, our Premier and our Minister of Natural Resources have gone to the
world, gone to the global oil industry, they've eliminated or reduced the risk
of doing exploration in this province by doing the geoscience and the seismic
work in this province. We've got almost 100 exploration wells registered with
this province today, Mr. Speaker. If just one in five or one in six of those
wells turns to a profitable project – the size of our oil industry right now is
just at the infancy.
We've
been doing the things we need to do to create jobs. We'll continue to doing
whatever we need to do to create jobs. We make no apology for that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Just a little reminder to all
the Members, it is Oral Questions, I want to hear the questions and I want to
hear the answers. I will not tolerate interruptions.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
Thank
you.
MR. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, the Seniors'
Advocate, Dr. Suzanne Brake, was appointed on November 8, 2017.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Under
the Seniors Advocate Act, Dr. Brake
was required to file an annual report to the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
This has not happened.
Mr.
Speaker, why is the minister allowing this important work to fall by the
wayside?
MR. SPEAKER:
This question is out of
order. It's a part of the Statutory Office world that's within the Speaker's
office. If you'd like to discuss, I'd invite the Member to come and see me.
Another
question please.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail -Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, the Seniors'
Advocate was established to provide a critical voice to systemic issues seniors
are facing and to make recommendations to government to improve senior services.
It's now been five months since the report should have been presented.
I ask
the minister: Will she explain why the voice of seniors has been silenced by
this government?
MR. SPEAKER:
I will tolerate the question.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, while you have
already ruled that the question is out of order, I will take a minute to talk
about how pleased we are because that it in independent office –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
– of the House, Mr. Speaker,
I will take a minute to say how pleased this government was to set up the Office
of the Seniors' Advocate, certainly not a luxury. As one of the most
rapidly-aging provinces in our country, we take the concerns of seniors very,
very serious. That's why we implemented a supplement; $122 million. We're
reaching out to 47,000 seniors in this province, and 155,000 low income, helping
them to meet their needs everyday. We'll continue to take care of the seniors in
this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
Order,
please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
While
government was elected almost four years ago, only today, on the eve of another
election, are they offering a hastily-concocted grab-bag of ideas on how to deal
with power rate mitigation.
I ask
the Premier: Knowing, as we all did, this was going to be a monumental problem,
why did he wait until the last minute to pretend he has a plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
when you compare it to the leader of the Third Party, their plan, they have no
rate mitigation plan, Mr. Speaker. They are suggesting that it's okay to subject
ratepayers and taxpayers to some twenty-two-point-odd cents per kilowatt hour.
That is not what we think is possible.
Mr.
Speaker, I made it quite clear on many, many occasions in the last few weeks
that before budget of this year we wanted to get out a rate mitigation plan. We
also want to deal with the looming increases in insurance in our province. We
will come through with a budget that reflects the priorities of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
Mr.
Speaker, I wish that those $500 million that we have to put toward rate
mitigation could go to other priority areas and programs from Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, but we've been dealt with this and we're fixing this mess up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
If the
Premier is going to refer to our programs or our thoughts, he better get his
facts straight.
One of
the largest claims in government's so-called rate mitigation plan is $200
million from the federal government.
I ask
the Premier: Will he please tell the people of the province exactly how he has
come up with the $200 million figure from the federal government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
First of all, Mr. Speaker, if
you look at the plan, it clearly outlines – it starts at some $725 million,
which is the first requirement in 2021.
Mr.
Speaker, some people ask questions, and I know they don't want to hear the good
answers, but what we've outlined is a very factual representation of where the
needs would be.
Mr.
Speaker, it brings rates back to 13.5 cents. We've been able to come up with
provincial resources of some $525 million, all clearly outlined. It leaves us
with $200 million.
The PUB
looked at some $80 billion worth of transactions that would occur over the life
of this project, the finances, and they all agreed that the best opportunity,
the greatest potential, lies within restructuring; that would include the
federal government, and the federal government agrees with that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
There
are no details on how they've come up with $200 million as the figure. For the
past month, on the eve of on unnecessarily early provincial election call,
government has been flagrantly using its executive power to pile spending
announcements on the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
I ask the Premier: Does he
really think the electorate will not see through his attempts to buy their votes
with their own money?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, back in 2016 we
outlined a plan for the future of this province. It was about growth and
sustainability. It was The Way Forward.
Embedded in all of this is how we actually increase economic diversification,
how we give back when we're in the position to be able to do so. We were
determined to discipline to keep a financial track in place.
Over the
last 3½ years, I've listened to Members opposite ask for many, many different
things. We've had the financial discipline to make the decisions. Mr. Speaker,
today was an opportunity for us in this government to give back to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I look
forward to the budget tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, with how we maintain our fiscal
track, yet give back to the priority areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I look
forward to debating the NDP rate mitigation plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This
morning's dog-and-pony show on rate mitigation lists no details on the numbers
government claims will be used –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– to lower crippling Muskrat
Falls power rates.
I ask
the Premier: How does he expect people to believe his so-called plan will work
with absolutely no detail on how government arrived at the numbers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, one of the first things that we did when we looked at the impact of
Muskrat Falls was bring back the Public Utilities Board. It was appropriate that
we do that near the end, as the project would be getting completed because that
left little risk then for the price of the project to escalate.
Mr.
Speaker, we know this has an impact on electricity rates. We have put in place a
plan that clearly describes where the money comes from; it clearly describes and
is tied to some of the work that's been done by the PUB. We've had our
discussions with the federal government. They know that we can achieve rate
mitigation of $200 million, that Member opposite if referring to, by restricting
the financial resources or the financial structure of Muskrat Falls.
Mr.
Speaker, this is good news for ratepayers and taxpayers in this province. The
Member opposite can shake her head all she wants because they have no plan.
We've put our plan in place. Where is yours?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Time for
Oral Questions is over.
Thank
you.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports
by Standing and Select Committees
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
stand today to table the report of the Privileges and Election Committee on a
point of privilege against the Member for Terra Nova respecting the release of
reports of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. REID:
The Committee has studied the
matter and considered it carefully. In light of the lack of statutory
requirements and the lack of clarity and understanding around parliamentary
tradition, the Committee recommends to the House that there be no finding of
contempt in this matter.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
presenting reports by standing and select committees?
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that the House approve in general the budgetary policy of government.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. OSBORNE:
Further, Mr. Speaker, I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of
supply to Her Majesty, Bill 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, Sir.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice,
seconded by the hon. Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, that:
WHEREAS
the Leader of the Opposition has finally admitted that the problems we have
faced as a province over the last four years were inherited from the previous
administration; and
WHEREAS
the projected deficit for the year 2016-17 was projected to be $2.7 billion if
no action was taken, making it the largest deficit in the province's history;
and
WHEREAS
despite the fiscal situation we found ourselves in when forming office, we have
drastically reduced our provincial deficit; and
WHEREAS
government spending throughout the former PC administration increased by over 50
per cent, despite a decline in oil revenues; and
WHEREAS
our government has stabilized spending to a manageable level, reduced our
reliance on oil and diversified our economy;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the fiscal and economic
plan for the province as laid out in budget 2019.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
private Member's resolution just entered by the Member shall be pursuant to
63(3), the private Member's resolution to be debated this Wednesday.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, Sir.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:
BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly concur in the report of the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections on a point of privilege raised against the
Member for Terra Nova respecting the release of a report of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to move the following resolution respecting the
appointment of a Citizens' Representative:
BE IT
RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows: WHEREAS section 3 of the
Citizens' Representative Act provides
that the Citizens' Representative is to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly;
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Bradley Moss be appointed as the Citizens'
Representative effective May 1, 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, Sir.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry, I just want to clarify
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has a petition?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, Sir.
Petitions, Sir, you may proceed.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
WHEREAS
the successful proponents for the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to
be announced this spring with construction anticipated to begin in the fall, and
as this is estimated to be a four-year construction period, and as there are
experience local tradespeople and labourers in the area.
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that
are awarded the contracts for the new hospital to hire local tradespeople and
labourer, at no extra costs to the taxpayers, so that they can work in their own
area, support the local economy and be able to return home to their families
every evening.
Mr.
Speaker, I present another petition here today, and there are people here from
Bay Roberts, CBS, Meadows, Gillams, Gallants and Irishtown-Summerside.
Mr.
Speaker, once again, I ask the government, they're making a lot of announcements
now, and lot of good announcements, why not make the announcement now with the
hospital that there'll be local people?
One of
the things that a lot of people have brought up to me, a lot of local
tradespeople, is there are a certain amount of people from outside Newfoundland
who are renting houses right in Curling and Corner Brook, and they drive by them
every day and they can't get work at the long-term care.
We see
government on numerous occasions that they can ensure that local people are
hired, so a four-year contract has to be given special consideration. I know the
minister is working with TradesNL on this, but what a great news announcement
for the Corner Brook, the Humber - Bay of Islands area, for the Baie Verte area,
the Port au Port area and down the Northern Peninsula also for all the
tradespeople that are well-qualified in the area to work for four years. What a
great announcement, saying that there will be local people hired.
Mr.
Speaker, I have to say, and I said it again before, last year, tradespeople were
willing to put up their own money so there'd be no extra cost to the taxpayers.
I don't know where that was ever done before, where a certain trades group would
put up money just to keep the local people home. They are well qualified. They
will do a great job. What a good news announcement.
I would
be at the announcement, I would make sure that I would applaud the announcement
to keep people home for four years, to build and construct the hospital,
well-trained, instead of having to drive by houses now where they know people
from Nova Scotia are renting for two, 2½ years to do the long-term care
facility, when there are qualified people in their town, they'd drive by those
houses every day.
I urge
the government to make sure the companies hire local. It would be a great news
announcement before the election. I encourage the minister to continue work with
TradesNL to ensure that's going to be done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. As the hon. Member alluded to, we are working
with TradesNL, we're also working with the Newfoundland and Labrador
Construction Association. Just last year, actually, we worked with the
Construction Association to partner them and the proponents for the new acute
care hospital with businesses throughout the province.
We had
over 100 businesses, local businesses show up that day to actually have
conversations with the people who will actually be building this facility.
What
comes with Newfoundland and Labrador companies is Newfoundland and Labrador
workers, so we will continue to work with the Construction Association and
TradesNL to that end.
It just
gives me an opportunity, too, to talk about our infrastructure plan. Just this
past Friday, my colleagues from Gander and my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor
actually had the opportunity to announce the successful proponent for the two
new long-term care facilities in Central; a great achievement for the people of
Central Newfoundland and Labrador, and something that will bring local jobs and
work for local companies.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS
there needs to be sufficient resources to provide proper care for those who
cannot speak for themselves, instances within long-term care and other regional
health facilities have compromised the necessary care trained professionals need
and want to provide; and
WHEREAS
it is time our seniors and others in need are no longer ignored, but protected
and treated with dignity, compassion and respect, along with all human rights
and entitlements.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
provide the level of resources to ensure residents in long-term care and other
applicable regional health facilities housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's
disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions receive appropriate safety,
protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and other required care on a
consistent basis.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands has brought similar petitions
forward addressing the care for our seniors in the homes. It is no way a
criticism at all of the competency and professionalism of our staffing, but
there are instances occurring, for whatever reason, where elders are left
unattended to care for themselves.
I call
upon and urge government to step forward and have a look at this. I'm hoping the
report from the Seniors' Advocate will highlight this as well. I'm hoping there
will be some guidelines that will help elevate this issue.
Thank
you so much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
These
are the reasons for this petition: Newfoundland and Labrador is the only
province to still require an assessment and referral from the Centre for
Addictions and Mental Health, CAMH, Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto. The wait
time for an assessment at CAMH is approximately two or more years. In recent
years, other provinces have improved their in-province assessment and referral
processes in addition to increasing coverage and funding for gender-affirming
surgeries. Without adequate MCP coverage these surgeries can cost thousands of
dollars.
The
Department of Health and Community Services is already engaged in investigating
an in province assessment and referral process. Long wait times for gender
affirmation surgeries often contribute to prolonged gender dysphoria and
worsened mental health. Among transgender youth age 14 to 25 in Canada, 65.2 per
cent considered suicide and 36.1 per cent made at least one suicide attempt in
the last year according to a 2014 Trans Youth Health Survey.
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to develop an in-province assessment
process for gender-affirming surgeries that would eliminate the need for an
assessment by CAMH as the sole referral option, increase funding and coverage
for gender-affirming surgeries through MCP and expand the types of surgeries
covered to better reflect national standards.
Mr.
Speaker, this has been an ongoing issue for years now and the transgender
community and the health professionals that provide health services to the
transgender people of our province, their families, the families of the
transgender people who are waiting and waiting and waiting for assessments, who
have to go to CAMH in Toronto for a procedure, for an assessment that can be
done here by qualified, experienced health care professionals.
Mr.
Speaker, imagine if our people who needed gallbladder surgery were sent to
Toronto to have someone decide whether or not they need the gallbladder surgery,
when we have the appropriate professionals here. What a waste of taxpayers'
money. What additional stress to people who would need gallbladder surgery. This
is absolutely ridiculous.
There is
now no longer any reason to do this. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time now –
I've presented this petition umpteen million times. I'm sure people in the House
are saying there she goes again. Well, yes, there I go again, Mr. Speaker,
because this is so important.
I ask
the Minister of Health, once again: Will he stand up and respond to this? He has
the ability to do that. Why will he not speak to the people of the province, to
the transgender community of the province?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to stand and present this petition. The Bell Island ferry service
provides a vital transportation link and it's only eight minutes from port at
any given time, Transport Canada regulations do not require individuals to exit
their vehicles during this commute and the provincial government's current
policy related to mandatory exiting of vehicles puts people at a higher risk of
injury than the possibility of having to evacuate the vessel due to an
emergency. In May 2018, risk assessment recommended the Department of
Transportation and Works continue to require passengers to vacate this vessel
while travelling on the Bell Island ferry.
THEREFORE we, the petitioners, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to hold public consultations to discuss the
findings of the May 2018 risk assessment for the Bell Island ferry service.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, I presented this a number of times and we've gotten to a very
vulnerable time in the impact that this is having. Only this past week, we had a
double amputee who was in such excruciating pain at the time, for eight minutes
to port at any given time, with his attendant in his car, refused to leave the
vehicle, to put on his prosthetics to try to get upstairs, to go across a deck,
to add extra hardship to him, to take away his quality, dignity. He refused to
go.
The
ferry was delayed for four hours, supported by the thousands of people who
travelled to and from that day. The department, after we had consultation, did
reach out and did send a senior executive member to go down and discuss it.
There were alternatives suggested about bringing an ambulance onboard with two
paramedics to put the patient in the ambulance, or the traveller – because
they're not even a patient; they're a traveller – to then sit in that same
ambulance on the deck, with two more people, to go across to then be dropped off
to put in their car, to get out and get in their car again to drive home.
Mr.
Speaker, while I commend the department for at least trying to think of
alternatives, there is an alternative, it's a simple one: Those who have serious
mobility or health issues be allowed to stay with an attendant on deck. It is
very simple for us to be able to determine the few that would need to avail of
this so we don't put them at a higher risk of injury and liability to the
department.
We could
also really design a very quick evacuation plan that would ensure that they
would get to the muster station and to the lifeboats as quick as possible,
keeping in mind it's anywhere from 22 to 28 minutes to deploy the lifeboats in
the rare – never ever have happened in over 1.4 million trips that we would have
to evacuate. Keeping in mind the design of these ferries are done on such a
notice that if there was some kind of a catastrophe on board, 10 chances to one
you're going in the dock to evacuate through your ramp or you're going to beach
the boat to get out there.
We're
asking the minister – I know he's very sympathetic and we had a great
conversation. There is a solution here to ensure the half dozen or so people who
need to avail of staying in their vehicle with their attendants because of their
dignity and their health and the risk that we could find a solution there. I'm
asking the minister to work with me and the people of Bell Island and the people
of this province to find that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, just to the Member's point about
the incident on Friday, we take anybody's accessibility, as a government, very
seriously. Our senior officials were on hand Friday afternoon to work with the
individual and his family. The circumstance is certainly something that we
understand.
The
reality is, Mr. Speaker, we want to work to find solutions to make it as most
comfortable as we can for people when they're taking these trips, no matter what
the distance. We actually have one ferry in the province that travels 500 metres
and, quite similar, passengers are required to exit their vehicles, no different
than any passenger travelling on an airline has to follow the policies of air
transportation, as you would find with Transport Canada.
Mr.
Speaker, we had an independent report. We had a report that actually refuted
some of that information. It's something that I look forward to working with the
hon. Member opposite to find a solution that works for everybody.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, all other
medicines except medically prescribed cannabis are tax exempt.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to remove the provincial portion of taxes for medical
cannabis users.
I've
presented this petition several times and the minister gave us his grace of
replying to it. I'm not sure whether it was in oversight or lack of knowledge of
the provincial sales tax act, or maybe it was caught up in the heat of the
moment and it was a little bit of a disingenuous comment. But the minister does
hold the authority to remove the provincial sales tax on medical cannabis. When
you look at it mathematically, basically, one month a year of a cost of
purchasing a prescription is dedicated just to tax.
So as
our society looks at better ways of treating diseases and medical conditions,
medical cannabis is emerging as a highlight and providing a lot of diverse
treatment options, and it's working really well. I personally do not use medical
nor recreational cannabis, but many of my friends and people I am familiar with
are in compromised medical situations, and versus opioids or anything, medical
cannabis is providing a real alternative.
Why is
that we are so wrapped up in revenue generation that we can't see that we are
doing this on the backs of people who are already financially compromised
through no fault of their own? I once again ask the minister to stand and
explain if what I have learned from the provincial sales tax act is true, that
he does indeed have the opportunity to make the sale of medical marijuana or
cannabis exempt from sales tax.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
First thing, Mr. Speaker,
from the Order Paper, I would move Motion 9, that pursuant to Standing Order
11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, April 15, 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Secondly, I would call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 2, An Act To Amend The
Correctional Services Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time, Bill 2.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Correctional Services Act. (Bill 2)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Correctional Services Act,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 2)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 3.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.” (Bill
3)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, today, we are
introducing a bill that deals with a topic that has generated much debate in
Newfoundland and Labrador, namely auto insurance.
With
more than 376,000 vehicle renewals in 2018, we know it is a matter that affects
many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in all regions of our province from all
walks of life.
Currently, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest automobile rates in
Atlantic Canada. When we went door to door in 2015, the need for insurance
reform was a message we heard loud and clear. Residents told us that they wanted
change. They wanted us to find a way to help stabilize insurance rates and
provide the best product possible for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We also
know that consumers want choice. In both our government vision documents,
The Way Forward and my mandate letter,
direction was provided by our Premier to commence a review focused on
identifying opportunities to lower rates that benefit consumers and also help
bring stability to the automobile insurance industry.
In
August of 2017, we provided the terms of reference to the Board of Commissioners
of Public Utilities, the PUB, to conduct public consultations as well as two
independent closed-claim studies. One closed-claim study focused on rising
automobile insurance claims costs, the other focused specifically on claims
related to taxi operators.
Mr.
Speaker, we know the problems facing the taxi industry in Newfoundland and
Labrador have been ongoing for more than 20 years. Our administration is the
first which committed to addressing the issue.
The goal
of the PUB's review was to help inform government's decision-making as we try to
find solutions for consumers in our province, and we recognize that the taxi
industry is a large consumer group of insurance.
I want
to note, Mr. Speaker, that I will also be introducing Bill 6, An Act to Amend
the Insurance Companies Act, which will also deal with remedies that will
positively impact the taxi industry.
Mr.
Speaker, the last review of auto insurance in the province was conducted between
2004 and 2005. The review resulted in a number of changes over a two-year period
including an implementation of a $2,500 deductible on pain and suffering
damages. The PUB's recent report on their review of the auto insurance industry
noted that even with the highest premiums being paid in this province compared
to the other Atlantic provinces, the total private passenger premiums paid by
consumers for the past number of years were not sufficient to cover industry
costs for this business. The estimated shortfall in 2017 was estimated to be 17
per cent or approximately $190 on average.
The
PUB's findings also pointed to pain and suffering damages as representing 64 per
cent of the total amounts paid by insurers for bodily injury claims in this
province. In addition, the amount of the average pain and suffering payments
increased by 85 per cent, while the number of bodily injured claimants receiving
pain and suffering awards increased to 99.4 per cent. These numbers highlight
the increased pressures on both consumers and industry, Mr. Speaker. It also
shows us that we didn't arrive at our current reality overnight, and we aren't
going to be able to solve high insurance rates overnight either. Instead, we
have developed a plan, each element of which will help address the priorities of
consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
When we
look at skyrocketing insurance rates, it is also important to have a discussion
around road safety and good driving habits. It is imperative that the driving
public in our province exercise care and control when they get behind the wheel.
Increased safety on our roadways contributes to lower accident rates. This, in
turn, has an impact on our automobile insurance rates. We need to truly
understand the link between the two, as we explore measures to help stabilize
rates in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Over the
past several years, we have introduced a number of measures that are aimed at
improving road safety. We have strengthened impaired driving, distracted
driving, excessive speeding and street-racing provisions and included a new
provision for stunting in the Highway
Traffic Act. We enhanced move-over provisions, updated the act to reflect
the legalization of cannabis, introduced a one-metre rule, and we are currently
working with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators on a
national work plan for commercial motor vehicle safety.
We made
amendments to the Highway Traffic Act
which came into force in 2018, which placed the onus on the driver to prove the
vehicle they were driving was insured at the time the proof of request was made.
It's also placed onus on the person charged with an offence to prove there was
an insurance policy at the time of the offence. The fines for failure to produce
proof that a policy is in force were also increased from a range of $25 to $100
to a range of $100 to $175.
There
are a number of additional measures we will implement in our continued focus on
road safety and stabilizing insurance rates that do not require legislative
changes to the Automobile Insurance Act.
Rather, we can move forward and get the process started to bring them to
fruition.
Mr.
Speaker, we will adopt electronic proof of automobile insurance. This would be
an immediate indication to law enforcement that the vehicle is not insured. Nova
Scotia has already implemented this program and we are looking to align our use
of electronic proof of automobile insurance with that of Nova Scotia.
There is
existing authority under the Electronic
Commerce Act and the Superintendent of Insurance can allow electronic proof
of insurance through a bulletin.
Currently, Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement for ambulances, buses, school
buses, taxis and commercial motor vehicles to notify the registrar in writing of
a cancelation or expiration of an insurance policy. The regulations would be
amended to require insurance companies to extend this requirement to every
policy holder in Newfoundland and Labrador. This complements a change we
previously made at our Motor Registration Division whereby we eliminated
accepting an insurance declaration as proof of insurance at our counter
services. Anyone who transfers ownership or renews a vehicle registration at an
MRD office or government service centre must show their insurance card.
Mr.
Speaker, we have constantly heard the debate about the plate-to-owner model and
have received numerous inquires as to why our province has not adopted this
system. All other provinces, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador and
New Brunswick, require the plates to be surrendered to the registrar or remain
with the original registrant upon the sale or transfer of ownership of a
vehicle.
Currently, our province's Motor Vehicle Registration system uses mainframe
technology. When it was established decades ago it was designed as a
plate-to-vehicle system, meaning the plate is assigned to the vehicle and the
vehicle is assigned to the owner. The implementation of a plate-to-owner program
may help reduce uninsured drivers on our roadways; however, we recognize that
there are still uninsured drivers in jurisdictions that currently have such a
registration model.
Government will implement a plate-to-owner system. My department will work with
the Office of the Chief Information Officer on a procurement process to bring
this to fruition.
Mr.
Speaker, time and time again, we are made aware of incidents whereby a driver is
pulled over with no licence or registration, no insurance and unpaid fines. The
act currently mandates that all insured drivers carry uninsured automobile
protection to cover them in the event they are hit by an uninsured motorist.
In this
province, benefits of up to $200,000 are available for any one accident.
Uninsured drivers impose costs which must be paid by those of us who are
insured. This results in higher insurance premiums. In its report, the PUB noted
that several US States have adopted the principal of no pay, no play, where
uninsured drivers are prohibited from receiving compensation of filing a lawsuit
for non-economic losses such as pain and suffering.
We have
amended the act to prohibit access to the uninsured automobile fund for losses
by uninsured motorists. This includes a 30-day grace period for individuals who,
either through error or some other unforeseen circumstances, may have
inadvertently had their policy cancelled and are working towards renewal.
It is
important to note, Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not impact passengers,
cyclists or pedestrians who may be injured in an automobile accident. Auto
insurance is mandatory and other drivers should not have to pay the cost for
someone who refuses the responsibility of maintaining an insurance policy.
Mr.
Speaker, on February 25 we released the
What We Heard document arising from Service NL's portion of the auto
insurance review that was outside the PUB's mandate. The document contained
feedback from the public on a number of topics to help improve road safety in
our province, including the use of traffic cameras.
During
the fall of 2018, the Department of Transportation and Works conducted a pilot
project to monitor the speed of vehicles travelling through highway construction
zones. The department engaged companies to utilize camera-equipped monitoring
technology at various construction sites along the Trans-Canada Highway. The
cameras were set up to detect vehicles that were speeding, recognize vehicle
licence plate numbers and record relevant information.
The
pilot results confirmed that speeding in construction zones is a considerable
issue in this province. With 20 to 55 per cent of all vehicles travelling at
least 10 kilometres an hour above the posted speed limits. We also know that
vehicles passing a school bus when its stop-arm and flashing lights are
activated is a prevalent problem in Newfoundland and Labrador. Traffic cameras
could provide a solution to this scenario as well, as they could capture video
evidence of those who choose to disregard the safety of school children and
inappropriately pass the bus.
Although
it is not part of the bill we are introducing today, our government will develop
amendments to the Highway Traffic Act
to allow for the use of cameras as another measure of curb dangerous driving
habits.
Mr.
Speaker, we also received feedback from the general public regarding highway
design and safety during our review. Last week in this hon. House, my colleague,
the Minister of Transportation and Works, stated that our government will add
centre-line rumble strips to the Veterans Memorial Highway this construction
season. This will make the first time in the province's history that rumble
strips will be added to the centre line of a highway to alert motorists who
inadvertently veer from their lane.
All of
these measures aimed at improving driving behaviours and making our roadways
safer must to be taken into consideration in any discussion around auto
insurance and our focus on creating conditions to bring stability to our
insurance rates. We will continue to work with safety advocates and law
enforcement officials to identify opportunities to improve the safety of the
motoring public in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd now like to highlight the other options we have brought forward in
this bill. I doubt any conversation about auto insurance doesn't begin with the
cap versus the no-cap question. We met with the insurance industry, the legal
community, the Consumer Advocate and the taxi industry on the findings of the
PUB's report. We reviewed all the findings of the report and listened to the
feedback from our stakeholders. Industry suggested to us that a cap was a
solution if our goal as a government is to stabilize prices and attract
competition for the benefit of consumers. The legal community suggested that the
introduction of a cap would place undue strain and shift costs to the province's
health care system.
During
the review, there was a great deal of discussion on the implications of such a
cap for claimants. In the PUB report, one claimant stated: I don't have a cane.
I don't have a walker. You don't see a cast. To look at me, you really wouldn't
say there's a whole lot wrong with me, but physically and psychologically I'm
broken – I'm just a broken shell of a person right now.
There
are a lot of strongly held opinions on a cap, including those from consumers who
are adamant that it is their right to retain the right to sue. Insurers, on the
other hand, also believe that a cap would be the best option to help stabilize
rates. When we met with stakeholders to discuss the findings of the report, we
could not find a common ground. At the end of the day, there was no consensus
among the public or the key stakeholders on this issue.
Mr.
Speaker, we are announcing today that we are doubling the deductible from $2,500
to $5,000, rather than placing a cap on minor injuries. This will be captured in
the regulations. It is our intention to closely monitor its effectiveness in
helping to stabilize rates.
Mr.
Speaker, we have also amended the act to implement direct compensation for
property damage. Under this coverage, an insured driver who is in a motor
vehicle accident is compensated by their own insurance company for damages to
the vehicle, regardless of who is at fault. This means that not-at-fault
claimants do not have to deal with the at-fault party's insurer to be reimbursed
for damages to their automobile.
The
at-fault driver would continue to be reimbursed for physical damage to their
vehicle under their collision coverage, provided this coverage was purchased.
This coverage does not remove the concept of fault from loss recovery, but
rather changes the source of the funds. It also does not change the claimant's
right to sue for other damages. In essence, it can lead to a faster and more
customer-friendly resolution of a claim.
Mr.
Speaker, diagnostic and treatment protocols adopted in our jurisdictions
typically address the most common injuries in automobile accidents such as
sprains, strains and whiplash-associated disorders. They also specify how many
chiropractic and physiotherapy visits maybe authorized based on the injury. The
goal of these protocols is to get an injured individual on the path to recovery
as soon as possible with timely and effective, evidence-based treatment specific
to their injury.
They
eliminate the wait time for approval from the insurer or referral from a doctor
in order to access treatment. It also means the individual does not have to pay
out of pocket, so there are no financial barriers to treatment. There is
consistency in treatment for the injuries based on scientific evidence and the
individual can choose their own treatment provider.
The
costs associated with treatment under the protocols will be covered by the
no-fault accident benefits coverage, and will become the primary payer over an
injured person's health benefits plan. This represents a significant change to
the current system, and it is important that claimants are adequately informed
of the new options with respect to making automobile insurance claims, as well
as seeking treatment for injuries. Amendments to the act would adopt the
protocols based on the processes implemented in Nova Scotia and Alberta.
Mr.
Speaker, the PUB report noted that several industry submissions proposed changes
to the existing tort procedural rules specific to motor vehicle collision claims
in Newfoundland and Labrador in order to streamline bodily injury claims
adjustment and settlement processes for accident victims that improve the
efficiency of litigation.
We
looked at Ontario's model whereby accident victims are required to apply for
accident benefits, where it is available, before pursuing litigation. They
require notice of the intent to commence an action within 120 days of a
collision, must undergo examinations by certain health providers at the
insurer's expense, if requested, and provide a statutory declaration describing
the circumstances of the collision and the nature of the claim being made.
Ontario's act also states that a person can commence an action without complying
with these requirements; however, the court will consider the non-compliance in
awarding costs. We have amended our legislation to implement changes to the
procedural process to align with those of Ontario. The act also clarifies that
damages are reduced by the amount of accident benefits in order to avoid double
counting.
Mr.
Speaker, telematics technology is capable of collecting information about where,
how and when a vehicle is driven. The information must be treated as personal
information, and any programs utilizing telematics data must be optional and
include consent from the policyholder. Telematics can provide significant
vehicle and driver information that can assist with claims handling providing
key accident details. Insurance companies can utilize telematics to monitor
driver behaviours.
Reports
providing information on sudden braking, acceleration, distance and time of day
driven can be used to more accurately price insurance policies, along with
providing feedback to drivers to encourage safer driving practices and deliver
financial incentive to safe drivers. As such, we are amending the regulations to
implement underwriting guidelines concerning the optional use of telematics with
further guidance to be provided in bulletins from the superintendent. My
department will work closely with the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner in drafting of these regulations.
Mr.
Speaker, as I stated earlier, Service NL conducted its own consultations on
automobile insurance on topics that were outside the mandate of the PUB. One of
those topics is the rate setting process itself. A total of 181 respondents took
part, 94 per cent of whom identified as consumers. The majority of feedback was
provided on the automobile insurance rate setting process, encouraging increased
competition in the marketplace and improving highway safety.
The PUB
had noted in its report that our province's automobile insurance market is
highly concentrated compared to other jurisdictions and particularly the other
Atlantic provinces. We have 98 per cent of the total premiums written by 15
insurers. When you consider common ownership, we have four insurer groups, which
write 85 per cent of the premiums.
The
report went on to say that, as a result, there is less competition and fewer
choices for consumers in this province, which increases the potential for
instability in the market. The Insurance Bureau of Canada proposed a flex rating
framework for the province which would permit insurers greater latitude in
setting the rates while also preserving regulatory authority. The requirements
for the PUB would allow more flexibility, while at the same time ensuring rates
are not excessive, inadequate or discriminatory.
The
process would be amended so that the PUB would consider the impacts the rates
may have on solvency of the applicant or whether they are excessive in relation
to the financial circumstances of the company. The process would also be amended
to place requirements on insurers to submit full filings for private passenger
vehicles every three years, as in Alberta. It will also provide a mechanism for
(inaudible) approval of rates where the average of proposed changes is less than
3 per cent annually, and no more than an accumulative increase of 6 per cent
over three years. This would also apply to commercial vehicle rates.
Additionally, the rates approval process would no longer be required for
fleet-rated risks, providing drivers a measure of control over their rates.
Taking
fleet rating outside the PUB process is a potential path for taxi companies out
of Facility Association. It would enable a fleet owner, such as a taxi company,
to negotiate its own rate with a willing insurer. They have the ability to make
their own case based on their safety record and measures they are taking to
reduce accidents. With this reduction in cost and increase in rating
flexibility, fleet rating could potentially lead to increased competition to the
benefit of policyholders. We are amending the act to implement these changes to
the PUB process, and this will also remove fleet rating from the prior approval
rate process.
There is
also a requirement for more information to be published by the PUB to be
consistent with best practices in other jurisdictions, be transparent and make
more information available for consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, another matter that has garnered attention during our review was the
use of winter tires. Quebec introduced mandatory winter tires, and reports
indicate that after the first two seasons, road accidents decreased by 5 per
cent. That's approximately 575 fewer people were injured annually in winter road
accidents and deaths and serious injuries due to winter driving accidents
decreased by 3 per cent.
A 2018
report from the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada found that winter tire
usage in the Atlantic provinces was, in fact, 94 per cent today. That is the
highest rate in the country, outside of Quebec. In Ontario, while winter tires
are not mandatory, there is a requirement for auto insurance to give discounts
to drivers with winter tires. The amount of the discount is not set out in law.
We did
not want to place additional financial burden on residents of our province by
mandating winter tires on vehicles in Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not want
to impose such a requirement on low income individuals or families, including
seniors, who may not use their vehicle during the winter months. Instead, we
opted to align our province with Ontario, and allow for an incentive for those
who choose to increase safety in winter by putting their winter tires on their
vehicles. We wanted to provide that choice to the consumers of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
As I
said a few minutes ago, we already have a 94 per cent rate of winter tire usage,
but our goal, of course, is 100 per cent. It is our hope that the savings
realized through such an incentive would help increase their usage. More winter
tire usage should result in fewer accidents.
Mr.
Speaker, there are other legislative changes arising from our review of
automobile insurance that I will deal with in another bill, which I will also
introduce in this hon. House, particularly for consumers such as the taxi
industry. Our government has listened to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We know that paying the highest insurance rates in Atlantic Canada is
simply not acceptable. As I stated at the beginning of my comments today,
however, there is no single quick fix to help stabilize insurance rates in our
province. Rather, it requires a multi-pronged approach that, over time, will
help realize benefits for the consumer in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We feel
that we have struck an appropriate balance by providing solutions that not only
benefit consumers in our province but the insurance industry as well. The
majority of the amendments to the
Automobile Insurance Act we have introduced today will come into effect on
January 1, 2020. In terms of the diagnostic and treatment protocol changes, we
want to ensure adequate time for us to consult with health professionals and
also allow industry time to make their necessary changes to the processes, so a
date will in fact be determined.
The
provision which prohibits uninsured drivers from accessing the uninsured
automobile fund and receiving compensation for non-economic losses will come
into effect on August 1 of 2019. I want to reiterate once again that a problem
like this cannot be solved with one solitary solution and in one day, rather it
requires a suite of solutions together that will help us realize stability in
the area of auto insurance.
I want
to thank the PUB for their tremendous effort in conducting the review, as well
as providing us with a very comprehensive report that was instrumental in our
decision-making. I want to thank the insurance industry, the legal community,
the taxi operators, the Consumer Advocate, the road-crash victims, consumers and
every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who contributed to the review process in
any way. It is only by working together that we can find solutions that benefit
us all.
I look
forward to debating these amendments with my hon. colleagues in the House today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
I
recognize the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I understand I
would have up to an hour.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. CROSBIE:
Is it Mr. Chair or Mr.
Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. CROSBIE:
Okay, I'll keep my eye on the
clock, but I won't be going an hour, so everyone can relax. Although, there is
something to be said about all of this.
Mr.
Speaker, the situation in Canada, broadly speaking, is there's a spectrum
between no-fault and fault-based compensation for automobile injuries, both
property damage and personal injury, bodily injury. You have provinces like
Quebec, for example, in which you have what's called pure no-fault, and that
means that it's all done like workers' compensation. Nobody's interested in
who's at fault for the accident, you are compensated under a prescribed set of
regulations that prescribe injuries, prescribe compensation for certain
injuries, prescribe loss of income compensation and prescribe compensation for
expenses.
What
they don't prescribe and what they don't give you is compensation for what we
like to call pain and suffering damages – pain and suffering and loss of
amenities. So that's the pure form of no-fault and we can all think of it as
similar to a workers' compensation type of system. Totally administered and,
basically, legal counsel are not involved in the system, for the most part. It's
administered by regulation, administered by regulators.
We
actually are on the other end of the spectrum, along with British Columbia.
Although, I think some changes are happening in British Columbia this year. In
other words, we have a mixed system whereby most compensation is through the
tort system; it's through third-party claims and it's based on fault.
There is
a limited amount of compensation – and it's very limited – available through
accident benefits, which this bill says it seeks to define, and the accident
benefits are simply those benefits you're able to access under what's called
section B. There's section B and section C and section A and all that. If you
look at the form that your insurer sends you when get auto insurance, you'll see
there are actually these little boxes on the form and there's a box called
section A, there's a box called section B, a box called section C and so on and
so forth.
So
section A is no-fault benefits and it's optional under our system. You don't
have to buy the no-fault benefits portion. However, it doesn't give you very
much coverage at all; $140 a week, that's way below poverty wage if you ever
happen to rely on it; $140 a week if you're unable to work and you have a wage
loss. The total amount that you can access for therapy, for example, for
physiotherapy, for acupuncture, for whatever is not covered by the MCP system,
or the hospital system, that's limited to $25,000. Now, that's okay for a number
of injuries, but it's certainly far from adequate for anything significant, and
there are lots of injuries like that that require ongoing therapy with a cost
that drastically exceeds $25,000. That's the total and that's the cap on the
compensation. It's an optional coverage.
My
submission is that it would have been an improvement – and remembering that this
coverage is very cheap, it would have been an improvement to our system of auto
insurance to make it mandatory because we're the only province in the country
where it's not mandatory, and to improve the level of benefits. That way there's
a safety net under people who get involved in an auto accident, who suffer a
personal injury, a bodily injury and may not be at fault, or may not have access
to fault-based benefits. That's an improvement we're passing up the opportunity
to make here.
Then, on
the tort side, this is where most of the measures, most of the interventions,
most of the inferences that this bill seeks to make, this is where they're
happening. And I can't think actually of a better way into that than to use, as
my text here, the Service NL, Justice and Public Safety, April 15, 2019 document
intended for public consumption about these changes, backgrounder included and
so forth, and it's entitled: Changes to Automobile Insurance Legislation Provide
Better Value for Consumers.
Better
value for consumers? Mr. Speaker, where is the better value for consumers? If we
look into the text of the document, there is no promise here that consumers will
get a product of equal value for less cost. That's nowhere in this document and
it's nowhere in any of the documentation or in the legislation.
Where
can it be said, where is the justification to be found to be able to say that
these changes provide better value for consumers? Where is this value?
Mr.
Speaker, if we look at the text here, it says: “The changes” – to automobile
insurance legislation – “are intended to help stabilize insurance rates while
enhancing consumer protection to benefit the people of the province.”
Well,
stabilize is a grand concept. In fact, it's a coinage of the auto insurance
industry. They love to conjure with the idea of stabilizing insurance rates. The
problem with stabilizing insurance rates is you'll never know if it happened.
Is that
a promise that rates will not go up next year or the year – no, it's not
anything like that. It's not a target that can be measured. That's the great
thing about talking about stabilizing, you're using a goal that no one can
measure, so you can make any claim you want to about it. You can claim to have
stabilized rates no matter if they go up 10 per cent next year or 5 per cent or
2 per cent or 20 per cent. You can always claim that you stabilized rates.
It goes
on to repeat again, “… while enhancing consumer protection to benefit the people
of the province.” Enhancing consumer protection. Let's see what they say are the
changes in here: “Some of the key changes to the legislation .…” I stop there
because that's the problem right away. It says: “Some of the key changes to the
legislation include an increase in the deductible from $2,500 to $5,000 for
bodily injury claims ....”
The
problem with that is that we're being told, and it's quite apparent, because
that is not addressed in the legislation itself, so this document here is wrong
about that. It's not in the legislation. No, it's going to be provided for in
regulations. So, it's not in the legislation, the increase in the deductible for
bodily injury claims.
I'm not
sure it says that here, but I'm assuming we are to expect a definition of minor
injury claims or some such concept like that. Again, that's being left to the
regulations.
Now, the
problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that there was a great deal of evidence heard
by the Public Utilities Board on minor injury claims or terminology to similar
effect and the testimony was that it is next to impossible to come up with a
serviceable medically sound definition of what a minor injury is in the context
of compensation for automobile-related injuries. It will be an unending source
of litigation.
Likewise, it's telling us, there will be “treatment protocols introduced for
common injuries as the primary payer ….” Let me see if that makes sense here.
“Some of the key changes to the legislation include an increase in the
deductible from $2,500 to $5,000 for bodily injury claims; introduction of
treatment protocols for common injuries as the primary payer ….” I think we've
got a bit of a mishmash there, but I'll just take: introduction of treatment
protocols for common injuries.
What on
earth are these treatment protocols and where are they going to come from?
Perhaps the minister will have an answer for us on that one later on when we get
to go into more detail, and she's nodding her head. I'm cheered to know that,
but, again, that's going to be done through regulations and we don't get to
debate that in here.
Then we
come to “no access to the Uninsured Automobile Fund for losses by uninsured
motorists ….” Now, we all deprecate, condemn the fact that there are people, and
sometimes people who are flagrantly in violation, with accumulations of fines in
the tens of thousands of dollars, driving out around on the highways, coming to
the attention of the police, getting involved in accidents even. They are
scofflaws and they are not paying for their insurance. They drive uninsured and
they do so quite deliberately, so nobody has sympathy for those people.
But some
of those people have dependants, some of those people have families, some of
those people have wives and this measure would disentitle those folks in the
case of injury, let's say in the case of a very severe injury, which disables
them from earning an income, or death, and causes them to leave behind a widow
and orphans. They're disentitled from making a claim, were it to be that the
injury is not their fault but somebody else's.
Mr.
Speaker, the problem with that is we have laws that provide for fines and
convictions and so forth. There are sanctions through the normal quasi-criminal
process and quasi-criminal law for providing sanctions for deterring people from
driving around with no insurance.
My
submission is that to deprive these individuals of any access to bodily injury
compensation is to not consider the merits and the equity of individual cases,
and may have devastating and far-reaching consequences to the persons who are
thereby deprived of their civil rights.
I look
forward to hearing the minister explain whether she got an opinion from the
Department of Justice on whether or not this is in compliance with the Charter
of Rights, because we have a section, section 7 in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that gives people the right
to security of the person; life, liberty and security of the person.
Looking
at some of these nuts and bolts here – one other thing struck me. I listened to
the minister who kindly put forward the statistic, I believe, that 94 per cent
of drivers in this province use snow tires as things now stand; 94 per cent use
of snow tires.
So,
again, I looked at the document from Justice and Public Safety and it's telling
me: “Proposed amendments will also provide a mandated insurance discount for
winter tire usage ….” Okay, so that sounds like: I have winter tires, I'm going
to get a break on my premium. Well, if 94 per cent of the drivers out there are
already using winter tires, that's not going to be much of a break based on 6
per cent more.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member to direct his comments toward the Chair, please.
Thank
you.
MR. CROSBIE:
I'm sorry. I was just including the room.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. CROSBIE:
That's not going to be much of a break if another 6 per cent start using winter
tires.
Another
problem here, and I'm looking at clause 3, it says: The act is amended by adding
immediately after section 25 the following:
“25.1(1)
Where a person intends to commence an action for loss or damage from bodily
injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an
automobile, the person shall (a) serve written notice of the intention to
commence an action on the insured within 120 days after the accident ….”
Well,
the first question might be: Why? Why would there be such an obligation? Who's
been complaining about the need to get notice? What is the evil that is sought
to be cured by this? Why the requirement to serve notice of an intention to
commence an action on the insured within 120 days of the accident?
Although
I question the wisdom of such a provision; furthermore, there is a problem
because the legislation as proposed does not say: What is the consequence of not
giving such notice. Is it intended that if the notice is not given that the
person who has been involved in the accident and is claiming loss or damage from
bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation
of a automobile, is it the case that the intention is that they shall not be
permitted to make a claim for bodily injury or death if they don't give the
notice?
Well,
maybe, but it doesn't say so. It doesn't say that's the consequence. So, I'm
predicting now that this is going to give rise to all manner of litigation;
litigation to find out what the heck did the Legislature mean when it put those
words in there.
If we go
further down 25.1, this would be introduced into the legislation, 25.1(2) it
says: “Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person referred to in subsection (1)” –
that's a person who is in an accident and has to give the notice – “may apply to
the Supreme Court for an extension of the notice period ….” – may apply to the
Supreme Court for an extension of the notice period.
The
problem with it, though, Mr. Speaker, is it doesn't tell you on what grounds the
court would grant an extension. There's no rationale there in the first place
for why notice would need to be given and, therefore, throwing it into the lap
of the court to decide whether or not a person should get an extension without
explaining why the notice requirement is there in the first place is going to
leave the court at a loose end when it tries to figure out why and when and
under what circumstances it should grant an extension. As a matter of fact, it's
not even clear why there should be an extension given that's no consequence to
not giving the notice.
I think
we've got a knot here that really needs to be untied and the legislation needs
clarification. It needs clarification in respect to: What is the intention of
the section when it says you've got to give notice? Is it that you can't take an
action unless you give the notice? On what grounds would the court grant an
extension of this? Why are we imposing all this bureaucracy on people anyway?
There
are other redundancies in this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Section 4 of the bill,
which would add 26.6 into the legislation by way of amendment. It's talking
about: “In an action for loss or damage from bodily injury or death arising
directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile, the damages
to which a plaintiff is entitled shall be reduced by the accident benefit
payments (a) received y the plaintiff; and (b) to which the plaintiff remains
entitled.”
Well,
possibly what that's trying to say is you need to claim against your accident
benefits first, and if you do, that you can't get doubly compensated from the
tort based or section (a) benefits or tort based damages. Well, that's all very
nice except that this is already the case and that section is completely
unnecessary. It's already the case.
I'm now
looking at what will be section 34.1, which has to do with diagnostic and
treatment protocols. It's talking about a person being able to “elect to be
diagnosed and treated in accordance with the diagnostic and treatment protocols
prescribed in the regulations.”
It's not
clear what all the consequences are of making one election versus another
election. Maybe we'll learn that from the regulations but it's hard to say what
that is from this.
Again, I
remarked on that a bit earlier: Where do they come from, on whose authority?
What consensus amongst practitioners and treaters lies behind them? What is
intended to be achieved by having these diagnostic and treatment protocols
prescribed in the regulations?
Now,
there's a curious provision (4), I'm looking at page 12 of the bill, it would
amend subsection 60(1) of the act. There are a bunch of things that would be
involved in an amendment: case management process – that's nice; examinations
and so forth. Then there's one, “(f.6) prescribing rules for determining the
degree of fault in various situations for loss or damage arising directly or
indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile” – rules for determining
the degree of fault.
Mr.
Speaker, I had the advantage of having practiced in this area for a number of
decades and I'm not aware that there's any problem that the courts have been
having, or for that matter, lawyers who do this kind of work, or adjusters who
do this kind of work, figuring out the determination of the degree of fault.
All of
this has been well-reasoned, well-embedded, well-discussed. There's plenty of
precedent out there that already at common law prescribes the “rules for
determining the degree of fault in various situations for loss or damage arising
directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile.”
What
we're going to accomplish by having that put into a regulation is, as far as I'm
concerned, only an opportunity for getting it wrong. It's not going to improve
on the present situation.
I've
just picked out a few things there. In some, we're not seeing that these
proposed changes to the automobile insurance legislation provide, as the
backgrounder or in handout claim, better value for consumers. We're not seeing
where the better value for consumers is. What we're seeing is a load of
bureaucratic regulations and impediments layered on top of what's already a
fairly complicated situation, namely personal injury in the auto accident
context, which is, if anything, going to cause extra expense.
It is a
shotgun approach to give the impression of action and activity, and addressing a
general perception in the public that insurance cost too much. It's an effort to
give the impression to the public that something is being done about it without
actually doing anything except making it more complicated.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Lewisporte - Twillingate.
MR. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand here today on behalf of people of the beautiful and scenic
District of Lewisporte - Twillingate and speak to Bill 3, An Act to Amend the
Automobile Insurance Act. As the department responsible for consumer protection,
Service NL takes its roll very seriously.
Mr.
Speaker, when our government developed The
Way Forward, a plan for sustainability and growth in our province, we made
better services and increased consumer protection a core element to this plan. A
promise to review automobile insurance rates in our province was made, and today
I am very proud to be part of the debate on solutions aimed at bringing
sustainability to these rates.
We said
from day one that our focus was on consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our
goal has been to help modernize the system so the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador will see more benefits and better values. The goal of the PUB review of
automobile insurance was to help inform our government's decision making in an
effort to stabilize insurance rates and provide the best product possible.
Since
the report was released in late January, government has met with representatives
from the insurance industry, the legal community, Consumer Advocate, the taxi
industry and Facility Association to review the findings. We all recognized from
the start that we needed to work together if we are to find the proper balance.
As the
Minister of Service NL stated, the high cost of automobile insurance did not
rise in a short period of time. Rather, the rates escalated over time as a
result of numerous pressures that were affecting both consumers and the
industry. There is also a collective recognition that solutions came in many
forms.
While we
have introduced a number of legislative changes to address the high rates, there
are a number of other measures we are also implementing that do not require
amendments to this act. There is also a recognition that measures we have
already implemented in terms of road safety through numerous amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act will also go a
long way in helping us improve overall driver behaviours.
One area
in particular I will focus on is that of uninsured drivers, and our minister
alluded to this earlier. Every time an individual in our province gets behind
the wheel of a vehicle, they are making a decision to abide by the rules of the
road. When someone knowingly chooses to operate a vehicle that does not carry
insurance, they also knowingly place an unnecessary risk on the other vehicle
operators or pedestrians that they may encounter.
As the
Minister of Service NL stated earlier, we have all heard of stories of
individuals who have been pulled over with no licence, no registration or
insurance, and have numerous unpaid fines. It is reported that the PUB noted
that over a five-year period ending in 2016, there were 788 claims in the
province with over $26 million in damages paid in which a driver was reported as
either uninsured or unidentified. This means that all of us who carry insurance
in Newfoundland and Labrador are shouldering this burden on the system. The
report from Oliver Wyman Limited, a consulting actuary for the PUB, stated in
its findings that the average uninsured automobile claims is the highest in all
of the Atlantic region.
Currently, automobile policies include coverage up to $200,000 when involved in
an accident with an uninsured driver. Additionally, each Atlantic province has
an uninsured automobile fund to indemnify for claims by persons such as
pedestrians or cyclists who do not have any coverage and suffer injury or damage
by an uninsured vehicle. While it is important that this coverage exists for
those, through no fault of their own, are impacted by an uninsured driver, the
high cost of providing coverage remains. Those of us who do the right thing and
ensure our vehicles are insured, must pay the costs of those who choose to
disregard this law. As such, changes to the act will prohibit access to the
uninsured automobile fund and an uninsured motorist for losses for uninsured
motorists.
Mr.
Speaker, we have made amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act, which came into force in 2018, which placed the onus on
the driver to prove the vehicle they were driving was insured at the time of the
accident. It also placed the onus on a person charged with an offence to prove
there was an insurance policy at the time of the offence. The fines for failure
to produce proof that a policy is in force were also increased from a range of
$25 to $100, to a range now of $100 to $175.
Mr.
Speaker, with the legislation we have introduced today, our government is
zeroing in on this important matter that is affecting insurance rates for all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is also important to note that these
changes apply to individuals who unknowingly get behind the wheel of an
uninsured vehicle. Some of us may find ourselves in a situation whereby we may
have to drive a friend's or neighbour's car for a variety of reasons. The onus
is on us to ensure the vehicle is appropriately insured, or confirm we are
covered by our own insurance policy when operating another person's vehicle.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of other measures we are introducing today that will
also help us address the issue of uninsured. The adoption of a plate to owner
system, electronic proof of automobile insurance and notification of insurance
policy cancellation by insurers will help our efforts to get uninsured drivers
off our roadways.
Recently, in the Speech from the Throne, our government also addressed the issue
of unpaid fines. Mr. Speaker, outstanding fines owed to the province result in
driver licence suspensions which in turn creates a barrier for vulnerable
populations trying to gain meaningful employment. Our government committed to
exploring the creation of a fines option pilot program which would enable those
in marginalized groups with outstanding fines to settle the debt by performing
community service work. This would provide social benefits to the community and
to its participants.
Mr.
Speaker, uninsured drivers is just one of a number of perennial issues affecting
insurance rates which we have addressed in Bill 3. All of the measures we have
addressed today were developed with several main themes in mind, namely consumer
protection, consumer choice, and stability for the insurance industry.
Mr.
Speaker, I will be supporting Bill 3 and ask all my colleagues to do the same.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I recognize the hon. Member
for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour and a privilege to rise in this hon. House on behalf of the people of the
beautiful District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, as Members have all been
speaking about their districts today, Mr. Speaker.
This
bill is certainly a very important one, and the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador have really been screaming to government for years for some changes in
this regard. It's unfortunate, though, that we see them in the 11th hour, Mr.
Speaker, of a sitting government. We should have another six months here, but it
doesn't appear that that's going to be the case.
A bill,
though, of this magnitude deserves sufficient time for debate, Mr. Speaker, and
it appears that we'll be doing this bill and a similar bill and sitting tonight
until they're done, which is really unfortunate because the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador really deserve to have fair opportunity to get into
the nuts and bolts of the legislation and the details. And as we all know –
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. Member she
should be speaking to the bill.
Thank
you.
MS. PERRY:
– it is the details that
matter. So I will get into the background of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and talk
about some of these proposed amendments that are being put forward so that at
least the public can be aware of the detail of some of these changes, even
though there won't be sufficient time for adequate analysis.
Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest automobile insurance rates in Atlantic
Canada, as many speakers have already stated in this hon. House here today, Mr.
Speaker. It's a major concern for many residents, and one of the impediments
that people consider when they're factoring in the cost of living in this
province, particularly in the last three years.
Consumers currently pay 35 per cent more, on average, here in Newfoundland and
Labrador for private passenger automobile insurance than our counterparts in the
other Atlantic Provinces, and there hasn't been a review of the insurance
industry since 2005. So 2017, in July of that year, another review was commenced
– 12 years since the last one. It was a reference directing the PUB, from
government, to undertake a review of the automobile insurance. The board was
specifically asked to examine the impact on rates and implications for claimants
of introducing a monetary cap on claims for non-economic loss for mild and minor
injuries, and the impact on rates of continuing with the current deductible of
$2,500 or increasing the deductible.
So that
was the terms of reference that was given to the PUB and the scope under which
they undertook their review. It included a completion of a number of actuarial
studies and consultant reports, collection of input from stakeholders through
presentations, submissions and comments, as well as a public hearing.
The
Insurance Bureau of Canada, which is a national association that represents 90
per cent of Canada's property and casualty insurers, suggested that the province
help stabilize the industry by replacing the existing $2,500 deductible with a
$5,000 compensation cap on minor injuries.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm just looking at the clock and I'm wondering if the time is
accurate. Where I'm the critic, I was thinking the time –
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. PERRY:
Okay. I thought it was an
hour for the critic starting out – okay, and the leader, yes.
The
national association wanted to see the existing deductible increased from $2,500
to $5,000. Other groups, including a group of personal injury lawyers who
organized the campaign to protect accident victims, argued that a cap on
insurance claims would negatively impact accident victims and limit their
ability to receive fair compensation. So there was a lot, Mr. Speaker, for the
PUB to consider.
Last
year, in October, the Leader of the Official Opposition had announced our party
was strongly opposed to any insurance cap and stated that any legislation that
would bring in such caps is something our party would repeal and that we would
also eliminate the insurance tax. So I do thank the Liberals for heeding the
suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition in that regard.
The
Public Utilities Board review of automobile insurance was delivered to
government in January of this year, on January 29, and it was released to the
public on January 31. While the report was comprehensive, it did not make any
specific recommendations regarding a cap, Mr. Speaker.
So with
that background, I'm going to endeavour to provide an overview of some of the
proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, but I really don't think there will be
sufficient time to get through them all because they are quite substantial.
Again, I'll say it's unfortunate that we have to debate it so quickly.
Clause
1, under accident benefits, adds a definition to the act. It will define
accident benefits as “Section B Accident Benefits” which are currently set out
in any standard automobile policy.
There
will be a duty to notify the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Section 6.01 will add
the duty for insurers to “notify the Registrar of Motor Vehicles of the
cancellation or expiration of a policy issued by the insurer.”
According to department officials, there is currently a mandatory reporting
requirement for the cancellation of vehicles such as ambulances, taxis, school
buses and commercial vehicles but not private passenger vehicles. This section
of the act, an amendment will ensure that such legislation exists for private
vehicles as well. The goal of this change is to reduce the number of uninsured
drivers who are driving on our roads.
There is
also a proposed amendment with respect to notice and disclosure before action.
Section 25.1 will be added to require that a person who intends to start an
action following an accident must provide notice and disclosure to the person
against whom the action will be commenced, and to satisfy other requirements
before commencing such action.
That
means under the proposed amendments, a person would have to serve notice of the
intension to commence an action within 120 days after the accident or collision.
They would have to provide the insurer with the information and documentation
prescribed in the regulations within the time period prescribed in the
regulations; – again, the regulations are not before us here today as we debate
the bill – apply for accident benefits, if they have access to them; provide the
insurer with a declaration describing the accident and the nature of the claim,
where requested by the insurer; and to participate in the case management
process set out in the regulations.
They
would also be required to undergo an examination by classes of persons
prescribed in the regulations, where requested by the insurer and at the
insurer's expense, and this examination must not be unnecessarily repetitious or
involve a procedure that is unreasonable or dangerous. The last component that
will be required will be to provide evidence of identity, where requested by the
insurer.
Another
change that's going to be made in this bill is with respect to damages reduced
by accident benefits payments. Section 26.6 will be added to provide that
damages to which a plaintiff is entitled in an action for loss or damage from
bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation
of an automobile be reduced by the accident benefit payments received by the
plaintiff, or to which the plaintiff is entitled.
There
will be changes as well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to direct compensation for
property damage. Section 32.1 of the act will direct compensation for property
damage coverage, as it is known in the industry – DCPD is what it's referred to,
if I use that, direct compensation for property damage. This “would allow a
driver involved in an accident who is not at fault to seek reimbursement for
damages to his or her automobile directly from his or her own insurer rather
than from the insurer of the driver who was at fault.” The PUB review states
that this type of coverage has been available in Quebec and Ontario for decades.
It was introduced in New Brunswick in 2005, in Nova Scotia in 2013 and in PEI in
2015.
The PUB
review determined that the implementation of this model was supported by the
industry and the Consumer Advocate and it was generally found to be cost
neutral, Mr. Speaker, but, again, the devil is in the details. They're still a
lot that we haven't learned with respect to how this would be rolled out.
Diagnostic and treatment protocols are also subject to change in this act, Mr.
Speaker. Currently, individuals with private health insurance must use their
private health insurance benefits prior to accessing those provided through
accident benefits in the auto insurance. Concerns have been raised that this
diminishes the value of private health benefits and results in those benefits
not being available for other injuries that could occur.
Section
34.1 sets out the establishment of protocols for injuries with direct billing to
a driver's insurer, paid prior to accessing private health insurance. The type
of injuries, as well as the diagnostic and treatment protocols, will again be
set out in the regulations, Mr. Speaker.
Access
to the uninsured fund, this is a rather significant change that we will see
forthcoming in the new legislation, Mr. Speaker. Currently, uninsured motorists
can avail of the uninsured fund. This fund protects those individuals who are
not required to carry insurance such as passengers, pedestrians and cyclists.
So,
you're driving your vehicle, it's your vehicle, but you have passengers aboard,
Mr. Speaker, and you don't have extra insurance coverage purchased for
passengers. In the past, these people would have been covered under the
uninsured fund; however, the proposed amendment to section 45.1 will prohibit
the owner or driver of an uninsured automobile from applying to the Facility
Association for payment of damages for injuries arising out of the operation,
care or control of an automobile.
If the
other driver is at fault, the uninsured person can still sue. Officials noted
that in some American states this policy is referred to as No Pay, No Play.
Provisions are included to provide a 30-day grace period in the event a person
overlooks to renew their insurance and the policy lapses. The 30-day grace
period is only provided in instances where a person had maintained continuous
insurance coverage for the previous 12-month period. So only in that
circumstance would such a waiver apply, or such grace apply.
Officials noted that this change is being modelled on a practice in the state of
Kansas, actually, in the States, and they're hoping that it will encourage
greater compliance with the mandatory insurance requirement. Again, the goal
being to ensure that everyone has mandatory insurance in place.
A
regulation-making authority regarding rate filing and exemptions is also spoken
to under section 49 of the bill before us here today. This section will be
amended to allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is Cabinet, to
prescribe by regulation the time period in which an insurer is required to file
its rates with the Public Utilities Board. It will also be amended to allow
Cabinet to exempt an insurer from the requirement to file its rates with the
PUB. The proposed changes are modelled on Alberta and will require full-rate
filing every three years, and permit exemptions for rate changes no more than 3
per cent annually and no more than 6 per cent cumulatively over three years.
Reforms to the rate-setting process were part of the terms of reference as well.
In terms
of publication of more information by the Public Utilities Board, the act speaks
to this in section 55.1, which is going to be a new section that will be added
to require that the Board of Commissioners of the PUB publish the information
set out in the regulations respecting decisions or orders of the Public
Utilities Board in the manner and time period prescribed by the regulations.
Department officials noted that currently there's not much information published
on the PUB website. So the goal of this change is to provide consumers with more
information to assist them in making informed choices.
There's
also a regulation-making authority to mandate discounts and implement
improvements to the rate-setting process and procedural reforms.
I
realize some of this stuff may appear dry, but it's very, very important, this
act. It's hugely important and it will have an impact on many people in
Newfoundland and Labrador, so it is crucial that each and every one of us
endeavour to understand it and how it will affect each of our individual
circumstances.
Section
60(1) will be amended to allow Cabinet to mandate rate reductions when
automobiles are equipped with winter tires. Section 60(1) will also be amended
to allow Cabinet to mandate rate reductions where automobiles are equipped with
telematics. That would be technology that monitors vehicle usage and driver
behaviour.
With the
use of telematics, Mr. Speaker, real time data regarding driver habits such as
braking and speed can be sent to insurers, or in the case of taxis, straight to
the dispatch, but the cost for telematics can be considerable. That is something
that, as times change and we become more of a technological society, we may see
an increase in telematics.
In terms
of statutory review, the section 64 of the act is amended to require that the
minister consider every five years whether a review of the act, the regulations
or other matters related to automobile insurance is necessary. As I stated when
I started to speak, Mr. Speaker, it has been since 2005 since there has been a
review of this act. In five years time, whether or not it's a thorough review
involving the PUB, or at least even a review by the minister and department
officials, it will be looked at five years hence.
As has
been stated already, most of the proposed amendments, which we are debating here
in this hon. House today, will come into force on January 1, 2020. Changes
preventing uninsured drivers from accessing the uninsured fund, however, they
are going to be coming into effect much sooner. They will be in place by August
1, so that's only two months away, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to take some time to note that there is an increased deductible, and while
it's not referenced directly in the body of the bill, there is a policy choice
that has been made to increase the deductible from the current amount of $2,500
up to $5,000, Mr. Speaker.
So,
quite a significant bill, quite a lot of changes, as the previous speaker before
me, the Member for Windsor Lake, pointed out, there are still some questions and
concerns that we do have. Hopefully, there will be ample time during Committee
of the Whole to not only pose the questions, but to also get the answers that we
really should have as a public and as an hon. House before finalizing any final
votes on this legislation.
I thank
you, Mr. Speaker, once again for the opportunity to rise to my feet in this hon.
House. I look forward to the rest of the debate on the bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm glad
to stand and speak to Bill 3 dealing with the
Automobile Insurance Act, an amendment
to the act, not a new act. I think it's important to note, as has been noted by
the minister and by other speakers, the reason for the bill is that the act,
finally, after quite a number of years, was reviewed.
The last
review took place in 2004-2005. Finally, after 12 years, government set terms of
reference for a review of the act to the PUB on August 14, 2017. So that was 12
years after the previous report. Then the PUB released its final report this
past January.
So it's
important, because an awful lot of things can happen in that length of time from
2005 to 2019. Fourteen years is a long time waiting for a review, because there
have been all kinds of changes; changes even with automobiles and how
automobiles work. There is just a need, I think, to do reviews like this much
more frequently than every 12 or 13 years.
I
actually think we could be doing reviews of a lot of legislation in a more
timely fashion in this Legislature. We've had too many pieces of legislation
coming after something has been not reviewed for decades and, in some cases, you
get a piece of legislation, which you had the other day, for example, where the
bill we were passing was making changes to another bill that had not yet been
proclaimed after something like 10 years. I may have the years wrong on that
one, but it was quite a long time. I think it was 10 years.
So I
think the fact we have such an in-depth bill here today is a sign that we needed
to have this review before. Now we do have a change because the new legislation
says that there would be a statutory review every 5 years, and that came as a
result of the consultations that were carried on by the PUB. I think that what's
important to point out is the PUB did the review that was asked for by
government and the PUB did a great job of consultation.
All
parties agreed that the last review in 2004 and 2005, that last review was way
too long and we needed to have the length of time for reviews in legislation. So
I think that's extremely important, that we now know in five years' time there
will be another review – extremely important.
We had
people coming to us about this bill or about issues that were in the bill, as
I'm sure the other parties did as well. There certainly was lobbying going on by
people concerned about the changes that would be made to the
Automobile Insurance Act. I think it's
important, and the minister pointed it out, that one of the biggest issues that
was an issue of concern –
MR. SPEAKER:
If I could ask the Members
just a little quieter, please.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
– was whether or not there
would be a cap that would be put on for injury awards. There were two major
groups arguing one side and the other side on this; one was the legal community
and the other was the automobile insurance community.
I have
to say that I'm very, very happy that government went with the recommendation to
not put a cap on injury awards. It's extremely important. The minister read out
the witness of one person who presented to the PUB and that was pretty moving,
and I just don't mean emotionally moving. I think it could also move you to
really be angry that somebody who has been so damaged because of an accident,
probably is not getting insurance for the treatment that he or she needs. I
don't know if it was a man or a woman or who it was.
I'm sure
we all have to know people in our lives who were in accidents, automobile
accidents, and because of soft tissue injuries, really did not receive insurance
for the care they needed, because soft tissue injuries can go on. Trying to heal
soft tissue injuries can take such a long time. I think it is so good that the
PUB recognized that and that government recognized it as well.
We have
to make sure that people receive the care that they need, receive the treatment
that they need, and if it takes five years, it takes five years. I've known
people who have taken that long because of a car accident and the soft tissue
injuries that ensued from that accident.
As the
minister noted, and I think it's logical because of that, because there's no
cap, officials noted that the current $2,500 deductible, which is listed in the
regulations, will be doubled to $5,000. Of course, that's to try to make up for
the fact that there will not be a cap.
I'm
really glad about that. There was a bit of a debate going on and some seeing the
legal system as just being in there for their own benefits, but, in actual fact,
the people I met with were very sincere in what they presented as the reasons
for not having a cap on injury awards; so very important.
The
other thing I'd like to speak to – I'm not going to go into all the details of
the bill. The minister did an excellent job in going through all the details,
and I don't have an argument with any of those details, so I will not be going
into those, but I do want to speak about the need that we have in our province
with regard to highway safety.
When we
were briefed on this bill, one of the things that was talked about was what
other policy decisions government wants to make in conjunction with this
legislation, and they had to do with a focus on highway safety. There have been
numerous amendments to the highway safety act over the past few years and that
work is going to go on. One of the upcoming amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act will be the
adoption of traffic cameras. I think this is so important.
A couple
of times now I've said in the House, and the other day in response to the
minister, I've said that we do need to have more policing on our roads and
highways when it comes to traffic safety. Policing can happen in many ways. One
way is by having more RNC and RCMP on the roads because we do not have enough.
Another would be through the adoption of traffic cameras.
There's
been a pilot project at highway construction sites, but this has to be enlarged
and so Service NL will be working with the Department of Justice and Public
Safety to get camera footage enforceable in court. I think that's so important
because there's no sense of having the cameras if the evidence on the cameras in
the footage cannot be used in court. That's going to be extremely important.
We have
to do something to make sure that people take more seriously the rules of the
road. We all have stories and I'm sure statistics would back up our stories. We
all have stories of here in St. John's, for example, people driving 70, 80
kilometres an hour on a street in the city, many times.
We have
some larger streets, you take, for example, Portugal Cove Road and Torbay Road
where you have maybe four lanes for quite a distance. I've had cars – when I'm
doing 50 – passing me, not passing me but going along in the lane next to me
definitely doing 60 or 70 over and over again. It happens all the time.
I've
seen neighbourhoods where people have put up signs: Please drive slowly,
children around. People shouldn't have to put up that sign in the neighbourhoods
but they do.
It does,
though, say to me – and I don't think I've ever said this before in the House –
I really wonder at 50 kilometres an hour being a good speed in residential
areas. I actually think it should be lower than that. We have had accidents in
residential areas because of drivers driving way too quickly.
Now, if
we say 30 maybe they'll go 50, but if we you say 50 you're going to have some
going 70. That's what we have because it's not just on the main thoroughfares,
like the two roads I just mentioned, we have a lot of thoroughfares like that,
but also in residential areas you see people driving way, way too quickly as
well. Residents shouldn't have to put up signs.
Now, I
know these signs aren't enforceable. I know that if somebody ignores them it's
because they're just put up by somebody who has children on the street and are
concerned about their children, but they are a sign that if residents are
putting up signs like that on their streets, it's because people are driving too
quickly on the streets.
So, we
have a number of things that need to be looked at when we're talking about
highway – well, traffic safety – both on our roads and on our highways.
We hear
over and over again about how many people who don't have insurance. Just my own
personal story; the very first accident that I ever was in where I was hit by
another car, the other car didn't have insurance. It seems like that happens
over and over and over again.
So,
anything that we can do to get people more aware, make people more responsible
for safety so that we don't have as many accidents, will be extremely important.
I like
the suggestion that government – this is not in the legislation, but we were
told in the briefing this will be happening – will be adopting a licence plate
to owner motor vehicle registration system. I think that's extremely important
because it really holds the driver accountable for what happens in that car.
We're
told that government is enthusiastic about this switch, and I really hope it
will not take too long to accommodate that change. Apparently, there will have
to be a new computer system, a new program put in place in order for this to
happen. So I hope it won't take too long.
I'm not
going to continue speaking, Mr. Speaker. Overall, this bill is a good bill, and
there may be some questions, some small details to bring up in Committee but
nothing to challenge the bill itself. It's too long coming, but now we know that
the next review will be in five years, so we won't have such a period of time
again without a review.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 3. Once again, I will say
that the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi has somewhat stolen my thunder.
A lot of the bullet points that I made here, she's covered most of them. I'm
glad to see my wisdom is rubbing off on her, or maybe it's the other way around
– she says it's the other way around.
Anyway,
I'm not going to get into every little detail of the bill, the minister has done
a good job explaining it. Certainly, the Leader of the Official Opposition
raised, I thought, some good points. I'll be interested to see perhaps some of
the questioning that will occur in Committee. Of course, the Leader of the
Opposition is someone who is very, very experienced in these matters. I think he
has a great insight that perhaps a lot of us might not have. So I'm certainly
looking forward to that and hearing the answers to those questions.
With
that said, from a general point of view, I am very pleased to see that this
review is happening. I'm glad to see now that there will be a legislated
five-year review so we don't go so long before reviewing it again.
I
understand the concept of the – I guess, sort of in lieu of the cap there has to
be a little bit of give and take, some winners and losers on all sides because
it is a contentious issue that a decision was made that we won't go with a cap
but we will increase the deductible from $2,500 to $5,000 on those injuries. So
I guess that was kind of sawing it off in the middle to some degree in trying to
find some reasonable balance to both sides of the argument.
Of
course, I'm sure all Members of this House received emails. I had a couple of
meetings with people on both sides of the argument, from people in the insurance
industry and the legal community. Obviously, both of those entities – let's face
it, they all have skin in the game and it's not necessarily, from either one of
them, totally about the consumer because they all have their own interests.
Obviously, the legal community want to continue to litigate these claims because
the more litigation they can do and the higher rewards they can gain, well then
that's more money in their pocket when they're representing clients who were in
accidents. So they obviously have a bias in that regard. From the insurance
companies, of course they're making huge profits, and they want to continue to
make huge profits. So, obviously, the insurance industry has its own
self-interest as well.
My
concern is more so for the consumer. Although I do appreciate that both of those
other entities provide services and they certainly are entitled to make a living
and to earn profits, but, by the same token, I think our major concern here
should really be about the consumer and about the rates for consumers.
I think
it's also important to note that there is no magic bullet here. It's not as
simple as making a change in legislation and all of a sudden everybody's
insurance rates are going to go down. That's just not realistic. I really don't
think there's anything that could be done. I think if you looked at the review
of the PUB and so on, they, I think, came to the same conclusion: There are
certain things we can do and suggestions to try to help things, help stabilize
things, but at the end of the day there is no magic bullet that's going to all
of a sudden see everybody's insurance rates go down significantly. It's just not
realistic.
I think
the most important thing that we can do is on the prevention side. I can sort of
make that analogy to – prior to getting into politics I worked as a safety
professional for years, and so very familiar with that concept of safety. The
concept of how the workers' compensation system works and how employers would be
trying, obviously, to get their workers' compensation rates down. We've seen
that happen, but it's happened primarily through prevention. If you're not
having accidents, you're not paying the costs and therefore rates can do down.
I think
you can draw a very similar analogy when it comes to automobile insurance. If
all these accidents aren't occurring, then the costs are not occurring and, in
theory, that should drive the costs down because we're simply not having the
accidents. I think that's really where the focus needs to be.
I was
very pleased to see there's some recognition here and some actions as it relates
to the concept of uninsured drivers. We all know that's a big issue. I'm sure
we've all heard it from people over the years. No doubt, it is a concern.
A lot of
times when you see these people get caught by the police that owe thousands of
dollars in fines, tens of thousands of dollars in fines in some cases, a lot of
times what's actually happening is related to people who are driving an old
junker, I'll call it, an old beater, whatever, no licence, no insurance, no
registration. They get hauled over by the police. They get tickets for no
insurance, licence, registration. They seize the car and probably a couple of
weeks later that same individual goes and gets another heap of junk somewhere
for a couple of hundred bucks and no licence, no insurance, no registration;
does the same thing over.
It keeps
repeating itself over and over and over again. You start racking up $1,000,
$2,000, $5,000, $10,000, and some of these people are people who really have
nothing to lose. You can't get blood from a turnip, so they'll just continue on
doing it. Of course, they're not getting incarcerated for it because we don't
have room at the inn, so to speak, for people who are breaching the Criminal
Code let alone people who are committing offenses under the
Highway Traffic Act. So it's sort of a
vicious cycle.
We have
to find ways of addressing that issue. One of the things that I think we can do,
and I'm glad to see it's being addressed because it's something I've raised
numerous times in the past, is the concept of having a licence plate going with
the individual verses going with the car. They're going to look into that
apparently. So that's good. That's good. I'm glad they're going to do that and I
think that would certainly go a long way and would help.
I think
winter tires is an issue we hear raised all the time. Of course, there are some
people who are saying winter tires should be mandatory. I think what government
is doing, as I understand it, they're taking more of a carrot versus a big stick
approach. Instead of saying you must have winter tires, they're taking the
approach of, if you have winter tires, then you could receive some sort of a
discount on your insurance because you have them. So, again, it's the carrot
versus the stick. The only issue, I guess, is – the Leader of the Official
Opposition – if his numbers are correct that 94, 95 per cent of the people have
winter tires anyway, I'm not sure what kind of a discount would be available by
getting that other 5 per cent on board.
A good
point he raised there. I don't know if those numbers are correct. I'm taking him
for his word that they certainly would be.
Another
thing that hasn't been raised here today, but it's something I throw out there
to the minister, I'm sure she's heard it as well, because I've heard it from a
number of people in the past when it comes to vehicle safety, insurance and all
those things is, there are a number of people out there who would like to see
the mandatory vehicle inspections back again.
Now, I
don't know if that's something that's even been considered. I know there were
definitely flaws with the system in the past. We all have heard those stories
about people just getting inspections written out without the inspections
actually occurring and all this kind of stuff, but I do throw it out there just
for the purpose of the debate because it is something that some people have said
to me from time to time, we should get vehicle inspections back. I don't know if
that was ever considered, or whatever, but I throw it out there.
As the
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi threw out there as well, which I think
is a very important point in terms of prevention of accidents, vehicle safety
and so on, increased police presence on our highways. I think that's an
important piece. I don't know what the numbers are now compared to what they
used to be. I don't know if we're any lower, or higher, or the same, I don't
know, but I just know that, anecdotally, there have been a number of times that
I personally have noticed in the last few years where I've driven, say, to Grand
Falls, Corner Brook or whatever, and not lay my eyes on an RCMP, not see one
police car.
I've
experienced that myself. I've had a number of people who've said the same thing
to me. Now, maybe it just happens to be coincidence that the time you happen to
drive by is the time that they're down off the highway, maybe in one of the
communities responding to a call, maybe they're in court, maybe they're on
lunch, maybe they're on a shift change, who knows. I would just point out that
there doesn't appear to be a large police presence on the highway – doesn't
appear to be.
The same
thing from time to time you will see the RNC, for example, here on the Outer
Ring Road, periodically. I come in here daily because of the House or just to be
in the office, and more often than not, 99 times out of 100, I don't see any
RNC, for example, on Pitts Memorial with the radar. I have seen them but not
very often.
That
could be like the Autobahn out there from time to time. I tend to have a bit of
a heavy foot myself, admittedly. I've got to be watching it. I've been driving
on that and people whizzing by me as if I wasn't even moving, had to be going at
least 150, 160 or higher, they're going that fast.
So,
that's something that, if you want to prevent accidents and the cost of
insurance because of accidents, then more police presence on the highways and in
the city streets dealing with speeding vehicles and unsafe driving, I think
that's something we need to concentrate on.
There
were other things, of course. We mentioned there's a pilot project for cameras.
I think that's good. If we can utilize technology, as the government is going to
try to do, I understand, or is doing in a pilot, that's a positive thing. I
would certainly encourage government to continue down that road of, at least,
testing it to see how it works.
Now, we
all know that technology, like anything, doesn't always work, and I think that's
why piloting is good. We've seen those moose detectors, for example, out there
by Salmonier Line, or before you get to Salmonier Line, and we know what a
colossal failure they were, but I suppose at least you had to try it. They tried
something, it just didn't work.
I'm not
sure if the cameras – I think they're using cameras in other places all around
the world, in the States and other parts of the country, so if it can work
there, I can't see why it couldn't work here in Newfoundland. I'm glad to see
that's being, at least, explored.
Of
course, there are other things that we could be doing like the rumble strips, I
think, they're going to put in on the Veterans Memorial. Something needs to be
done there for sure, based on the tragedies that have occurred on that section
of highway. I'm not sure what makes that section any worse than some of the
other sections of the highway. It's a beautiful road but for some reason,
unbeknownst to me, we continue to have tragedies out there. So, things we can do
there, I think if we put in some more passing lanes, rumble strips and stuff
like that. So, if we can incorporate those type of things to make the road
safer, then that's what we should be doing.
Certainly, the other thing is the road conditions with ruts and potholes and
stuff like that. We know that's an ongoing challenge, for sure, but some of our
roads are in pretty rough shape, there's no doubt, and that's something that if
you want to prevent accidents, then the roads need to be fit to drive on and
safe to drive on. In the wintertime, they have to be cleared and salted and so
on when people are having to utilize them.
These
are all things that, from a prevention point of view, we could and we should be
doing to help bring down, to help prevent the accidents from happening. I think
the best chance we have to bring down insurance rates is to bring down the
accident rate.
Now, I
am sure that the insurance industry, no doubt, people will argue that they will
try to – you bring accidents down, the costs go down, and that just means more
money in their pockets. I know there are people skeptical who would say that,
but it's going to be hard to justify if you can show a significant decrease in
the accident statistics, they're going to be hard-pressed to justify not
bringing down insurance rates. I think that's somewhere we certainly need to go.
Of
course, the other piece in all this that's going to bring an immediate change to
the insurance rates, an immediate reduction, is the 15 per cent provincial
insurance tax, which was put on in Budget 2016, and I'm glad to see that it's
going to be removed.
I know
the minister, in her opening statement, talked about going door to door in 2015
and consumers wanted change that was going to reduce the cost of insurance, and,
certainly, adding 15 per cent tax on the insurance did the exact opposite. So,
I'm glad that's being corrected now and it's going to come off. That would be
helpful and welcome news for sure. Although, I've already heard from a number of
people who were very skeptical about the timing, but, nonetheless, if it's gone,
it's gone, and that's a good thing.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat. Generally speaking, I don't have an
issue with the bill. I won't commit to voting for it, although I probably will,
until at least Committee is done and I hear the answers to some of the questions
that are being raised by the Official Opposition, just to make sure that
everything is in order and makes sense. Other than that, it's a long time
coming. I'm glad to see it's being done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is
indeed a privilege to get up here again today to represent the beautiful
District of Cape St. Francis and the beautiful people in the District of Cape
St. Francis. I hope I get the opportunity to say that in the future.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the people over in Service NL, and during the
briefing there was a number of people there from the Department of Justice, and
I thank them for the briefing that they gave us. It was very thorough. There
were a lot of questions that were asked at the time, and, I have to say, this is
a bill that has a lot of people like lawyers, people in the insurance industry;
it is very divided how people look at this in those different industries, but,
at the end of the day, we need something for the consumers, for the residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
When we
first started talking about this bill in the briefing, the very first thing that
was mentioned is that automobile insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador is the
highest in Atlantic Canada. Not only the highest by a little bit, it's the
highest by about 35 per cent more that we pay in this province then they do in
other parts of Atlantic Canada.
I went
one time to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, they had a breakfast and I think you
were there, Mr. Speaker, they had charts that they showed us, talked about
claims and everything else like this.
I've
been speaking to a lot of people in my district and, obviously, insurance costs
always comes up. In this House, for the last number of years, since
Budget 2016, I think once we got up
here and a lot of debate that we did in this House, especially on this side of
the House, talked about the tax on insurance and what it was doing to the
economy, what it was doing to residents.
I gave
an example one day of my next door neighbour who's an elderly gentleman and the
cost for him going and getting insurance. People who are on fixed incomes, you
do your budgets up and, then, all of a sudden, your insurance cost has gone up
by 15 per cent, just like that, and the effect that that had on so many people.
I think we all had it. I'm not just saying on this side of the House, I'm sure
Members of the other side of the House, when they went and spoke to people in
their constituency that they had the same reaction that I did, Members of my
caucus and everybody else did.
So, back
in the current Budget 2018, there was
a great announcement, government across the way thought it was a great
announcement, they were going to take 5 per cent off over four years. They were
going to do 1 per cent in January last year then they were going to reduce it by
2 per cent, then by 1 per cent, but that was by 2022. They changed their plan
come election time to take it all off all together and I'm glad. I'm glad they
did. I really am glad they did, but it's strange that in 2018 their plan was to
go to 2022 before they just took off 5 per cent, but now that it's election time
– it's great.
Now, I'm
not saying anything bad about it, I can understand sometimes in election time
you have to do stuff like that to make sure that the people out there think that
you're doing something great, but it wasn't in their original plan and it really
amazed me that – it's pretty strange. I just think that maybe –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know the Minister of
Finance got up today and said we found the money but –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
– I think they found a lot of
money last week also; they found like $350 million last week.
I asked
this question in the House one time before about insurance and what we were
paying on insurance rates.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Relevancy.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I think it's really relevant.
I really think it's really relevant to people in the province. I know it is
relevant to the people in my district.
I asked
this question to the minister one day about this and he said: Where are we going
to find the money? Where do you think we're going to find the money? Anyway,
last week or this week, they found a lot of money. I don't know why they found
so much money and how they did find such money, but I got a funny feeling we may
have an election call pretty soon. That's just my prediction. I'm not really
sure –
AN HON. MEMBER:
They won Set for Life.
MR. K. PARSONS:
They won Set for Life, maybe
that was it, but Budget 2018 took off
– until 2022 they were going to take off 5 per cent. So, something changed all
of a sudden –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
– that now they're going to
take it all off. I applaud that. I really want it because I'd like to see
everybody (inaudible), but I'm just a little bit weary on the reason why it was
done.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, during the briefing, we had a good discussion, and, like I said, the
insurance rates in this province are way too high, way too high, but the review
that was done by the Public Utilities Board, that was done this year, they
didn't come back with any recommendations as such. They came back with this is
what they saw, this is what they found. Then they went back, and we all had the
debate back and fourth and I know there was different consultations with
different groups and everybody had a different opinion. I like some of the stuff
that's in there. There's some stuff I have questions on.
One
thing during the briefing that was interesting was compensation for property
damage and how that's going to be compensated now. What normally happens is if I
have an accident – and the minister can correct me when she gets up afterwards
on how I understood this – is that at-fault driver insurance has to deal with
the other insurance company. Now, that's going to change so that if I have an
accident, I deal with my own insurance company, they're the ones that'll pay
out, which is good because I think that it'll make for a faster resolution to
the claims. Obviously, when you're dealing with people that you know, it's a
friendlier way to do things, so I kind of like that. I think the question that
we had over here is that by doing this I thought it'd be a higher cost and stuff
like this, but, basically, it'll cancel each other out, really.
The
other thing: mandatory reporting of cancellation of insurance. Right now, that's
done when you use commercial vehicles, taxis, ambulance, bus, school buses,
they're required, right now, if I called the insurance company, if I'm a bus
driver or own a bus, the insurance company has to notify Motor Registration that
that's no longer insured, so then they can say, well, that bus, hopefully, will
be taken off the road. I'm not sure what they do at Motor Registration once they
get notified of that now, but I listened to the minister today because I did
have a question on this.
So, for
example, it's been a huge problem when it comes to insurance, some people will
go and if they need a vehicle transferred or they need to get their licence or
get whatever, they'll only get insurance for a short period of time and then
cancel their insurance. Apparently, that happens a lot, and I think it does
happen a lot, and that's probably why we see a lot of it.
So, if I
call my insurance company now, automatically there's a policy in place now that
will force the insurance company to notify Motor Registration that the insurance
for so-and-so's car has just been cancelled. Then, hopefully, some way this will
trigger, through the RNC or the RCMP, or both, and they'll have a record, then,
that says vehicle with licence plate number whatever, that insurance was taken
off that vehicle, and maybe that will help get some of these people off the
road.
I know
we're talking about rates, mainly, and the cost to the consumer, but safety has
to play a major factor, too, and when we got uninsured drivers off the road,
obviously, whoever would go and do that, they're causing safety to individuals,
persons, and it brings up a lot.
There
are a couple more, too. We talked about – actually, I think, and I'm almost
sure, actually, a lot of the taxi companies, through a major cost in St. John's,
has this telematics, which they have – I don't know how it's really ran, but I
believe it's ran through a GPS and computers and whatnot.
I spoke
to a taxi industry. For example, a person told me about how their company is
doing it. Say, for example, they're going up Portugal Cove Road and they're
going 80 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometre-an-hour zone. That will
automatically get registered back to the taxi company, and right off the bat,
they know this is what's happening. So the taxi industry is really being
aggressive, and I know it's a very costly system.
When you
look in other provinces, especially – I'm not sure, they told us the name of the
province. I think it is Ontario, and it could be New Brunswick or Nova Scotia,
I'm not quite sure, but they have people who deal with Allstate Insurance.
There's a policy under Allstate Insurance that if you have this in your vehicle
there's a major reduction.
So what
could happen, if this comes into effect in Newfoundland and Labrador, is that
the insurance company can go back into the system – and it's volunteer. It's not
something that's mandatory. It will be something that will be voluntary if you
want to deal with that insurance company, but they'd be able to go back through
that system and see whether you were speeding during the accident or see whether
you ran a red light. I don't know how they do it but there are ways to tell how
this is done through this system. Probably if there are consumers who want a
reduction in their rate, if they install this in their vehicles this would be a
way the insurance companies can reduce the cost to the consumer.
Also, I
know my colleague for Mount Pearl - Southlands spoke about winter tires. I did
ask a question at the briefing about where – they said they didn't have a stat
for Newfoundland and Labrador. The stat was basically for Atlantic Canada. It
said winter tires are used on 94 per cent of the vehicles in Atlantic Canada.
Now, I don't know what the stat is for Newfoundland.
Again,
my understanding is we didn't want to bring in mandatory snow tires because I
think some people believe that all seasons are better or whatnot. And it could
be the point that maybe – I know some seniors that are in my district don't
drive in the wintertime hardly at all. They just don't use their vehicle. So
mandatory tires for them would be an added cost.
I fear
that a mandatory cost would probably result in a bit of gouging that could be
done also. I don't say that they're going to do it but it would open the door
that if it's mandatory for snow tires, all of a sudden I'd hate to see the price
of snow tires go to the ceiling because you have to have them. I'd like the
protection like that too, because that's what happens a lot of times.
Mr.
Speaker, we did talk about, and it's something we've brought up on this side –
and two of the Members on the side of me mentioned it already today – was the
plate to vehicle idea. I believe that's probably the best way to regulate or to
stop what's happening with a lot of uninsured vehicles in the province, because
you're responsible for that plate. What happens right now is people who buy
vehicles, it could be the number one selling feature for that vehicle is that
it's licensed.
Right
now we're into April. They could buy one that got licenced, say, in March. So
I'm good for 11 months with a vehicle that I don't have to – you know, they go
buy a vehicle, they have no insurance on the vehicle. Once you're driving around
with it, as long as the plate shows that that vehicle is good until next year,
then, you know. So by taking the plate with the person, the vehicle stays with
me. That plate stays with me all the time, so that plate is mine.
They
talked about it in the briefing. Apparently it would be a huge cost to the
system to change over because everything right now in Newfoundland and Labrador
is done as a result of the vehicle. It stays with the vehicle rather than the
person. What would happen would be the whole system would have to be changed.
While
the minister mentioned that in her statement here today and while it was
mentioned over there and through the Briefing Notes and the (inaudible) that we
did get, it was mentioned there but I don't see it happening in the near future.
Now that's just what I got from being at the briefing and asking the questions,
that there were reasons, there was this reason and that reason, but it's a
concept that I think most people would say, well, if it takes a lot of uninsured
drivers off or takes the responsibility of a lot of these people on the road
with no licence, no insurance and nothing, then that's what we should do.
Apparently that's what the answer was when the question was asked.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister also mentioned about the
Highway Traffic Act and, yes, there
has been some good legislation. I'll give the department credit, there's been
some real, good legislation brought to this House of Assembly and we've all
discussed it.
When I
was critic for Service NL, I got up and talked about the move-over laws and we
talked about things like stunting and people were out there driving erratically
and what we needed to do. Those laws are great to bring in, because anytime we
can do anything for safety on our highways is very, very important. We travel
them, our families travel, and I know a lot of Members from this House of
Assembly probably travel a lot more than I do back and forth to their districts
and have bigger districts and I want to make sure everybody is safe on the
highway. So anything, any improvements we can bring in to the
Highway Traffic Act is important.
Mr.
Speaker, overall, like I said, we'll get into Committee and we'll have some
discussions with this. There are some good points to it. There are some
questions we'll have, and it'll depend on the type of answers we get from the
minister to see which way we'll look at this bill now.
Again,
at the end of the day, I know the constituents in Cape St. Francis are looking
for some relief. It's a difficult time in the province. There are a lot of
people really finding it difficult. They look at it as the tax on insurance,
that's one of those things that has made it difficult for them. I'm glad today
that the government has decided to take that away. We'll see what the details,
number one, are in the – I hope they'll do it immediately, but we'll see what
the deal will be in the budget tomorrow. Maybe they'll take the reductions off
the 300 taxes they added too, and maybe they'll eliminate the 50 other taxes
they added on in 2016.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here today and speak to Bill 3, which is An Act to Amend the
Automobile Insurance Act. It's one that certainly we've been looking forward to
debating in this House. And there's been a significant process behind this bill
being here today. In fact, this was a promise that was made some time ago. It's
been repeated, whether it was in The Way
Forward. So I commend the minister and her department for all the work
they've done in pushing this piece of legislation forward, which I think is
certainly welcomed by most quarters of this province.
When I
look across the way, I know that some Members – I think the independent Member,
and I believe Members of the NDP have spoken their support. I'm not quite sure
about the Official Opposition yet, and where they are with that. But I will tell
you, I would actually be quite surprised if they are not supportive of this
piece of legislation. I would be quite surprised. I think they will. I
understand how the process works and they have to ask questions, and that's how
it should be. I'll talk a little bit more about that now in a second.
I guess
I have an opportunity to correct some of the information that comes out, or
answer some questions. That's the whole purpose of this process. The Member for
Cape St. Francis, who I certainly have, aside from his support of the Boston
Bruins, I generally think he's a decent person. But I will say, he mentions –
because there's one word in one of his quotes, he said 300 new taxes. But the
word new is not there, because, in fact, his administration when he was there,
actually had brought in and raised a number of those. A small point, but I need
to put that out there. I just want to make sure we have accurate information.
I'll
talk about the bill, but – again, I will segue into something positive. The
Member mentioned that he was a part of a briefing on Friday. And, you know what,
I'm glad he went to the briefing. That's what we need to have. He was there
along with members of the staff, Members of the Third Party staff were there,
and what that speaks to is when we talk about legislation, the fact is we need
to have good, diligent reviews of legislation, and I'm going to speak to two
points on that that I think are important.
The fact
is we're debating a situation here that has arisen basically almost from a
decade and a half of not much was done. The last review was 2004-05, and nothing
was really done after that. I get what the Member is saying, talking about
relief. We all feel the same way, but this was not a situation that was created
overnight. This was a situation that evolved over time unchecked, and now I
think we have introduced measures that will help to reduce the rates that are
there, but at the same time will protect the rights of individuals and victims,
as well.
One of
the points that's in this piece of legislation that I think is important is a
very simple one, is a five-year statutory review. The fact is we will not allow
legislation and these changes to just be ignored until the next point where we
reach crisis, where taxi companies are out talking about the issues, when
citizens are talking about it. So I think everybody is supportive of that. I
think it's an important issue.
Coming
back to the briefing and why that's important – again, maybe I'm a tad sensitive
because I take my role as Government House Leader quite serious. What I've done,
and I look at my experience being in the Opposition, talking about our ability
to get reviews, to get briefings, to have time to review. I remember being
threatened when I was on the other side; threatened by a former Government House
Leader that you're not going to get your briefing if you don't sit down, stuff
like that. That's what we dealt with. Now, I will say, nobody on the other side
was a Government House Leader at the time.
So, it
offends me when a Member stands up today, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune, and says, well, we haven't had enough time. I find that offensive because
it's simply not true. I will point out an interesting tidbit. In 30 minutes of
Question Period today, not one single question was asked on this topic; not one
single question was asked by the Member on this topic.
Again, I
digress, I can look at the Hansard
here. Oh, sorry, the Leader may have asked one. There were questions on a number
of topics, but this topic, which was so important and the Member is so
distressed at not having enough time, did not prompt a single question on the
topic.
Now, I
understand others not asking questions because they've gotten up and spoken
positively about this amendment that's being put forward, but to talk about the
fact you haven't had enough time, that's just incorrect. In fact, there was more
time given to this then there's been to a number of pieces of legislation that
when I sat on that side, we just never got that time.
I would
also point out, if you're so concerned about the bill, if you're so concerned –
again, if I'm going to get criticized for what we're doing here, not allowing
enough time – and I would say, we can be here as long we need to this evening
and we also have time on Wednesday to debate this, but if you're going to
complain about not having the time, you should probably go to the briefing. You
should probably go to the briefing. If it's so important, go to the briefing.
It's not
the Member for Cape St. Francis, he was there. He was there. He stood up today
and made his points. He was at the briefing. Another Member says I didn't have
enough time, but also didn't have enough time to go to the briefing. So, I'm
just putting that out there. I think that's important.
Now, I
will come back to – I've sat and listened to a number of speakers on the other
side and speakers on this side. I think that this today, as we announced, is a
number of measures that taken together will lead to – again, I still think the
most important thing when we talk about insurance is theoretically the need to
not use it. That's why we need to promote deterrence, enforcement, prevention.
I think
some of the steps we've taken here today were working towards that, and we know
there's more that has to be done. We know there's more. Again, just within
Justice and Public Safety, our police officers are doing a great job but they're
going to work more with communities because it's municipal leaders that are
saying we want to be a part of enforcement as well. We want to work with you and
support what you do, and that's a big step.
The
independent Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, plate to owner, something he –
you know what, he has brought it up in this House before, written letters on it.
So I'm glad to see his support of – it's going to take some time. There is a
significant cost to the implementation, but one of the issues we have in this
province when we talk about uninsured drivers is we also talk about the fact
that there are currently about $40 million owing in fines in this province.
Now, not
all of that is traffic related. There's a significant amount of that that is not
traffic related. In fact, a lot of it is dated over time, but when we talk about
the fact that we – that one step, I think that one investment will lead to a
return on the investment down the road when – we all know the steps that people
take to get around it. It has been talked about.
That's
one that I'm really looking forward to down the road when we talk about
Transportation and Works and what they've done with traffic cameras in
construction zones. I speak about it as somebody who has lost a friend, a person
working with Transportation and Works in a construction zone and lost their life
because of negligent driving. That's something we need to do more of, and in
conjunction with Justice and Public Safety. We've seen that just the mere
presence has a deterrent factor. Not just a ticket, but knowing the camera is
there has a deterrent factor.
So,
there are steps we will take. We'll move forward, but when we look at the
measures that are listed in this, when we talk about the mandatory notification
of the registrar about the cancellation of a policy, I can honestly say that is
something that I have literally been contacted about by constituents in my
district who say, is this the case? I said, sadly, that is the case.
Today's
announcement is something that people will get, people will understand and I
think they'll appreciate, because the fact is the vast majority of people
respect rules. The vast majority of people follow the law. The vast majority of
people buy insurance, pay for their insurance, but for those that are out there
that choose not to, for whatever reason, it wears on those individuals that are
following and paying premiums and doing all that. Which is also why – I will be
surprised if the Member for Cape St. Francis does not support a law that talks
about uninsured right, somebody who has chosen to not have insurance, has chosen
not to and places everybody at risk.
Again,
the Leader of the Opposition has spoken out against that. Now, we'll have a
discussion on – he says there's a charter case in my discussions with Dr. Barb
Barrowman QC, former clerk of Supreme Council. She doesn't think it's an issue.
As much as I respect the Leader of the Official Opposition and his legal
opinion, I also trust the people within the Department of Justice and Public
Safety because they're not actually losing their right to sue. They're losing
their right to go to that facility association. The fact is I still agree with
the move. I still agree with it.
We have
a situation where uninsured – we all know the reasons, and I totally understand
and empathize with many who are in the situation but that doesn't excuse it.
That does not excuse it. It is against the law to do so, and you're placing
others at risk. I find it hard to believe that people will go out to their
districts when they talk to constituents and say, I'm not going to vote for that
bill because I don't agree with that. That's going to be an interesting
conversation, is what I would say, Mr. Speaker.
I look
at the changes that the Minister Responsible for Service NL has brought in here.
It's just a number of different things that I think together will work.
Treatment protocol, something that I would note was supported by the insurance
industry as well as the campaign, as they are called, Insult to injury,
protecting the rights of victims. There was bipartisan support of that. So
that's something they said we should do. You know what, I think it will lead to
savings down the road. When we're taking measures more quickly to protect the
health of individuals, then I think we're in the right direction.
We talk
about the increase of the deductible. One of the Members opposite, I can't
remember if it was the Leader or the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune,
talked about there is no assurance here. Well, in order to get that assurance,
you would actually have to go against the stuff that you talked about. I don't
know what steps they would've taken in to give the assurance that they needed
the rates are going to go down because there is no silver bullet here. There is
no magic answer to this, but I think the steps that we have here are going to
lead to reduced premiums and certainly to stability.
When we
just talk about the rate-setting process, which, again, the insurance industry
has issues, and they did a very good job of presenting their case. One of the
issues they had was with the rate-setting process and now what we're doing is
we're putting some stability into that as well. In many cases, the process was
so onerous that they did not go into it because it would just consume so much
time.
When we
talk about having the PUB still being a part of this, and I thank the PUB for
their time and listening to the evidence brought forward by many people, when we
talk about the direct compensation, when we talk about the statutory review,
overall I think this is a very strong piece of legislation. But do you know
what? Here's one of the things that I think is important. If we find out in four
years or five years, theoretically, that we were wrong – and my God, it's
amazing for a government Member to admit the possibility they might be wrong –
the statutory review will be one-third of the amount of time that it's taken
since the last fix.
So
within five years, we'll be able to come back and say what worked, is there
something that didn't work; but, in the meantime, I can guarantee you there are
multiple departments across government that will be taking steps, as outlined by
the minister today and by the Premier and as well by our department, saying here
are the other things that we're going to do, they will take some time but we're
moving in the right direction. I think consumers will get stability. I think
consumers have not lost their rights. That's an important thing.
Again,
even without the announcement today by the Premier of the insurance tax removal,
I think this bill was doing a significant number of things. I would have
supported this wholeheartedly before, but in conjunction with that – and again,
you only have to talk to somebody, and I'm going to give him a shout-out,
everybody knows someone like George Murphy who has been involved in the taxi
industry and just hearing today from him talking to his colleagues saying we've
got immediate support here. We already have remedies here. Do you know what?
That industry is supportive of the steps we are taking.
We have
victims' rights, individuals that are supportive, we have the legal community
that's supportive, we have the taxi industry which is supportive and we have the
Consumer Advocate who's supportive. Again, I know the independent Member is
supportive, I know the NDP are supportive, so before I take my seat and we move
forward, my question is to the Official Opposition: Are you supportive of the
people of this province as well?
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Minister of Service NL
speaks now, she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier in my remarks, the need for insurance reform was a message our
government heard loud and clear.
The
comprehensive report we received from the PUB was an important decision-making
tool for this government. It clearly articulated the increased pressures on both
consumers and the insurance industry in our province. It also showed us that we
didn't arrive at our current reality overnight, and we know we aren't going to
be able to solve the high insurance rates overnight, either. We've developed a
suite of measures that, when implemented, will provide the best product possible
for consumers, responsive to their priorities.
The
majority of amendments to the Automobile
Insurance Act that were introduced here today will come into effect on
January 1, 2020. In terms of the diagnostics and the treatment protocol changes,
we want to ensure adequate time for us to consult with the health professionals,
and also allow the industry time to make their necessary changes to their
processes, so a date will be determined.
The
provision which prohibits uninsured drivers from accessing the uninsured
automobile fund and receiving compensation for non-economic losses will come
into effect on August 1, 2019. As the Minister of Justice and Public Safety just
said, I am sure and we're all sure here in this House that the majority of
people want to follow the law. Automobile insurance is the law, Mr. Speaker.
As it
pertains to the mandatory vehicle inspections, statistics nor studies could
prove nor disprove that inspections increase or decrease accidents. Police
officers will be notified by MRD when MRD is informed of a cancelled insurance
policy. The Leader of the PC Party was asking for a definition of minor injury
earlier, and he was alluding to a cap, from my understanding listening to him. I
was trying to decipher what he was saying because the majority of the population
prefer plain language, so he may have to come back and clarify that because I
believe it was in plain language but it was alluding to a cap, and I understand
that he didn't support a cap, so I'm not really certain what he was saying
there.
So
again, I wanted to say how proud I am to be a part of the government that has
listened to the people it serves and today is bringing forward a very important
piece of legislation. These changes and these additions and the removal of the
insurance tax today will definitely help consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to thank my hon. colleagues for their support of the amendments debated
here today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 3 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
I would
ask the House Leaders to please call in your Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
I look to the House Leaders;
are you ready, gentlemen?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the Opposition House
Leader ready?
Is the
House ready for the question?
So is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, please stand.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms.
Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bragg,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Finn, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Reid, Mr. Hutchings,
Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Ms. Perry, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Petten, Ms. Michael, Ms.
Rogers, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Speaker, the ayes: 28;
the nays: zero.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion has been carried.
The
motion has been passed, the bill has now been read a second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of Whole House? Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Presently.
MR. SPEAKER:
Presently.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from
the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
We require the bill to be
read, I'm sorry. I apologize.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? I understand it's
presently.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Presently.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, Sir.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, presently, by leave.
(Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, take two.
Mr.
Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that Bill 6, An Act to
Amend the Insurance Companies Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.” (Bill
6)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to
rise once again to continue the dialogue on automobile insurance in our province
by introducing a bill to amend a second piece of legislation in our efforts to
help stabilize insurance rates.
As I
stated when Bill 3 was brought to the floor of this House, the problems facing
the taxi industry in Newfoundland and Labrador have been ongoing for more than
20 years. Like the ballooning costs of automobile insurance in our province
overall, we didn't get here overnight.
Since I
became Minister of Service NL, I have gained an even greater appreciation for
the importance of the taxi industry to the provincial economy and the valuable
service they provide. I have also come to realize their dedication to helping
their industry be the best it can be.
Along
with a specific focus on taxis during the insurance review, we also met with
representatives of the industry on a number of occasions and together
implemented a number of measures to help strengthen their industry. Effective
July 1, 2018, policy amendments came into force focusing on skilled drivers
experienced in driving in provincial road conditions, driving history, passenger
safety and safer vehicles. A zero tolerance policy for drugs when operating a
taxi came into effect on December 18, 2018.
In
Budget 2018, our government approved a
one-third reduction in the tax of auto insurance over four years. This would
particularly benefit those paying the highest rates such as taxi operators.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Premier announced that we will be removing the taxi from
auto insurance.
Mr.
Speaker, while the rising cost of insurance premiums for the taxi industry has
been a problem for a long, our government is the first administration to deal
directly with the matter by trying to find solutions.
In 2017,
when we initiated the review of the auto insurance system by the PUB, we
included a closed-claim study specific to taxi operators. According to the PUB,
every taxi operator spoke to the amount that they have to pay for automobile
insurance and the large increases in recent years. One operator stated that he
has had a clean driving record for 14 years, yet his overall rate increase was
that of 470 per cent in just under five years. He indicated that in 2013 he paid
$1,890, while his renewal rate in 2018 was $8,895. The findings of the PUB
report demonstrates that the insurance pressures facing the taxi industry have
been ongoing for many years.
One such
pressure is reliance on Facility Association, an unincorporated non-profit
organization for all automobile insurers. The PUB report indicated that the
organization currently insures over 95 per cent of the taxi industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the insurer of last resort for the taxi
industry and other drivers who are unable to get insurance in the regular
market.
Facility
plays the same role in other province and territories with private insurance;
Alberta, Ontario and the Maritime provinces and their territories.
After
making no rate applications between 1993 and 2012, Facility Association has
filed rate increases almost yearly since then. In fact, the total cumulative
rate increases for taxis over the period of 2012 to 2018 is approximately 244
per cent. This increase was largely driven by increases to third-party liability
premiums and this is the predominant coverage for taxis compromising
approximately 90 per cent of the total written premiums.
Mr.
Speaker, as I stated when I introduced Bill 3, the goal of the PUB's review was
to help inform government's decision-making, as we try to find solutions for
consumers in our province. We recognize that the taxi industry is a large
consumer group of insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would now like to
speak to measures we are introducing that will specifically assist taxi
operators throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
PUB's report drew attention to the expense provision set out in Facility
Association's plan of operation. The commission rate of 6 per cent is intended
to provide for recovery of the estimated operating expenses associated with
writing automobile insurance in the province and is based on agreements between
Facility and it's servicing carriers.
With the
large increase in taxi premiums in this province, there is potential for brokers
to be overcompensated with the continuation of the 6 per cent commission. A
lower commission rate would help reduce the premium required by Facility
Association for this class of business and will be easier for companies to
implement rather than introducing a dollar cap, like in Ontario, where for many
years the commission rate has been 6 per cent with a maximum commission of $370
per vehicle per year. As such, Mr. Speaker, we have decreased the commission for
taxi business to a more acceptable amount of 3 per cent. We calculate that based
on current rates this will provide savings of between $210 to $470 per taxi per
year.
Mr.
Speaker, another reform of automobile insurance, which could help realize
improvements in the auto insurance product for high-risk drivers, is that of
risk-sharing pools. This is a form of risk-sharing where insurance companies
come together to form a pool of drivers who are of higher risk but do not
necessarily fall within the description of the risk outlined by Facility
Association. The pool is distributed among all insurers operating in a market
and can protect drivers from higher premiums associated with Facility
Association.
The PUB
noted in its report that several industry participants, as well as the Consumer
Advocate, proposed the introduction of risk-sharing pools. We have amended the
legislation to allow Facility Association to develop an all-comers, risk-sharing
pool for Newfoundland and Labrador. The pool will require all insurers, brokers
and agents to participate in the program.
Mr.
Speaker, when I introduced Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Automobile Insurance Act,
I spoke to changes to the rate-setting process. One of those changes is that the
rate approval process would no longer be required for fleet-rated risks. Fleet
rating allows for direct negation by the risk manager through their broker or
directly with the insurer to address their risk profile and risk management
system.
In
essence, this will give vehicles managed in fleets such as taxis a measure of
control over their rates. We feel this measure will be a direct benefit to taxi
operators in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said earlier, we did not want to
place additional financial burden on residents of our province, but we wanted to
allow for an incentive for those who choose to increase safety in winter by
putting winter tires on their vehicles.
Studies
have shown that in provinces such as Quebec where winter tires are required,
after the first two seasons, road accidents do decrease by 5 per cent. That's
approximately 575 fewer people being injured annually in winter road accidents,
and deaths and serious injuries due to winter driving accidents did decrease by
approximately 3 per cent.
In
Ontario, for example, there is a requirement for auto insurers to give discounts
to drivers with winter tires. The regulations will be amended to require
insurance to apply a winter discount, as previously implemented in Ontario. This
is another measure that can assist taxi operators in the province in finding
insurance savings.
Mr.
Speaker, we will also amend the regulations regarding the optional use of
telematics, with further guidance to be provided in bulletins from the
superintendent. The information gathered through this process provides a report
on the driver's performance, distance, time of day driven, and other data, and
will be used to more accurately price insurance policies. Insurance companies
would have the ability to utilize telematics to monitor driver behaviour. This
would include taxis as well. In fact, some of the taxis are presently using
telematics today with success. It would also provide feedback to drivers to
encourage safe driving practices and provide financial incentives to safe
drivers.
Mr.
Speaker, our government is very proud of the work that has been done on auto
insurance in the province in an effort to help consumers, including the taxi
industry. Time and time again, our Premier indicated the importance of finding a
balanced approach in identifying opportunities to lower rates that benefit
consumers and help bring stability to the automobile insurance industry. Again,
I want to thank the PUB for their work on this matter leading to the review. I
want to thank members of the insurance industry, the legal community, the taxi
industry and, again, the road-crash victims, the Consumer Advocate for the
province, and consumers as a whole, as well as anyone who made their thoughts
known on this very important topic.
It was
apparent throughout the process that we needed to take a closer look at measures
for taxi operators in our province, recognizing their value in our towns and
communities. It is our sincere hope that the measures we have introduced today
will result in positive outcomes for this industry. These measures are also a
signal of our willingness to continue to work together to find solutions,
recognizing that the issue of high insurance rates cannot be solved in one day,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Sir.
Mr.
Speaker, on the subject of fees, the Explanatory Note on Bill 6, An Act to Amend
the Insurance Companies Act, says: The current rate of commission for brokers to
write policies for taxis and limousines is 6 per cent and this amendment will
mandate brokers to cut that amount in half to 3 per cent. Officials noted that
most other provinces have a 6 per cent commission rate and this change, based on
current rates, could result in between $200 and $470 in savings per vehicle for
the taxi industry.
So that
savings is said to emerge here from having of what appears to be the industry
standard rate of 6 per cent. I don't know if the minister has explained this yet
or not, but she might get a chance a bit later. I don't believe that the 6 per
cent is legislated in any way. I assume that it's just an industry standard.
We're
told here that it's also standard in most other provinces, 6 per cent commission
rate, but that now the government is going to interfere in the marketplace and
tell brokers that they're charging double what they should be charging and they
should be charging half.
Now,
this kind of regulation is regulation of fees that organized professions and
disciplines charge. This kind of intervention in the marketplace is normally
done to protect consumers, vulnerable consumers. It might be stretching the
concept of a vulnerable consumer somewhat to include taxi owners in this concept
when it comes to fees charged by brokers for placing insurance.
We, on
this side, would be interested to know the minister's explanation for how much
consultation occurred with the brokerage industry around this, how the 3 per
cent was arrived at as fair compensation and whether or not the minister has any
concern that this intervention in the marketplace to lay down and dictate the
maximum fee a broker can charge may cause distortions in the marketplace and
possibly even drive certain brokers away from providing the business.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand and speak to the second of two bills introduced to this hon.
House aimed at stabilizing insurance costs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, or the PC Party, I actually care about the
taxi cab operators as well. I've had many, many opportunities to meet with them
over this process in my previous role as the parliamentary secretary for Service
NL.
When our
government announced this review of automobile insurance, a particular focus was
going to be placed on the taxi industry in this province through a closed-claim
study. I know this quite well because I was the one that announced it in the
media centre at the time.
While we
had heard the concerns of the operators for some time – maybe the Leader of the
Opposition could hear that as well – the Public Utilities Board report echoed
the same concerns, stating that the taxi industry faces particularly acute
challenges with respect to rising insurance costs.
We
recognize the majority of taxi businesses in the Atlantic provinces, including
Newfoundland and Labrador, are currently insured through Facility. This Facility
Association is an unincorporated, not-for-profit organization of all automobile
insurers licensed to sell in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Alberta, the Northwest
Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon, so very well placed throughout the provinces
in our country. There are separate programs and rates for each jurisdiction,
though, Mr. Speaker. It's very important to understand that it's separate for
each jurisdiction.
The
Public Utilities Board report states that in Newfoundland and Labrador, Facility
insures over 95 per cent of the taxi industry in each Atlantic province. Since
2013, Facility Association has filed almost yearly rate applications. The total,
as the minister mentioned earlier, cumulative rate increase over that period
from 2012 to 2018, for all coverages combined, for approximately 244 per cent
increase. That is not good, Mr. Speaker.
The
Public Utilities Board report indicates that in 2018 the calculated total
premium for a taxi with a clean driving record was $7,058, and for a taxi with
multi accidents and/or convictions it would have been $15,753. Those numbers are
staggering, Mr. Speaker.
During
phase 1 of the review, the Public Utilities Board engaged Oliver Wyman Limited
to complete taxi summary statistics and also engaged Cameron & Associates
Insurance Consultants to conduct an audit of taxi claims to determine the cause
of poor claim experience. This included details regarding the underlying causes
of the loss and the high claims costs incurred, as well as recommendations to be
considered to reduce claims, costs, as well as rates.
Mr.
Speaker, throughout our province we understand the important role these taxi
operators and these individuals play within the transportation network that we
all utilize from time to time. Whether you live in one of our major cities or
reside in one of the more rural parts of our province, taxis provide valuable
services. The very nature of their business means they spend countless hours on
our roadways, thereby subjecting themselves to higher insurance rates.
I have
many friends that drive in the taxi industry, Mr. Speaker, and I know these fees
and insurance rates are debilitating for them. I really feel for the very good
drivers that do operate in this industry, and there are many, many good drivers
that operate in this industry. It's unfortunate that there are some bad ones in
the industry, but many of the changes we've already talked about are going to
help this industry quite substantially and in the longer term will help them
lower rates over time.
While
rate setting decisions are made at arm's-length through the Public Utilities
Board, we wanted to explore options to help stabilize rates for the taxi
industries as we all are consumers. It also subjects them to potentially more
accidents on the road, as I mentioned earlier. So, Mr. Speaker, it's important
that we try to get this right.
As the
Minister of Service NL stated in her remarks, the high insurance rates for taxi
operators has been largely driven by increases to the third party liability
premiums as this is the predominant coverage for taxis, comprising approximately
90 per cent of the total written premium.
Our
government, including our Premier, met with industry representatives to hear
their concerns and reiterate that we were exploring all options. No locks were
going to be left unturned to stabilize rates for the taxi industry. This
commitment was in addition to the considerable amount of work already being
completed between government and the taxi industry toward improving the industry
as a whole.
Today,
we are here in this hon. House to debate changes to insurance legislation we
feel will benefit taxi operators. Measures such as reducing the commission costs
associated with a taxi business from 6 per cent to 3 per cent should translate
into real savings in the industry. My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition
and the PC Party doesn't see that as a benefit. I think it's a 3 per cent
benefit on a large number for these taxi operators, and anything we can do to
alleviate some of those concerns that they're facing is a positive step in the
right direction.
A lower
commission rate would help reduce these premiums required by the Facility
Association for taxis and would also be easier for the companies to implement.
Risk Sharing Pools are another reform of automobile insurance which could help
realize real improvements in the auto insurance product for high-risk drivers.
The
amendments we have made today already will allow the Facility Association to
develop an All Comers Risk Sharing Pool in this province. All insurers, brokers
and agents would be required to participate in this program. Furthermore,
removing fleet-rated risks from the rate setting approval process in Bill 3 is
another benefit for the taxi industry. This would give vehicles managed in
fleets, such as taxis, a measure of control over their rates which is always,
always important.
Mr.
Speaker, all areas of reform brought forward today would also benefit taxi
operators and would be expected to have greatest impact on those paying the
highest premiums in our province, such as taxi operators.
Mr.
Speaker, when we set out to review automobile insurance in this province, our
goal was to identify opportunities to keep rates as low as possible that
benefits consumers and help bring stability to the automobile insurance
industry. A considerable amount of work has been done in an effort to bring
stability about. I'd like to thank the staff in Service NL, the staff in Justice
and everyone that worked together to bring these to fruition here today. I
encourage all hon. Members in this House to stand with us and support this piece
of legislation. Just like the previous legislation, this piece of legislation
also represents another step in enhancing consumer protection in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
I'll end
on that note, and I encourage all hon. Members, including the one from the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis, to stand up with us and the taxi
operators in this province and support this good piece of legislation that we're
bringing forward here today.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour, what I'm suggesting to my colleagues is that, if they're agreeable, we
will break now and resume at 6 p.m. and resume debate on Bill 6 at that time.
MR. SPEAKER:
Can I get you to repeat that
again, please?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, we will break
now until 6 p.m., at which time we will return – with leave from my colleagues –
and debate Bill 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands in recess
until 6 p.m.
Thank
you.
April 15,
2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 6A
The
House resumed at 6 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Are the House Leaders
ready?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, when we
left off we were in the middle of second reading of Bill 6 and we'll resume
second reading.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's a
pleasure, once again, to rise in this hon. House on behalf of the people of the
beautiful District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
We're
here on a Monday night, and I'm truly hoping that we will be here, as was
committed to the people, right through the month of May so we can properly
debate all the bills, including the budget that will be forthcoming tomorrow.
This
bill, Mr. Speaker, speaks to the insurance primarily for the taxi industry.
Approximately 95 per cent of taxi insurance written in Newfoundland and Labrador
is insured through Facility Association, which is an insurer of last resort.
Taxi
rates in this province have experience a cumulative increase of approximately
244 per cent in the last six years since 2012. This has really frustrated taxi
operators, and it's certainly very challenging for them. In these times of
excessively high taxation, expenses such as these are really hurting the taxi
industry. They feel they're in a crisis largely as a result of all these major
taxation increases, including the recent significant increases in insurance
premiums.
The
Facility Association is an unincorporated non-profit organization of all
automobile insurers, and it was established to ensure that automobile insurance
is available to owners and licensed drivers of motor vehicles where they're
unable to acquire insurance through the voluntary insurance market, Mr. Speaker.
These exist not just in Newfoundland and Labrador, but in Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, PEI, Ontario, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon.
Mr.
Speaker, every insurer who's licensed to write automobile insurance in
Newfoundland and Labrador is required to become a member of the Facility
Association and to abide by the plan of operation, which sets out the governance
framework for the Facility Association. The regulation of that plan of operation
is the responsibility of the Superintendent of Insurance. Their rates and
underwriting rules are the responsibility of the board.
This
act, Mr. Speaker, is proposing to make several amendments. The first is Risk
Sharing Pools and rates of commission for brokers. Section 98 of the act will be
amended to require that the Facility Association include a provision in its plan
of operation with respect to the establishment and operation of a Risk Sharing
Pool for members of the Facility Association.
The PUB
review defined a Risk Sharing Pool as a form of risk management where insurance
companies come together to form a pool of drivers who are of higher risk but do
not necessarily fall within the description of a residual market risk, and these
are sometimes referred to as the grey market risks. The pool is distributed
among all insurers operating in the market, and it can protect drivers from
higher premiums associated with the Facility Association residual market.
During
our briefing, the department officials noted that Risk Sharing Pools do exist in
other jurisdictions, and during the PUB review it was raised by the Consumer
Advocate as well.
Section
98 will also be amended to set the maximum rate of commission that may be paid
to a broker for the Facility Association business in relation to taxis and
limousine services. The current rate of commission for brokers to write such
policies is 6 per cent. So, what this amendment is going to do, Mr. Speaker, is
it will mandate brokers to cut that amount in half, to 3 per cent.
During
our briefing, again, it was noted by the officials that most other provinces
have a 6 per cent commission rate and this change, based on current rates, could
result in between $200 and $470 in savings per vehicle for the taxi industry.
The other change that's highlighted in the bill is that the proposed amendment
will come into force on August 1, 2019.
So,
certainly this bill is not as detailed and comprehensive as the previous bill.
It certainly would be good to be able to have the bill reviewed by the taxi
companies themselves in its form here before we actually go through with
Committee of the Whole, but my understanding is that these are changes that the
PUB has recommended.
There
has been some research done. From our point of view, I guess, on this side of
the House, we certainly recognize that changes are required to try and do
something better for the people who require insurance in Newfoundland and
Labrador, given that we are paying such high rates. That, in addition to all of
the 300 tax hikes that we've been living with for the last three years, and the
levy, certainly has made it very difficult for businesses and residents in this
province. We certainly look forward to seeing more of these types of initiatives
in the future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to Bill 6, which is a bill, in some ways, that
accompanies Bill 3 that we spoke to earlier this evening. Bill 6 is simpler.
Reading
over Bill 6 and the briefing note, I remember a couple of times actually that
our caucus, and I know the other two caucuses did as well, met with taxi drivers
and operators. They were quite concerned not too long ago, about a year and a
half ago, I think, if we might remember, they didn't know if they were going to
be able to keep their vehicles on the road because costs had become so high and
they were appealing to government to take some action to help them.
What
we're dealing with here today is a bill that's putting in place a couple of
steps that hopefully are going to help them. We don't have any concrete
information in terms of dollars and cents to tell us how the measures of this
bill will help the cost of insurance for taxi drivers. I'm hoping that when we
come into Committee we might get a more in-depth explanation from the minister
with regard to that.
Really,
in a sense, the Facility Association, in and of itself, is a Risk Sharing Pool.
That's what formed it, was the taxi drivers in particular coming together in a
way that they would be protected through the Facility Association. But what we
find now is that there are so many drivers inside of Facility Association who
are high risk that other drivers are being affected by that high risk; hence,
the move, as the Consumer Advocate said, to depopulate Facility Association.
What the
bill says is: Section 98 of the Insurance
Companies Act will be amended by the following: “The association shall
include in its plan a provision with respect to the establishment and operation
of a risk sharing pool for members of the association.”
So what
we'll have happen now is that within the Association itself, the highest risk
people in the Association – and there are different ways of defining that. In
some cases, it would be younger drivers, for example. But the highest risk
members will themselves become a Risk Sharing Pool, and the hope is that that
would then benefit the others whose insurance costs will come down because of
the highest risk members being removed from the pool and being in their own
pool.
What I
don't have, from the minister – and, as I said, I think we can ask her this in
Committee – is, if you want to put it, the mathematical breakdown of how that's
going to work to benefit the drivers who are affected by having these really
high-risk drivers as part of the Facility Association.
The
second piece is the lowering of the rate of commission. Right now the rate of
commission that may be paid to an insurance broker, for Association business, is
6 per cent and what is being suggested by government is that be lowered to 3 per
cent. Now, I note that Ontario did a similar review as that which was just done
by the PUB and their government decided to keep the 6 per cent commission but
put a cap of $370 on any commission. So I found that rather interesting and I
think I will want some explanation from the minister of why it was decided that
just dropping the rate to 3 per cent was the way to go.
I'm not
saying it isn't the way to go, but I don't have enough information to tell me
that it is the way to go. So I would like to get information from the minister
on the actual dollars and cents that will say to me that this bill is going to
help the taxi drivers and operators here in our province and that we won't have
them again coming in and saying that they can't afford to stay on the road.
I will
need some extra information from the minister. I feel confident that she will
have the information and I'll be satisfied, but I will need to get more
information.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to take a couple of moments and speak to Bill 6, An Act to Amend the
Insurance Companies Act. This one, of course, is a lot smaller bill obviously,
only a couple of changes as compared to the other bill that we just recently
debated, but it's an important bill nonetheless because it deals with our taxi
industry.
Mr.
Speaker, we all realize, of course, that – well, I think first of all we all
appreciate. I know I do. There has been a good many times in the past when I
appreciated the fact that there was a taxi available to get me where I had to go
or to get me home from where I was or whatever the case might be. I think we've
all had the opportunity to avail of taxis, particularly if you're out
socializing and stuff and people, obviously, don't want to break the law, they
don't want to drink and drive and so on. We're always encouraging people to take
a cab.
And, not
just that, there are a lot of people who don't drive, people who can't afford a
car and so on, people who depend on taxis to get them to doctors' appointments
or to get them to the grocery store, wherever they got to go, so they do provide
a significant service for the general public, there's no doubt about it.
I think
we would be lost, quite frankly, if we didn't have them. We would absolutely be
lost. So, it's important that we ensure that this is a sustainable industry for
the benefit, not just of the taxi drivers, the brokers, the stand owners and so
on, but certainly for all the people amongst us who utilize taxis for various
reasons.
We also,
of course, are very well aware of the challenges that face taxi drivers and face
the taxi industry, and particularly drivers, I would say, because there's no
doubt if you're someone who – I'm not saying it's easy because there are
challenges to it, but perhaps if you're an owner, you have a couple of hundred
taxis or whatever, you got a stand, you're charged a stand rental or whatever,
that's one scenario – albeit it's a lot of hard work, I'm not denying that. But,
certainly if you're a driver, you just got your one car, maybe you've got a
couple of cars, you're trying to feed a family and you're trying to just
struggle along, it can be a lot of hard work, a lot of time, for very modest
returns.
I know a
lot of taxi drivers and yes, there are times that they have good nights, there
are some times that they get good tips and all that stuff; but there's also an
awful lot of times when they're out there on the road, or they're waiting for
calls and so on, time is money, they're not necessarily getting the calls and so
on, or you run into a situation where whether it be routine maintenance or
something major happens to your car, it breaks down and it's very, very
expensive as we all know to have vehicles repaired, whether it be just routine
maintenance or something significant, there's a big cost to that.
Then, on
top of that, you have insurance. Insurance is not a nice-to-have, insurance is a
must-have, even though we talked about in the previous bill that there are some
people out there that seem to believe it's okay to drive without insurance, but
they're not the norm. I think most of us, 99 per cent of us, we understand that
insurance is a must-have, and certainly the taxi industry does.
For
them, when you look at the rates for insurance, where it's gone, it may have
been the minister who was talking about the fact that – I think she gave an
example of someone who – five or six years ago it was like $1,800 and now it's
like $7,000 or $8,000 and they haven't had any accidents. This is someone with a
clean driving record and their rates have gone up 400 per cent or 500 per cent,
which is absolutely insane. Given the fact that many drivers, they eke out a
living, but many drivers, they're certainly not getting rich at it, for sure. As
a driver, you're not.
Given
the fact of what they make, to see that kind of a cost associated to insurance,
$7,000, $8,000, is absolutely ludicrous. I don't know how many of them survive,
to be honest with you. I don't know how they do it. Many of them have said, the
industry itself has said, that they were sort of on the verge of collapse. I
really don't think they're exaggerating at all, to be honest with you, when you
look at the cost of everything to keep going.
It's
important, here in this House of Assembly, that we do whatever we can to try to
protect – I'll use the word protect – this vital industry, not just for, like I
said, the stand owners and the brokers and the drivers, but also for the public
because of the need for that service.
There
are a couple of things being proposed here. The first one in terms of limiting
the profit margin, if you will, for the insurance broker from 6 per cent down to
3 per cent, I believe the minister said, and I stand to be corrected, I believe
I heard the minister say that was going to result in somewhere between $200 and
$500 or $200 and $470 or something like that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Yes, between $200 and $470 in
savings for the insured person, the driver, if you will. That's a good thing.
Although, really between $200 and $470 on a $7,000 or $8,000 annual bill is –
it's a help, but it isn't really getting us where we need to go. It is a help,
and I acknowledge the fact that it is a help.
Now, I
will say, and again I look forward to Committee because the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi did raise an interesting point and a good point about:
as opposed to slashing the percentage on the broker from six to three, that I
think she said it was Ontario that they actually put a cap, because slashing it
from six to three, if we saw the actual math and the numbers and stuff, maybe
that works out fine, but I'm not sure how much they would normally make and how
much they're going to make now, because you also can't expect brokers to offer a
service and do it for free, either. They've got to make some return on
investment or why would they do it at all? So, I'm not sure what kind of return
they're making on 3 per cent, if it's reasonable or not, I'm not sure. I never
really thought of it until the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi raised
it, but I'll be interested to hear that question.
In
principle, I understand what you're trying to do, and there's no doubt that the
insurance industry is making big profits and so on. So if they're not making as
big a profit on taxis, I'm sure they're making it off the rest of us so that
they're still a very sustainable business. Although, like I said, they still
need to make a reasonable return.
I guess
the point is, at least in that example, the minister did give sort of a concrete
number, if you will, or a range that you could see here's how much money this
would save the taxi drivers.
When we
get to the other piece about the pool for taxi drivers, or in this case, I
guess, it would be the creation of two pools, if you will, because Facility
insurance is already a pool. I guess what's being suggested is that – which,
again, makes sense to me – if you've got someone who's a taxi driver, and let's
say they've been operating for the last 10 or 15 years, and they got a totally
clean record. They haven't had any speeding tickets, no moving violations, no
accidents and so on. They're very cautious. They're doing everything right. They
maintain their vehicle. They have their winter tires on in the winter. They're
abiding by all of the signage and traffic lights and so on. They're not
speeding. They're not having accidents, more importantly, then it does seem
patently unfair for those individuals to be thrown into the same pool,
theatrically, with a person who has a half-dozen speeding tickets over the last
number of years, has been in two or three accidents and so on, is basically what
I would say a bad driver, it does seem unfair for the good driver to be thrown
in with this other person and, as a result, everybody's rates are going up.
It would
seem to me that if you're somebody who has a terrible driving record and so on,
then you should be separated. If that means that your rates are going to be so
high that you can't afford – it's no longer worth your while to be in the taxi
business, so be it. If you're going to be out there and not abiding by the laws
of the land and putting yourself and putting others at risk on the roads, if the
consequence to that is your insurance rates go to a point that you can't afford
to be a taxi driver anymore, well, b'y, you made your bed, lie in it. At least
let the good driver, the ones that are trying their best, who are being
diligent, let them make a decent living for themselves. I would say that most
drivers and people in the taxi industry would agree with that, I would think.
To get
around to the point on the money part, though, and, again, the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi raised this point, and I guess I'll just reiterate that
point, there's been no dollar figure attached to that. There was a dollar figure
attached on the savings of $200 to $470 on the profit margin for the broker
reduction, but there's nothing, there's no sort of concrete number, or
percentage, or idea, which I would be interested to see is has anybody sort of
talked through this with the insurance industry?
Have
they talked through this and said, right now, the average driver with a clean
record in the taxi industry – somebody said there was a number of $7,050 or
something like that, we'll say $7,000 for a clean record, that's what you're
paying, so, now, we said we can deduct $200 to $470 off that $7,000 by making
one change. How much can we deduct off it by going with this pool? Has anyone
figured that math out to say: We figure we can knock $1,000 off, $1,500 off,
$2,000, $500, what is it? Is it anything significant? Just wondering if that's
been done.
At the
end of the day, of course, taxi drivers, in addition to these changes, taxi
drivers are also going to benefit from some of the changes in the previous bill.
I'm assuming that everything in the other bill also applies to the taxi drivers.
So anything in the other bill that would benefit drivers overall will benefit
taxi drivers in addition to these changes, and, of course, the taxi drivers are
going to benefit greatly. Particularly if you own multiple taxis, you'll benefit
greatly from the 15 per cent on insurance tax. I'm sure they're going to be
really happy about that, and that's going to save them significant dollars as
well.
So, you
know, I think it's a step in the right direction, Mr. Speaker. It's not the
be-all and end-all. I think it's been said here before when it comes to all of
this around insurance, whether it be for taxi drivers or the rest of us, there
is no silver bullet. There is no one thing that can be done to address this. If
it were that simplistic it would have been fixed long ago, but there are things
we can do. Hopefully by taking a number of measures in different areas, that
when you combine all those efforts, hopefully it will get us the results we're
looking for.
Certainly, I will support anything we can do to support taxi drivers, as I said,
to make their industry sustainable so they can continue to provide the service
that many of us need, many of us want, many of us rely on from time to time. I
think it's a good thing. Of course, as I said, these drivers have families just
like the rest of us that they need to feed. So they need to make a living as
well. A lot of them don't make a big living at this, so anything we can do to
try to help them out I think we should. I will support the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you to my audience over
on the side here.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, again, it's a great privilege to get up here and represent the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
Mr.
Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend the briefing on Friday and I have to
say there was a lot of discussion on this. Some of the questions –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
There weren't a lot of
Members at the briefing, no.
I had
the opportunity to ask some of the questions that have even been asked here
today, but I do have ones that I want to ask the minister.
Mr.
Speaker, when you talk about Facility insurance, 95 per cent of the taxi
industry are insured under this association. For people out there, Facility,
basically, is all the insurers got together and they formed this association to
cover, I guess – now, the minister can correct me. It's basically for people who
can't get insurance anywhere else, so that there is an opportunity. If somebody
says, look, I went and tried to get insurance, no one will insure me, and
drives, that's why they're driving, but that's not the fact. Facility insurance
are obligated to insure people. Now, what you pay in Facility is what the
problem is.
The taxi
industry has been hit really hard. Since 2012, they've seen an increase of 244
per cent in their annual premiums. I spoke to a broker earlier today. Once the
announcement was made, I called up and spoke to a broker. I explained to him
what the government has announced today. I tried to explain it; I didn't have
much time because we were coming into the house. In general, he said: well, any
savings is great, Kevin. It's good that there are going to be some savings
there. I think he was more with the 15 per cent, and I tried to explain about
the broker bit, about the 3 per cent versus 6 per cent.
The taxi
industry, and I've spoken to the taxi industry and the minister knows this. I've
spoken to the minister several times over the last number of months and the two
of us are after having great discussions. We've talked about the taxi industry
because I know they'll say: we spoke to the minister, can you ask the minister
this, and stuff like this. I've gone to the minister and we'd have a
conversation, because these are all small business owners. The taxi industry may
have hundreds of drivers, but when you stretch it out, there are thousands of
people involved because their families are involved, too. Because this is their
business. This is what they do.
I tell
you, my hat's off to the taxi company and taxi drivers right across this
province because I know, like lots of other Members I think, I've used them.
I've had to use them, and they drove me home lots of times. It costs a lot of
money coming from St. John's to Flatrock, by the way. Anyway, you got to pay it.
It's a service that we need, and we cannot let these people go out of business.
They're a small business. We always say in this province that our whole economy
can't operate without small business owners, and that's what a lot of these
people are.
Now the
brokers, in the St. John's area there are a couple of major players, but they
have brokers all the way down through. They're represented right across the
whole province. They're the ones like the three, the four-car operations; that
this insurance is after costing them. It's unbelievable the amount of cost.
Remember, a taxicab driver, to make a reasonable salary or a reasonable dollar,
has to work a lot of hours. Their time to make money is in the evenings and
nighttime. It's on Saturday nights, Friday nights. They have to put up with
people in their cars; having to clean up after people in their cars. It's not an
easy industry. It's not an easy way of life.
So they
deserve – and they've been here. We witnessed it. A few weeks ago they had a
demonstration outside. The taxi industry were here in the gallery and they
listened to Question Period. I have to say, they weren't too impressed with
Question Period from a taxi industry. I spoke to a few of them afterwards, but
they did come and they did show their frustration. Some of the things that are
in this bill will alleviate some of the stress.
Like the
minister said, and my colleague was just wondering there that time about, how is
it 200 to 470. Well, obviously, if it's 3 per cent and a person is paying
$15,000 then it goes down to 3 per cent and he's paying six, so it's saving 3
per cent. That's like $450 that that person will save, because they do pay
different rates and stuff like that.
The main
thing when I spoke to the taxi industry – and it's not addressed in this bill
and maybe the minister will say it is – was they were looking for alternatives.
What they were talking about was they'd like to have, if there was another
insurance – because my belief, now I could be wrong and the minister can correct
me, is that once you apply for insurance you go to a broker.
I'll
give you an example, Cal LeGrow Insurance or Johnson Insurance. Once you say
you're a taxicab driver you automatically go to Facility. Now, when I read the
notes earlier, I said that 95 per cent of the taxi industry goes to Facility. I
don't know where the other 5 per cent goes to, but my understanding through the
taxi industry, this is what they were looking for. They wanted to be able to be
in a fair market, and it could be that somebody may come in here – an insurance
company now. As you know, anyone that goes through insurance, you can go out now
and you can get your insurance fed right through everyone and see who is going
to give you the best price with all this stuff, but as a taxicab driver you're
automatically gone right into Facility.
So, they
were looking for it, and they were looking because I guess it's like anything
that you buy, you try to get the best value for your market. They were looking
and saying, okay, I spoke to a taxicab driver. Actually, I had a meeting with
him. He said, Kevin, I haven't had an accident. I'm driving now for 15 years, I
had no claims on my cars. I haven't had any accidents, and I'm put into the same
pool with someone who is after having five accidents or six accidents.
My
question to the minister is – what we call here, it's called – and I asked a
question over in the briefing, actually. Where they're talking about Risk
Sharing Pools. So that's with Facility. I'm not sure if government is going to
set up those pools or whether that's going to be through Facility insurance,
because it could be set up that anyone that's a taxicab driver is automatically
put in this pool. It could be that somebody that's had five speeding tickets and
the insurance company is not going to insure them anymore, that they may be put
in a different pool. We don't know, and the people give them all the – that's
going to be based on regulations. As you know, when you go to briefings, usually
the regulations are where all the important stuff is. So that wasn't answered,
and maybe the minister can give us a couple of answers on how it's going to
determine what the pools are and what pools – I know the Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi, that was one of the things she just talked about.
My
understanding is that it will be done on driving records, rather than on whether
you're a taxicab driver. Maybe it could be done if you're under 25 years old and
you had an accident, maybe you could be done in that pool. But especially for
the taxi industry, it's going to be interesting how these pools are set up. Like
I said, we do have some drivers out there that have great records, and they'll
want to be put into a pool. Whether they still have to stay in Facility –
hopefully they wouldn't; maybe they could go to broker and get insurance. That's
what they'd like to be able to do. If they have a great driving record for 15
years, don't let me go to Facility, let me go to another insurance and be able
to compete with everybody else. That's what they'd like see.
Again,
it will be interesting to see what the minister says to this. If this is a way
to reduce the rates of the good drivers that are taxicab drivers in Facility,
then great, because this is what they want. This is what they're looking for. I
spoke to many of the drivers and they said to me Kevin, I got a good record or I
don't have a good record, so they want to be able to be put into a pool that
says, listen, my record is good, so my rate is going to be reduced. I'm not
going to pay the same rate – the same thing as all drivers in the province. We
don't want to see drivers in the province that have good records and then you
got a guy that's going to have three or four accidents – they're not going to
pay the same amount. So maybe the minister can answer this when we do get to
Committee.
Another
thing that was discussed in the briefing, which is interesting – and again,
there are going to be questions in Committee when we talk about the difference
between 6 per cent and 3 per cent when it comes to the brokers. I think the
minister already mentioned that there was, I think every other province in
Canada – let me see now. There is Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Ontario,
Alberta, and the Northwest Territories, Yukon do have Facility insurance now, so
there are a couple of provinces that don't. But these provinces, they do, and in
all these provinces the broker does get 6 per cent. So it'd be interesting to
see what the brokerage companies here in Newfoundland think of this.
My
understanding, again – and I could be wrong – is the 3 per cent that they will
make here in the province probably will be as much as they'll make in Ontario
because the rate for a taxicab driver – I'm just giving Ontario as an example;
I'm not really sure of this. I think that this is the reason why, is that if
they pay 6 per cent in Ontario and the cost of the insurer is $5,000 they'll
collect the same amount in Newfoundland and Labrador. If the cost is $10,000
then 3 per cent, they're still going to make the same money. So, that was what
was basically passed on. That was my understanding. I could be right; I could be
wrong. But we'll have some questions on that.
The
important thing – and I don't know if the minister mentioned this – if comes in
and this does pass in the House, is that this will be coming into force August
1. Sometimes when we bring in regulations and bills into this House, it takes a
long period of time before they – it could be two years, it could be three years
down the road, so just to let the taxi industry know that at least there are
some savings coming. It will be interesting to see in tomorrow's budget when the
15 per cent off the taxes on insurance will come in because if it's 3 per cent
and 15 there I'm sure that they'll be pleased with that when it comes into
effect.
So,
that's about all I got to say. Like I said, the taxi industry plays a major role
in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a lot of people affected by it. There
are a lot of families that are part of the taxi industry, not only the taxicab
drivers. This is what their livelihood is, they're small business people and
they contribute a lot to this society.
As a
matter of fact, last week when there were some announcements done for the
fishery, ensuring that people get their stamps because of the downfall in the
crab and shrimp, taxi cab drivers tell me well, listen, they give money to
everybody else, why can't they help our industry? Our industry is dying. I'm
hoping that this will be some relief for the taxi industry and hopefully that
this will come in effect, like I said, early and we can get it done.
Anyway,
I just want to say that the taxi industry out there, we appreciate everything
you're doing. You're a major part of our economy here in Newfoundland and I hope
it increases business over the next little while.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister of Service NL speaks now, she will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
recognize that the taxi industry is a large consumer group of insurance in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We also know that the problems facing the taxi
industry have been ongoing for more than 20 years. This is the first
administration, Mr. Speaker, who committed to addressing the issue.
We
included a closed-claim study specific to taxi operators when we initiated the
review of the auto insurance system by the PUB. We said from day one, Mr.
Speaker, that our goal for the review was to help inform government's
decision-making in an effort to help stabilize the insurance rates and provide
the best product possible, and this includes the taxi industry in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to just reiterate a couple of measures which our government
feels will directly benefit the taxi industry. I want to speak about the
commission rate of 6 per cent. The rate is intended to provide for recovery of
the estimated operating expenses associated with writing automobile insurance in
the province and is based on the agreements between Facility and its servicing
carries.
The
decrease from 6 per cent to 3 per cent is the commission rate. I just want to
note that the expense provision is a percentage of the premium and the premium
level has increased so substantially, the amount of the expense provision has
also risen substantially with it.
So, Mr.
Speaker, the servicing carrier fees and the operating costs together total 10
per cent. What's happening is this is a processing and handling fee and because
the cost has gone up, this has gone up also. So, this decrease is a savings of
about $210 to $470 for each driver.
We have
the fleet rating removed from the rate approval process. That's another measure
that will help benefit taxi operators. Fleet rating allows for direct
negotiations by risk manager, through their broker, or directly with the insurer
to address the risk profile and risk management system. In essence, it would
give the vehicles managed in fleets, such as taxis, a measure of control over
their rates.
We've
also amended the legislation to allow Facility Association to develop an
all-comers Risk Sharing Pool for Newfoundland and Labrador. This can protect the
drivers from higher premiums associated with Facility Association. This pool, of
course, will be for what we call the lower at-risk drivers within the pool and
pools are determined by Facility.
It is
our intention that that all of the reforms of the automobile insurance we have
announced today would help realize improvements in the auto insurance product
for all consumers, including the taxi operators. The taxi industry and the
government have already taken actions to help strengthen the taxi industry and
enhance the safety of the taxi in the province. The measures we introduced today
complement this work and they signal our intent to continue to work closely with
taxi operators. Our government realizes the importance of the taxi industry to
the provincial economy and the valuable service they provide to the people.
Mr.
Speaker, many vulnerable populations use taxis: persons with disabilities,
persons of low income, persons who don't have access to a car, seniors. The taxi
is used a lot in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and especially in
here in the City of St. John's.
Mr.
Speaker, young drivers being high risk, it was mentioned earlier, but it is
actually the driving experience that is considered – the years of experience,
not so much the age. That was addressed in 2004-2005 that you cannot
discriminate based on age. Ninety-five per cent of the taxis are presently in
Facility and the other 5 per cent are in the private market at present.
Provinces without Facility have public insurance and the rates are different
based on the history.
I want
to take this opportunity to just thank the members of the taxi industry,
especially – I'm just going to name them by their first name. I have had
numerous meetings with the taxi industry over the last two years and I just want
to name Peter, Albert, Derek, Tom, Chris, Steve and Doug especially, because
they've sat with me for hours trying to discuss and come to a solution here.
I want
to, once again, thank my hon. colleagues for their support of the amendments
debated here today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 6 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has been now read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 3 and 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bills.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.” (Bill 3)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I assume I rise to ask
questions.
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you.
Minister, if I might, the portion here, section 3 of the bill, and it would be
25(1) in the amended legislation, provides for this notice period – I mentioned
it earlier during my remarks – 120 days after the accident, you have to give
notice, and a further provision for applying to the Supreme Court for an
extension of the notice period if you haven't complied with the requirement to
give notice.
I ask
what the thinking is behind the notice, what is the consequence if you don't
give notice and what are the grounds that the court is meant to consider if the
court is being asked for an extension.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
So, Madam Chair, the
reasoning behind the 120 days was because it would ensure that you're moving on
the accident when the memory is fresh and it happened. And if you're injured in
an accident, you would certainly know before 120 days.
You can
still make a claim, and the judge can take that into account in making decisions
and awarding the costs also, and the right to sue is not impacted. But the whole
idea is the fact that if you are injured in an accident, the objective to help
in the long run, the combination of these measures we're putting in place – and
one of the objectives is that the individual that is injured would get the
treatment that they need right away. They have this 120 days that if you're
injured, like I said, you will know you're injured within 120 days. Waiting for
a year to then go to court to claim an injury, we're trying to eradicate that
and decrease the cost to insurance as a whole, and to address the needs as they
exist on the impact of the injury.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a
question regarding the notification of the registrar of motor vehicles.
What
does the registrar of motor vehicles currently do with the information about the
cancellation or expiration of insurance policies for ambulances, taxis, school
buses and commercial vehicles; and when you describe that process to us, can you
tell us if the new process for private-passenger vehicles will be handled in the
same manner?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
So, Madam Chair, at present
they just receive for the commercial vehicles. They call law enforcement. So, if
somebody cancels their insurance or their insurance is not valid, we actually do
call the law enforcement, we notify the police officers. Now what will happen is
this will just move to the entire general population. So anyone, when the
insurance company notifies Motor Registration Division that somebody has
cancelled their insurance policy, then the police officers will be made aware of
this occurring.
Therefore, as I have indicated numerous times here today, automobile insurance
is the law, and the process is to enforce the law.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Will the
registrar of motor vehicles be hiring more staff to manage the influx of ongoing
vehicle information about cancelled or expired insurance policies, and how are
you going to ensure that this will produce results and that it isn't just an
added layer of bureaucracy?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I just wanted to address the
last comment first. It's definitely not an added layer of bureaucracy.
Protecting the public and ensuring the safety of the public is in everyone's
best interest.
We will,
in fact, be using existing staff and we will assign the role. As everyone is
aware, we'd been doing digital-by-design over there, and as people's roles are
no longer needed we just move them to an area where they're needed, and it's
actually working quite well, and we will do that here with this incident also.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Could I ask the minister if there is a source for the rules around determining
fault that are in contemplation in this?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. CROSBIE:
So do you already have that sorted out or are we going to be writing these rules
ourselves somehow?
CHAIR:
Can you repeat the question
again, please?
MR. CROSBIE:
Well, the minister is about to answer, so maybe I can repeat it if she needs it.
CHAIR:
Do you want it repeated?
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I think I understand what
he's asking.
Nova
Scotia presently has rules, so we'll do jurisdictional scans and we'll use the
data that's already there, but, of course, as you know, we've already done
significant jurisdictional scans and Nova Scotia has rules – yeah.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The rules around determining
fault that the bill speaks to, I just wonder where they're going to come from,
if they're on the shelf somewhere and we're going to dust them off or if we're
going to have to invent them.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
The answer to the question
from the opposite Member is yes.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What
kind of penalty will exist for insurers who do not abide by the duty to notify
the registrar about cancelled or expired policies and how do you intend to
actively monitor this?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I think the Member is asking
me what type of penalty will exist for the actual insurance company if they do
not contact Motor Registration Division. Madam Chair, it will be in the
legislation. It will be the law so they will have to and all of this will be
determined in regulations.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Could the minister explain in
respect of section 34.1(1), which makes reference to diagnostic and treatment
protocols prescribed in the regulations, does she have a concept of where these
are going to be borrowed from. I assume they're already in existence somewhere
and where is that?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, Madam Chair, they're
already in Alberta and Nova Scotia, but as I alluded to in my opening remarks,
we will also be consulting with physicians and the health care facilities to
ensure that we come together and put forward the plan or how it will be covered.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In
clause 3, section 25.1(5) in referring to the examination following an accident,
this section states that the examination must not be “unnecessarily repetitious
or involve a procedure that is unreasonable or dangerous.”
Who
defines this and who decides this?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
The courts and medical
professionals.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Minister.
With
respect to serving notice within 120 days, what happens if the 120th day falls
on a statutory holiday such as Christmas Day?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Madam Chair, I believe the
judge can determine – sorry.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's all right.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
No, go ahead.
MR. A. PARSONS:
You've probably got a better
answer than me.
Well, in
that case, we actually debated a bill just a little while ago, the
Interpretation Act would actually
apply to that when it comes to statutory holidays. So the 120 days, just like
any other piece of legislation, if it falls on a certain day we will go by
whatever that act says.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
The PUB noted that because
the DCPD tends to enhance the accuracy of rate setting, the premiums paid by
some people may change following the implementation as insurers adjust rates to
reflect the insured vehicle, and that's the Direct Compensation Property Damage,
DCPD.
Could
you provide more detail on this?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Would
you like to ask another question? Would you like to repeat that question?
MS. PERRY:
We can come back to that one
again after.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MS. PERRY:
Under clause 6, diagnostic
and treatment protocols, section 34(1) states that the type of injuries, as well
as the diagnostic and treatment protocols covered under that section, will be
set out in the regulations.
Can you
offer any details as to exactly what type of injuries will be included here?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Sprains, strains and whiplash
is what we have determined; primarily around those type of injuries.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank
you, Minister.
These
questions are relatively short so I'll give you a couple and if you want me to
repeat any, I can. We can come back to the one on direct compensation for
property damage as well.
We're
looking for what diagnostic and treatment protocols will be included? Who is
going to have input into these regulations? When can we expect to see the
regulations?
We were
also told during the briefing that there maybe some upfront costs associated
with this. Who will incur this cost? How will the insurance premiums be
impacted? How will consumers be affected?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
So just to go back to the
DCPD first, Madam Chair. The PUB report actually stated that: “The introduction
of DCPD coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador would allow drivers who are not at
fault to seek reimbursement for damages to their automobiles directly from their
own insurer rather than from the insurer of the driver who was at fault. This
can contribute to a faster and more customer-friendly resolution ….”
As it
comes to diagnostic and treatment protocols, as noted again in the PUB report:
“The goal of diagnostic and treatment protocols is to get a person injured in a
motor vehicle accident on the road to recovery as soon as possible with timely
and effective evidence-based treatment specific to the injury.”
Madam
Chair, the benefits of the protocols for the injured person, of course, would
include not having to wait for approval, being able to seek out your own
physician, not having to pay out of your pocket and the defined injuries will be
based on the scientific evidence and being able to choose your own treatment
provider.
Madam
Chair, this is all about enabling the individual who's injured in the accident
to get treatment right away, to decrease their injury period and the length of
time.
Mr.
Speaker, I know this quite – Madam Chair, I will get that right – well because I
myself had an accident in the 90s when the insurance – we didn't have, I didn't
have the assistance of the legal community, it just wasn't something that
existed at that time. It was a long period of time before I actually got
treatment, and I felt it for years.
So, this
particular provision here will actually allow people to get back to work, to get
back to their families, to get back to their life a lot faster. It's a provision
that everyone actually agreed on.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So,
again, going back to the diagnostic and treatment protocols. When the officials
said that there might be upfront costs associated, can you elaborate on that?
Who will be expected to incur these costs?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Madam Chair, I'm not certain
what you say when the officials said there would be upfront costs. I understand
the provision here is to enable the individuals to get the treatment right away,
and Alberta – yes.
So, it
would allow an individual to get the treatment right away. In actual fact, the
insurance company would pay the provisions for the cost of the treatment.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Just to jump in there and to
further what the minister said. Actually, the costs will be borne by the system
up front, but it actually smooths out and lowers over time. The other provinces
that have done this have noted that there is a decrease later on. So, like many
cases, there's an upfront investment but it will result in savings as you move
through it.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This
question pertains to clause 7, access to the uninsured fund. Officials stated
that the hope is that prohibiting uninsured drivers from accessing the uninsured
fund would encourage greater compliance with the mandatory insurance
requirement.
How
likely is it that prohibiting access to the uninsured fund will impact the
number of uninsured drivers on the roads in our province? Do you have any
statistics?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It would
be hard to have statistics on it, but what I would say is that this clause
certainly wouldn't increase the number of uninsured drivers we have on our
roadways. We all know – I don't think there's a single person who can say that
we want to increase the number of uninsurers or do anything to encourage that.
That's something we want to lower. So this move, for many reasons, I think is a
positive. One of them is that it will not encourage and I think you will see a
decrease, and certainly that's our hope.
The
other thing is that going back to the notification by the insurance companies to
MRD of the cancellation of a policy will help lead to increased police presence,
getting uninsureds and getting them off the road.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and
thank you, Minister.
My next
question pertains to the same section, actually. It's still in access to the
uninsured fund. The proposed amendment to section 45.1 allows a 30 day grace
period in instances where an individual might overlook renewing their insurance
policy.
Last
year, your government announced it would no longer be sending out vehicle
registration renewal reminders in the mail. That policy decision was implemented
with little public education and a lot of people have complained about being
unaware of the policy. So is there a grace period associated with that?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Madam Chair, it was actually
just a couple of weeks ago that I spoke in Gander and I indicated to the general
public that a significant number of people have – the uptake on the email
service, which you will get email notifications when your licence, registration
expires. There has been significant uptake.
We're
very proud to say the people of the province actually like the new system. We
believe that as we move forward this grace period is really – if you're in an
accident and you're injured, and if you've been paying insurance for the last 12
months and for some reason for 30 days your insurance lapsed or you were in
hospital, we really, truly can't penalize people if they can prove there's a
reason why in the last 30 days they didn't pay insurance that they've been
paying for the last 12 months, especially when they're injured.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank
you, Minister.
Moving
on now to clause 8, the regulation making authority regarding rate filing and
exemptions. The proposed limits on rate changes, no more than 3 per cent
annually and no more than 6 per cent cumulatively over three years. It appears
to assume that an economic environment of low inflation exists. When the rate of
inflation increases insurers may leave the market.
Was any
consideration given to including a provision to accommodate a change in limits
when the rate of inflation is higher than it is today, and is this an
opportunity to reference the Bank of Canada's consumer price index?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think
the difference between the three and six was just a balancing act here, trying
to come up with something with some certainty for everybody involved, rather
than right now where there's a real volatility that's involved in the rate
setting process. That's something that is being complained about by insurers,
and obviously consumers are complaining as well. The rates that were used was
the 3 per cent annually, 6 per cent cumulative over three years.
There
was some talk about inflation, but that was more of the conversation was
occurring on the deductible possibly being linked to inflation. At this time,
what we did was just go with the deductible, just a straight up doubling from
$2,500 to $5,000.
Coming
back to the other part; 3 per cent and 6 per cent we think is fair. It gives
everybody an opportunity – it does allow for increases. It allows for certainty,
we'll say, within the system.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank
you, ministers.
Notes
provided in the briefing suggested that a statutory review would be mandated
every five years, but in the bill itself, subsection 64(1) states: “The minister
shall, every 5 years, consider” – is the word that's actually written into the
legislation – “whether a review of this Act and the regulations and other
matters related to automobile insurance is necessary.”
Is it
correct to say that there are no guarantees that a statutory review will occur
every five years, and there's no guarantee that public attention will be drawn
to this ministerial discretionary power. So why not require that the minister be
required that it be mandatory and read it must conduct public consultations
every five years in order to inform a decision?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In
actual fact, the option to do the review, as issues arise – in actual fact, some
of the changes can probably be done within Service NL and may not be necessary
to do a full review every five years. If that is the case, in fact, we will do
that within Service NL.
The
whole purpose of this is we don't want to let it happen what has happened. So
here we are now, 20 years before Facility put forward for an increase. We don't
want this to happen again. So we put this provision in here to try to ensure
that the government of the day in five years' time does keep an eye on this
insurance, and if we need a review, it is done, and if changes are needed within
Service NL, they are done.
We don't
want to go another 20 years or so, 2004, 2005, since something is done, because
it's evident that the impact that it can have on the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador is quite negative if you let it go for any period of time.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair,
and I would say that's a good question.
The two
things that I would stick to right here, it says, the minister shall, and the
difference between that and the minister may, is that there is a guarantee they
must consider this issue every five years. Regardless of minister, regardless of
department, regardless of government, the issue must be considered.
I think
the biggest issue the minister and her department have dealt with over this
period is that where there has been no review and it hasn't come up, it can be
allowed to go 15 years, and it's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube 15
years out.
So what
we're saying here is that the minister shall, every five years, consider it.
Now, the reason you have to have some flexibility there is that, okay, five
years in, if you go out to the industry and they say, you know what, we're okay.
If you go out to stakeholders and they say we're okay, I think it would be
foolhardy for government to take the time and expense to consider a review that
nobody wants, but at least we know that the department must do the consideration
and perhaps even draft up a note or some kind of briefing on, okay, this is
where we've looked at it five years in, this is where we are. This is the
decision we're going to make at this time and this is why.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
Minister, I think the word consider comes across as something you don't really
have to do, you consider it. I understand your explanation on it but I think
it'd be nice that it was something that was done on a regular basis so that the
industry would be able to be regulated a little bit better.
What's
your plan to inform the stakeholders and to educate the public about these
changes?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again,
when it comes to educating the public about any of these changes, similar to any
bill that's gotten – this issue has gotten a certain amount of notoriety in the
last three years. What I can tell you is that the industry, before we were even
debating this, is already full aware of this. This has been a process where I
can tell you they've been in constant contact with the department, not only
that, with MHAs I think, as well as the other side, other stakeholders are fully
involved in this.
Like
anything, the debate will cause some public awareness. I'm sure insurance
companies will be in discussions. Once they have an internal look, I'm sure
they're going to reach out to their customers to have a conversation. So I have
no doubt that the word will get out; plus the fact that the department itself is
very good at getting the word out through social media and through other means;
plus it will be in the Gazette; plus
its getting widely reported in the news. So I'm not too worried about it getting
out. This is not one of those significant changes that gets no attention. This
is one I think there was a certain amount of anticipation on where was this
issue going to go so people are aware.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
Will
these changes result in lower insurance rates for the people of the province?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
One of
the big issues that we dealt with through this process is that there is no magic
bullet to come up with lower rates. Other provinces have tried. In one province,
they brought in a cap and it resulted in a lowering at first and then, years
later, there were significant rate increases that were asked for.
I think
the guarantee to getting lower rates for people is reducing the number of
accidents, reducing the number of claims and the cost that come with it. So
that's why the package that's been put forward really has components not just
from Service NL, but from JPS and from Transportation and Works. I know that law
enforcement is going to have to play a role here. Transportation and Works, when
we look at the camera projects that they've been doing, they're going to play a
role here. Then we look at the direct compensation, the treatment protocols,
trying to get people healthy faster, I think will have an overall advantage to
the system.
Do I
think you'll see it right now? Probably not. The big thing I think people want
to know is stabilization. In some of the clauses in here, people will know the
max on rate increases being sought and how often it's going to happen as opposed
to the volatility that exists right now. So I think this is going to immediately
result in stabilization, but I think that as time goes by we'll look and we're
going to see the cost will go down.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
I hope
so. I think that's what the consumers are looking for, a reduction in the cost
because we're paying high price right now.
The PUB
said you may still see increases in rates in the short term. Do you agree with
that assessment? Is that what's going to happen? Are the rates going to go up in
the short term and then we'll see stabilization is what you're saying?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That
would only be speculation at this point. Again, that's why we had the PUB; we
had somebody independent to look at the companies as they come in and make a
rate increase. For me to say aye or nay, I think right now would be guess work,
the same as it would be for absolutely anybody.
What I
do like is that through this piece of legislation, we've introduced some
certainty into this process going forward, which I think is helpful, not just
for the insurance companies but for consumers as well.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Will
consumers have to wait until the insurance policy expires for tax on insurance
to be removed, or will this be done immediately?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
The taxes, Madam Chair, as
the Premier indicated today, additional information will come forward tomorrow
in budget 2019.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, 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:
Clauses 2 through 12
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 12
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 12 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, and we are
double-billing here this evening.
Order,
please!
We are
now going to consider Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.” (Bill 6)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We seem
to be doing these in the evenings a lot.
My first
question – and the questions are fairly general in scope, Minister – is how
would Risk Sharing Pools be developed, and can you elaborate for us a little on
how they might actually work?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
As I alluded to earlier,
Madam Chair, the Risk Sharing Pools would actually be for the lesser risk of the
whole for the individuals who are presently in Facility, and Facility themselves
will determine how the actual structure of the pools.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank
you, Minister. When might we see the establishment of Risk Sharing Pools here?
Do you have any kind of a timeline in place?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you very much,
Madam Chair.
Minister, I'm just wondering with the change in the brokers' rates from 6 per
cent down to 3 per cent, what kind of consultations were done with brokers in
the province?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Madam Chair, the brokers did
attend the meetings and they attended a recent meeting where we had the
insurance companies, the legal community, the Consumer Advocate and the brokers
were in the room at the same time.
As I
indicated already, this 6 per cent to 3 per cent is a commission rate change,
and the cost of insurance went up, so therefore the cost to the taxis went up,
and we're just sort of writing the fact that the decrease to 3 per cent will
just be more in line with the fact that this is a processing and a handling fee
of a policy, and the reason why the cost has gone up, as I indicated before, is
because the premiums for insurance have gone up.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Are
there any other measures being considered to address the crisis it the taxi
industry, other than those that we have discussed here today, and as well, I'm
going to go back to a previous question: When can we expect to see the
establishment of Risk Sharing Pools here?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
As I indicated, the Risk
Sharing Pools themselves will be determined by the insurance industry, and that
will be a way to help ensure that the taxi industry drivers who don't have any
accidents will be the lesser of the ones within Facility, and it will help
differentiate between the bad drivers and the good drivers, so that the good
drivers are not being penalized.
So this
is a process that we're establishing here today in the House of Assembly,
putting it forward, and the insurance companies will then work with us, or we
will work with the taxi industry to make that a reality.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you very much,
Madam Chair.
Minister, as you stated earlier you have great consultation with the taxi
industry, you named them all, and I understand and I know it by speaking to them
that you did have several meetings, so you know that a lot of the taxis'
concerns were about alternatives. I know they spoke to me about it and I know
they've also spoke to you about alternatives other than Facility.
So, is
there anything in this bill or anything that will allow a taxi company or a taxi
broker to go elsewhere, other than Facility, to be able to get an insurer?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Madam Chair, yes, I do
understand that was a major concern of the taxi industry, but, in actual fact,
Facility is the insurer of last resort and the 5 per cent that are presently not
within Facility are insured in the private market, so the option is the private
market.
As the
Minister of JPS alluded to, and we alluded to this morning, the whole process
here is the Highway Traffic Act, the
enforcement, Transportation and Works, the taxi industry and drivers as a whole
here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to become better drivers and by
becoming better drivers we remove ourselves out of Facility.
There's
no process as such to remove yourself out of Facility, only to become a better
driver, have decreased tickets, decreased accidents, and 5 per cent presently
are of the 100 per cent.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much,
Minister.
That's
very interesting. I wanted to check into this a little bit more so what I did, I
contacted a broker and the question that I asked the broker was: Once I tell you
that I'm in the taxi industry, do I automatically get put into Facility? I was
told yes.
What
you're telling me here today is that if I'm a taxicab driver – maybe there are
other regulations that I don't know about, maybe I should ask something
different – I'm not necessarily put into Facility. Because when I did contact a
broker, the broker told me that as soon as I tell that I'm a taxicab driver, I'm
automatically put into it. So, I just wanted clarification on it if you can,
please.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I think that the
Minister of Service NL could better handle it. It's not my understanding that
it's automatically into Facility, but I will say that the fleet rating that's
set out in the other bill is a path out of Facility for the portion that is in
there.
So,
through the establishment of these pieces of legislation, we're going to see one
of those issues that you've heard from companies, and so have I, we're going to
see them, hopefully, establish a path to move out of Facility, which is, as the
minister said, the last resort.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm glad you mentioned that,
Minister, because that was the last question that I had about the fleet because
I know that speaking to the industry, that's one of the questions that they
asked me also about the fleet rating.
Can you
explain, is there any regulations in place that they have to abide to be able to
be put in this category to be able to be in a certain fleet so they wouldn't
have to go into Facility?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Better driving records for
one.
So we do
have a classification of drivers presently. The taxi industry has indicated to
us that there are drivers out there that don't have any accidents and yet they
still have higher insurance. So, by the taxi industry fleet rating this group,
it will enable them to decrease their insurance rates.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Insurance
Companies Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I move, Madam Chair,
that the Committee rise and report Bills 3 and 6.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bills 3 and 6.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bills 3 and 6 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bills 3 and 6 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received? Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the Bills be read
a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, given the
hour of the day, I would move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for the
Status of Women, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion carried.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2 p.m.