PDF Version

November 7, 2019                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                Vol. XLIX No. 15


 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

MR. SPEAKER (Reid): Admit strangers.

 

Order, please!

 

In the Speaker's gallery today I would like to welcome Harold and Evelyn Carberry, visiting today for a Member's statement.

 

Also in the Speaker's gallery I would like to recognize former MHA, MP and Cabinet minister, John Efford, and his wife, Madonna Efford. They are also joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: In the public gallery today I welcome Gail Thorne from the Stand for Hannah Foundation, as well as Sarah Pittman and Frankie Ralph.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to rule on a point of order raised by the Member for Lake Melville yesterday regarding the reference, by name, during Oral Questions by the Member for Terra Nova to a member of the general public and to another person, not by name, but easily identified by the information given.

 

The parliamentary authority, Bosc and Gagnon, states the following regarding reference to members of the public: “Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for this. The Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and has suggested that Members avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply in their own defence.”

 

In a ruling delivered on May 3 of 2017, our own Speaker ruled as follows: “… where facts and comments respecting a named individual who is a member of the general public … are clearly already in the public domain, a Member may comment upon those issues in this House.

 

“However, a Member will not be able to stand in this Chamber and make personal, defamatory or derogatory comments about a member of the public ... where those comments originate with that Member and not by a member of the public ....”

 

“Members in this House have the protection of parliamentary privilege and a freedom of speech during debate …. Individuals who are not Members of the Legislature have no such protection and it is therefore unfair to make unsubstantiated allegations or comments during debate under the protection of the House when the person about whom those comments are made did not themselves initiate the remarks and do not have the protection of the House or a defence against the unfounded allegations.”

 

On March 20, 2019, the Speaker ruled similarly as follows: “I do want to just read a little reminder to all Members of this House, and this is regarding reference by name to members of the public.

 

“Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for this…. The Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander but also from any slur directly or indirectly implied. It's suggested that Members avoid, as much as possible, mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply in their own defence.”

 

It is the Chair's opinion that the comments made by the Member for Terra Nova yesterday were inappropriate for the reasons given in the Bosc and Gagnon commentary and by my predecessors in the Chair, and I now ask the Member for Terra Nova to withdraw his comments.

 

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

 

MR. PARROTT: I withdraw my comments.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

 

Statements by Ministers

 

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have Members' statements from the Member for the District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Bonavista, the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis, the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

 

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

 

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Every community has a resident who is a unique character, an individual who is appreciated for their contributions to those they have touched. Portugal Cove-St. Philip's had such an individual. I speak of the late Hubert Driscoll.

 

This past Sunday, I had the honour to speak to a large number of Hubert's family and friends who gathered to celebrate his life at the Legion in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. Herbert was a lifetime member of the Royal Canadian Legion, the Lions Club and a number of other organizations in the community. His love of volunteering with disabled athletes and travelling to competitions across this country speaks to his character to ensure all citizens are included in activities that enrich their lives.

 

Herbert's real talent was that he could enter a room of people and no matter the situation, have the room completely relaxed and in high spirits with a story or a joke. He had what I would label an infectious personality where once you met him, you would never forget him.

 

His love for his wife, Monya, his family, the groups he volunteered with and his community is a testament to his character. Hubert asked society for very little but appreciated everything he got. Rest in peace, my friend.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

 

MR. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

On the heels of a day when we celebrated the community sector, it gives me great pleasure to celebrate Harold Carberry, a former trade school instructor and lifelong resident of Burgoyne's Cove.

 

Harold's father, Herb Carberry, was a veteran, having served as a merchant seaman in World War II. About 12 years ago, at first alone and then with family, Harold reactivated Remembrance Day ceremonies at the Burgoyne's Cove War Memorial, which was first erected in 1923.

 

Harold personally restored and tended to the graves of 14 local veterans and has researched the backgrounds and service records of nearly 50 late local veterans. He has compiled their biographies and collected memorabilia to create a photographic wall of remembrance in the local community hall.

 

A gifted carpenter, he framed the portraits collected and hand made the flag box and display lectern himself. Harold helped found the Burgoyne's Cove Veterans' Commemoration Association in 2012, which became incorporated in 2018 to acquire a plot of land to permanently site a new war memorial. Their next goal is to commission slabs to commemorate current and future local veterans.

 

I ask the Members of the 49th House of Assembly to join me in issuing a sincere thank you to Harold Carberry for his outstanding and commendable community service.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I rise today to recognize Paul Whelan, a revered rink attendant who passed away late August at the young age of 57. Paul worked for many years at Feildian Gardens, Prince of Wales and the Jack Byrne Arena. He was a special person in the lives of generations of skaters, hockey players, coaches and parents who were lucky enough to spend time in Paul's rinks.

 

Paul was a very friendly, encouraging person. He was always respectful of his job, worked hard and would always go the extra mile to make sure everything was okay at his rinks for the users. Whether it was a nervous child or an angry parent or a senior who simply needed guidance to a seat, Paul had the amazing ability to put people at ease and make their experience at the rink better. It was clear to see the pride Paul took in his home away from home. He kept he rink spotless and the dressing rooms well stocked. Many of us in the recreational leagues were very thankful for his efforts.

 

Mr. Speaker, Paul was a true gentleman with a heart of gold. Many people were touched by his genuine kindness and continue to feel the same loss. I ask all hon. Members to join with me in offering sincere condolences to Paul's entire family and his many, many friends.

 

Thank you, my friend, for keeping the mountains blue.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

 

MS. P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I rise in this House to recognize a very special individual here today. The hon. Ruben John Efford of Port de Grave first served as the Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Port de Grave from 1985 to 2001. Mr. Efford served as Minister of Social Services; Works, Services and Transportation; and Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. In 2002, Mr. Efford was elected to the House of Commons as Member for the Avalon riding for two terms, serving as Minister of Natural Resources as well.

 

Born in Port de Grave, the son of a proud fisherman, John's passion and dedication to community, his province and the fishing industry will forever be a testament to his life's work.

 

Last evening in Port de Grave, an elegant event hosted by the Port de Grave Heritage Society, and complete with the Shearstown Brass Band, was held in his honour to recognize the contribution he made to our province and country, all while doing so with the strong support of his wife, Madonna, and family.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to call him a true leader and friend. I ask that all hon. Members join me in thanking Mr. Efford for the outstanding contribution he has made to our province through his political career.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

 

MR. PARROTT: I rise today in this hon. House to honour a veteran of the British navy from my district. Born January 20, 1920, Harold Chesley Bull at the age of 19 enlisted in the Royal Navy and served on a corvette and a minesweeper.

 

During this time, he was involved in several tragic accidents. He was attacked by a barracuda receiving extensive damage to the bones in his leg, which he still suffers from. After being hospitalized for 40 days, he was stationed in South Africa on a minesweeper where he witnessed and suffered the loss of his comrades after their minesweeper was torpedoed.

 

After the war, Mr. Bull returned to Eastport. He married and built a life there. He became the first mayor of Eastport and is still very active in the community. He is a charter member of the Lions Club and the Royal Canadian Legion. He was instrumental in the formation of the Eastport Volunteer Fire Department and has held positions on many community boards.

 

Mr. Bull will turn 100 in January. He is not only a national war veteran but continues to be an inspiration to his community and the province. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran myself, it gives me great honour to say thank you to Mr. Bull and all veterans for their service.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

 

Statements by Ministers

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

 

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It is an honour to rise in this hon. House during National Skilled Trades and Technology Week to congratulate Evan Rideout of St. John's who recently became the first Canadian competitor in Cloud Computing at WorldSkills 2019 in Kazan, Russia.

 

Evan demonstrated commitment and a high work ethic in his particular skill area when he competed against countries from all over the world. This was a culmination of dedication and learning a new technology that is very much evolving and just starting to take off. That learning involved in-house training with CNA Computer Systems and Networking instructor and Canadian Cloud expert, Richard Spencer, as well as trips to Ottawa to participate in the Amazon Web Services (AWS) GameDay competitions – an interactive team-based learning exercise designed to give players a chance to put their AWS skills to the test in a real-world, gamified, risk-free environment.

 

Evan accepted the challenge and earned the right to go to Russia as a member of Team Canada by demonstrating a work ethic like no other and an innate ability to understand and implement Cloud solutions. To do this in such a short amount of time is commendable.

 

Evan represented his province and country exceptionally well as a member of Skills Canada's Team Canada. His accomplishments are a timely reminder of the very exciting potential of careers in skilled trades and technology right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Mr. Speaker, I invite all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Evan Rideout.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I thank the Member opposite for an advance copy of his statement.

 

Mr. Speaker, all the Members of our caucus join the hon. Member in congratulating Evan Rideout on becoming the first Canadian competitor in Cloud Computing at the WorldSkills 2019 championships in Kazan, Russia.

 

Mr. Speaker, to reach a pinnacle such as Team Canada is certainly indicative of Evan's work ethic and creativity in the IT industry to produce new custom solutions to modern problems. As Evan noted himself, I choose to pursue Cloud Computing because I believe it is the future of the IT industry.

 

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of our best and brightest competing on the world stage. Evan joins many other individuals from our public and private institutes throughout the province in excelling in these international competitions.

 

Special note of recognition to his instructor and coach at the College of the North Atlantic, Richard Spencer, as well as his father, Daryl, with whom he attributes his work ethic.

 

In closing, I ask hon. Members to join me in congratulating Evan Rideout and wishing him every success in the future.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

 

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I join all hon. Members in congratulating Evan Rideout in representing the province on the world stage and showcasing his talents in IT and cloud computing talent. This is yet another reminder of the importance of continuing to invest in our post-secondary institutions to strengthen our skills in IT, coding, cloud computing and research capacities.

 

I join with everyone in congratulating Mr. Rideout, his family and his instructors, because it's very important that we continue this.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

 

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

 

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I rise in this hon. House to advise that this government has completed all of the initiatives outlined in its Opioid Action Plan, and that despite this accomplishment we will continue to work with our partners to address addictions. It was also my pleasure to share this information with delegates attending a provincial opioid dependence treatment conference today here in St. John's.

 

To date, Mr. Speaker, we have developed a safe prescribing course for prescribers, implemented a provincial Pharmacy Network and a prescription-drug monitoring program. We have developed a provincial opioid awareness and education program. We provide coverage for Suboxone with the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program and we have distributed over 3,000 naloxone kits.

 

Throughout this process, we have had tremendous success working with communities, such as Bell Island, to offer opioid dependency treatment services. We are continuing to build on community-based services and supports throughout the province so people can receive the care they need and live in recovery, closer to home.

 

We know people living with opioid dependency are experiencing great pain, and so are their families and our communities. We can no longer treat this problem in a piecemeal fashion. We need to ensure a harm reduction and person-centred approach is the foundation to all these services.

 

Stigma cannot get in the way of effective treatment, Mr. Speaker, or in the way of access to programs and services, and our collective efforts to address this devastating disease.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

 

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I wish to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I rise in this hon. House to speak about the devastating issue of opioid addictions.

 

This crisis has washed over our country and continues to plague our friends, families and love ones. We need to work together for the betterment of our communities in an open and transparent way. All of us in this hon. House have a responsibility to our communities and to the province at large to bring forth the message that seeking help is not a weakness, but the show of true strength.

 

I wish to thank the hundreds of health professionals and volunteers who are leading the charge in fighting the opioid crisis in our province. The Official Opposition looks forward to working with those in the health care system for the betterment of all people.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

 

MS. COFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and I applaud the ongoing work of the department. Opioid addiction is a serious problem in this province and people are struggling with this terrible disease. They need help now.

 

I agree with the minister that harm reduction must be a top priority. As he knows, this province has a province-wide problem affecting every community. I look forward to learning how many communities are currently receiving these supports and services and of the rollout for the remainder.

 

Thank you very much.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

 

Oral Questions

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition Leader.

 

MR. CROSBIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The RNC is investigating the sudden death of a 33-year-old inmate at Her Majesty's Penitentiary shortly in afternoon on Wednesday, apparently after an altercation with guards. I would express my sympathies to all concerned, including the correctional officers.

 

Is there anything more the minister can tell us about the fatality? Could he describe what investigations are underway?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

 

MR. WARR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Nobody wants to get up here today, Mr. Speaker, and talk about a death at one of our correctional facilities, but the hon. Member is correct. On November 6 at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, there was a sudden death of a male inmate.

 

The matter, Mr. Speaker, is under investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Out of respect for the family, no further details regarding the inmate's identity will be released at this time. Correctional officers are co-operating with the police as they investigate the matter.

 

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to tip my hat to the correctional officers. I had the opportunity to work with them for many years and they do a fabulous job in our facilities.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, Marlene Jesso was called in to do a Deaths in Custody Review after four deaths in the recent period. She made 17 recommendations which the government accepted.

 

Is the minister confident that all 17 systemic problems Jesso identified have been rectified or are being rectified in a timely way?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

 

MR. WARR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Yes, Ms. Jesso did a report that we received several months ago. The report actually says to ensure that we have a safe and healthy living and work environment in our correctional facilities. This is certainly a top priority of this government.

 

We acknowledge that there's much work to do and there is a lot of important work ongoing to address many of the issues identified in the report, Mr. Speaker. Some of the challenges that we face are even bigger than changing just the policies, but I'm sure our system will ensure that these policies are followed as time proceeds.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. CROSBIE: I don't doubt the minister's sincerity in being optimistic that the recommendations are being followed. However, many of the institutional shortcomings surrounding previous deaths involve communication breakdowns and improper procedures that could not be blamed on the advanced age of the facility.

 

Is the minister going to satisfy himself and the House that protocols and procedures have been rectified and not breached in any way that placed the deceased inmate's life in this case in jeopardy, or in a way that compromised the integrity of the investigation into the death?

 

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

 

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I rise to answer this question on the basis of communications and the issue of mental and physical health of residents and inmates in correctional facilities. Prior to Ms. Jesso's report, it had been determined the best way of dealing with this was for health in correctional facilities to fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health rather than the department of corrections.

 

Our departments have been working very closely together. Ms. Jesso's report really further strengthens the recommendation from Towards Recovery. This process is well advanced. I would draw the attention of the Member opposite to the fact that in Alberta, which led the way in this endeavour, it took a couple of years to do. We will have this done by the end of the calendar year, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. CROSBIE: Does either minister from the government see wisdom in engaging Ms. Jesso to do a follow-up and report whether she is satisfied with the progress that has been made to address the recommendations and the systemic problems she identified?

 

MR. WARR: I'm sorry; I didn't get the question, Mr. Speaker.

 

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

 

MR. CROSBIE: The question was: Will the government engage Ms. Jesso to do a follow-up and report on her level of satisfaction with the progress that has been made to address the recommendations she made and any systemic problems she uncovered.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

 

MR. WARR: To the hon. Member's question, I apologize; I didn't hear it in the beginning. I'm sure there will be a follow-up, Mr. Speaker, from the department to the Member's question.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. LESTER: Mr. Speaker, I have a constituent in my district who will be homeless by the end of the month. This is a senior. He has applied to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation for a unit but there are no units available. He's been on application to the corporation since 2014. The senior has also inquired about the availability of the Rental Supplement Program, but has learned the program is exhausted. The senior has been advised to go an emergency shelter upon his eviction.

 

I ask the minister: How can she justify paying up to $350 per night versus increasing the rental subsidy program which could only be $800 per month?

 

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

 

MS. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The Member tied a lot of things there together, I think, that's not really tied. There is no doubt that there's an ongoing wait-list in Housing. There are a lot of needs out there, not all of them that the Housing staff is able to meet.

 

What I can tell you is that people are prioritized up the list. They make an application and if people are willing to live in a broader area, sometimes that moves them up, as I talked about yesterday. People in domestic situations are number one and then there are individuals who are in shelters.

 

We have been having good success with moving them out of shelters even though we've only had the program for 16 months, moving them into more stable environments, moving them along the continuum, which is the whole reason why this program folded in under Housing, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. LESTER: Mr. Speaker, the staff and management of NLHC are doing a tremendous job with the resources they have available, but the reality is we are experiencing a housing crisis partly caused by the highest rate of insolvency, the highest rate of addiction issues and family breakup in our history. I have learned there are almost 70 people on this same list as my constituent with similar circumstances and similar needs.

 

I ask the minister: With another almost 70 people entering the emergency shelter system, will the budget still be 38 per cent lower than last year and why is there no additional funds allocated to the rent subsidy program?

 

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

 

MS. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I talked about, yesterday, some of the complexities. We've certainly put an increased focus on moving people into non-profits. Sometimes if they need emergency accommodations, we've certainly been focused on non-profits because that's where the wraparound supports are for these individuals, because we want to work with them to move them into some of our units. We've had success in that area.

 

I don't know the particular situation that the hon. Member is talking about, but I'm certainly open to having a conversation. If there's someone that has been in the system a long time and he's concerned about them, my door is always open. He can come and talk to me and we do what we can to meet the needs, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. LESTER: Mr. Speaker, for decades farmers have been able to protect their crops, livelihoods and viability of family farms through permitted shooting of moose which destroy crops. Through the minister's own admission, there has never been an incident of concern. Yet, the minister, by his own hand, amended the permit to no longer shoot moose at night.

 

Why were farmers and the agricultural industry left in the dark and not consulted about this change, nor informed when it actually came into place?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

 

MR. BYRNE: No, no, no, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that there has never been an issue of concern. Let's be clear to this hon. House, all of us: The discharge of high-powered rifles or shotguns with slugs in the middle of the night should be a matter of concern. The Wild Life Act specifically prohibits hunting at night. There is probably a very good reason for that, Mr. Speaker. There is a safety issue that is always of paramount concern.

 

So when I say to the hon. Member that we have to look proactively to consider safety concerns and the general well-being of all of us around us, then I say to the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, he should adopt those same principles.

 

This was a change that occurred in 2016. There are provisions that are available to farmers, including calling conservation officers to be able to deal with issues at night.

 

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister to conclude his remarks.

 

MR. BYRNE: But farmers still have the ability to be able to dispatch animals on their farms during the daylight hours, from sun-up to sunset.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Next question.

 

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. LESTER: While the minister may highlight some areas of concern, I'd also like to point out that people hunt moose day and night, and a bullet goes just as far in the day as it does in the night.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. LESTER: The reality is the solution that the minister has offered to the farmers is not working. Farmers are having to wait up to two hours for a conservation officer to show up to dispatch a moose. We have farmers on the brink of insolvency because they've lost their whole entire crops. Every time a moose puts his head down and takes a bite, that's $5 off the bottom line of a farm and a farm family.

 

How can the minister speak out of both sides of his mouth saying he supports new entrants, supports the agriculture industry and takes away the very mechanism they have to defend their livelihoods and their futures?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

 

MR. BYRNE: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, some in this House, somewhere, might appreciate his active defence of poaching. Dispatching animals, hunting animals at night is a violation of the Wild Life Act and has been for a very, very long time.

 

So, I'm not sure who the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North is referring to, but if he has any evidence, any information about poachers and poaching activity, which he seems to be endorsing, he should report it to the authorities. Then again, maybe this hon. Member is not always on the side of the law himself. I don't know, but what I can say is that he really needs to be more cautious and careful about hunting at night.

 

MR. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

 

MR. SPEAKER: We'll wait until after Question Period to deal with the point of order.

 

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. LESTER: Mr. Speaker, it's quite evident that some Members of the opposite side do not value the agricultural production and the initiative that farmers have taken.

 

Mr. Speaker, I challenge any one of those Members who are currently heckling me about this situation to work 16 hours a day for six months of the year then have to sit all night in the cab of a pickup or patrol their fields to protect their incomes, protect their families livelihoods. I bet you they have never done that.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. LESTER: Has the minister ever sat in a truck? Has the minister ever faced a bull moose, chased it out with his bare hands? Because that's what our farmers are having to do.

 

I've become partially aware of a situation where a farmer called the conservation officer several times. The conservation officers show up, the moose are still there, they drive the moose away and the moose comes back. Finally, one time he called the conservation officers, they showed up without a gun, only to leave the farmer with his own devise –

 

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Member to ask his question.

 

MR. LESTER: Give me the same gratitude as him, Sir. Only to leave the farmer to his own devise to take care of that moose, while the conservation officers hid in the woods only to come out and arrest him.

 

Now, Mr. Premier, you stood yesterday and said you support agriculture. Do you support this minister?

 

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Member to take his seat.

 

The hon. the Premier.

 

PREMIER BALL: I do support agriculture and I do support the minister. I don't support hunting at night. It's illegal.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Terra Nova.

 

MR. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the minister can shed some more light on the secret $40-million cannabis deal with Canopy Growth.

 

Did the Liberal Party receive any donations from Canopy Growth 80521 Limited or anyone else on 7 Plank Road?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

 

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'm very happy to stand, as I was yesterday, to talk about the important issue of cannabis in our province. We've been very successful as of now, developing three projects in this province for the betterment of people in our province.

 

We've created 800 jobs when they're at full production, many, many construction-associated jobs and tax bases for the municipalities that they're existing in. Alone in St. John's, it's about a million dollars tax revenue coming from the Canopy Growth facility in East White Hills. It happens to be in my district.

 

I'm very excited about the staff and the amount of people that are going to be hired for that project and the two others that are on the go. I hope that there are a few more coming through the pipe in the near future.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

 

MR. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, the Financial Post reported yesterday that there's a massive oversupply of cannabis in Canada.

 

Why is government continuing to hand out lucrative deals to their friends in a market that may not exist?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

 

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. Member will talk to his colleague from Stephenville who has a production facility being built in that community and see if he's in favour of creating jobs in his community alone. I know that there are at least three cannabis operations being built in this province. There are an additional several in the pipeline that will hopefully be coming to fruition in the future.

 

I encourage the individuals that have received the briefing to follow what they were briefed on in the cannabis industry, and if they need another one, please reach out to the cannabis industry to see if they'll give them one.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Terra Nova.

 

MR. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister quoted 400 jobs and today it is 800, so I'd like to know where those 400 jobs came from.

 

The unfortunate part of this is that the people who have these deals, there's no secondary processing. We probably created 800 jobs but we probably left 2,000 on the table. Product produced here will be shipped to the Mainland without value-added processing – fact.

 

I ask the minister: Who's benefiting from these deals, except the people who bought tables at the Premier's dinner?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

 

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why they're trying to make a very positive issue like this cannabis industry that didn't exist a little over a year ago, that we built in this province as a success. No other province in this country is feeling the success we are. We actually made money in the cannabis industry last year. We created employment. We have tax revenue coming in to our municipalities and created a substantial amount of employment, not just from the construction-related jobs, not from the production-related jobs, all the spin off employment jobs that are created as a result of these facilities being built.

 

I look forward to a follow-up question on that topic because I can talk about it all day, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

During the provincial election campaign, TradesNL asked all parties if they would implement a community benefits agreement policy. The Liberals replied as stating, and I quote, “as a party we are not opposed to taking a closer look at moving in this direction.”

 

I ask the minister: What work have you done in the last five months to deal with this issue?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

 

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we're about developing the economy, making sure there are opportunities for individuals to participate in that economy. Obviously, we want to create employment for individuals within our province but you can't dictate that every job has to be filled by individuals in the province.

 

Sometimes, I'll use an example, in the tech sector there may not be a person to fill that job right away. That's why we have the minister of immigration working so feverishly to try to increase our immigration numbers; like we've had great success, great opportunity for individuals to work in our province. That's what we want to create, an opportunity for those individuals to do so.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

So I assume the answer is no, they have not looked at implementing a benefits package for the province.

 

I ask the minister: Will you be implementing a community benefits agreement policy to ensure that the people of this province benefit from construction and the development in our province?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

 

PREMIER BALL: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question about generating benefits and providing employment to people in our province.

 

All you have to do is go and ask the people in Botwood today who will be working on their project. Go to Corner Brook and see who is working on that project. See who will be working on the projects in Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander. These are provincially-driven projects and employing in our province, Mr. Speaker, 96 per cent of the employment on all those projects are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

PREMIER BALL: These are people who are directly working.

 

Mr. Speaker, that is a community-driven benefit right there – 96 per cent of all the employees working on those projects and others, Mr. Speaker, working from Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Again, we don't have the answer to my question, but let's go to the 96 per cent.

 

Can the Premier tell us here in this House that the 4 per cent of jobs that are not filled by local people could not be filled by local people?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

 

PREMIER BALL: Mr. Speaker, when you look at community benefits, if you're a senior in this province and you've been waiting for a long-term care facility – because this group over here who had billions of dollars of money available to them ignored the request. As a matter of fact, when they talk about community benefits and talk about unionized workers, it was the previous administration that said we are not even going to use unionized workers to staff those facilities.

 

They made a decision that it would be done privately. That was their decision. That's what they ran on. We took a position that it would be unionized workers that would fill the positions in those institutions, Mr. Speaker, and providing benefits to those seniors.

 

Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about the acute care centre in Corner Brook that was ignored and announced seven, eight, nine times and couldn't get it done. This administration did it. That is community benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I could toss these three questions because I have yet to get an answer, but I can go to this. It's amazing how you have a party with a motto The Way Forward and they keep talking about the past. Time to move forward – time to move forward.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. P. DINN: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development announced a new Skilled Futures program to foster careers in skilled trades and technology; however, currently the Bull Arm site lacks a major tenant and there are no major projects on the horizon. In fact, Trades NL continues to run a public awareness campaign about the lack of jobs and benefits for Newfoundlanders.

 

When is the government going to focus on the desperate state of this economy here and now, of which they had five years to deal with?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

Allow me to inform the Member of the benefits plans that we do have in this province. All major natural resource – as a matter of fact, all natural resource projects have benefits plans. Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous benefits coming from our natural resources and I can be happy to share that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of jobs are being created by our oil and gas industry and by our mining industry. I know my hon. colleague would love to stand up and talk about the many contributions that the investments in infrastructure are bringing to this province.

 

We are going to continue to ensure the maximum benefits of all projects, especially around natural resources, and I know there are community benefits about infrastructure as well. I can assure the people of this province, we are maximizing every opportunity we have to ensure benefits are coming to the people of this province.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

 

MS. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the Kamutik W has been subject to many weather delays directly impacting freight and passenger service in the communities in my district. Communities have been omitted due to last-minute ad hoc route changes to their schedule and this is creating panic; panic not only amongst the citizens in my district, but panic among the business owners and the Inuit and Innu community governments.

 

Will this government admit that the 2019 ferry service has failed my people and replace this stupid ferry?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

 

MR. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I certainly won't be replacing it with something built in Romania. Mr. Speaker, this season has not been a failure. To date, we've shipped 34 per cent more freight than we did the last season; 2,712 tones more freight this year than last year. Just think about that number.

 

Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, we've had over 300 roll-on and roll-off opportunities with vehicles. The freight that's going north on the ferry is not even included in the tonnage numbers if you're putting it in the trunk of your car or in the back of your truck.

 

Mr. Speaker, the reality here is there have been some challenges, mainly shore based. One of the things we'll be doing this coming winter is working with the company, working with the Innu and working with the Nunatsiavut Government on ways that we can improve this service going into next year.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

 

MS. COFFIN: Mr. Speaker, budgets are about choices. Government has chosen to hold $111 million in reserve for Equinor while Equinor decides if the Bay du Nord project is viable.

 

I ask the Premier: How does this choice address our immediate needs related to rate mitigation, homelessness, emergency shelters, mental health, senior care, rural diversification and development?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The Member opposite is referring to an equity stake that we have proposed to take in Equinor should it advance. Mr. Speaker, it is a project that is in our offshore, as we have other equity stakes in other opportunities within our offshore.

 

Mr. Speaker, they are generating tremendous income for this province. I can assure the Member opposite that we are working through, with Equinor, the arrangements around that equity investment so that we can ensure that we have a good return – a very good return – from our offshore assets.

 

I will assure the Member opposite those discussions are continuing and that we're making sure that the project will advance before we invest any money.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Labrador West.

 

MR. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, seniors have to leave my district to avail of assisted living or to reside in a seniors' home. My district has neither of these vital options for seniors and home care is virtually non-existent.

 

I ask the minister responsible: What is the plan to provide these important services to the seniors and residents of Labrador West?

 

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

 

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

We have commissioned and are in the process of receiving a needs assessment on locations and numbers for personal care home beds. The Member opposite is correct, the demographic in his district has changed from people who worked and lived in what was a mining town and then left, to an area where there is a retirement community.

 

The challenge around the personal care home sector, particularly, is this is a private business. I would encourage the dialogue that the local municipalities have already started with private providers to continue until we get the results of that report, which I'm hoping will be here before the end of the year.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MR. J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker, in a 2018 ATIPPed application from Northern Harvest, a plan for dealing with high water temperature and low oxygen levels was blacked out.

 

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources: Is this because there was no plan? Since we certainly didn't see one in the recent fish die-off at their farm.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

 

MR. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I appreciate the question. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is paramount in these decisions. When there is considered harm to third parties, there can and should be a redaction. This was an instance where there was a determination there could be potential harm to third parties and so there was a redaction based on that basis.

 

However, what I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that it gives me an excellent platform now, today, to be able to speak to specific measures to deal with environmental issues, environmental mitigations. Our new suite of policies, procedures and licence conditions speak to several specific initiatives which require prescriptive measures to deal with environmental mitigations and we're very, very proud of that.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MR. J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The only harm to third parties that I could see were to the fish harvesters, people who depend on the aquaculture industry and to the wild Atlantic salmon stocks.

 

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said he takes the words and the knowledge of the Mi'kmaq seriously, yet in an interview on Mi'kmaq Matters, the Miawpukek First Nation chief said he only found out about the die-off in the media three weeks after the minister knew.

 

So, if the minister truly values our Mi'kmaq citizens, why didn't he pick up the phone and tell the chief as soon as he knew?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

 

MR. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that same interview, Chief Mi'sel Joe said I commend the minister for the work he's done and acknowledged the government's good, hard work on this.

 

What I have found a consistent practice from this hon. Member, which I disagree with, is that he continues to marginalize. He has never phoned Chief Mi'sel Joe. I just got off the line with Chief Mi'sel Joe, just about an hour ago. I have had several conversations with him. What I'll say is that that hon. Member right there has never, ever picked up the phone to phone him to ask any questions. I've been down to Conne River, I've been down to the First Nation and spoken to him several times.

 

What I've constantly found from this hon. Member – and it is a pattern of behaviour –

 

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Member to direct his comments towards the Chair.

 

MR. BYRNE: A pattern of behaviour of marginalization of Indigenous, and I will speak to that.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Time for Question Period has expired.

 

MR. J. DINN: Point of order.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order by the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MR. J. DINN: I think, Mr. Speaker – actually I know that the hon. Member –

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

 

MR. J. DINN: Pardon me? I'm talking about the point of privilege here. I would assume that you have to address all comments to the Speaker. Would that be correct?

 

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

 

MR. J. DINN: Thank you very much.

 

I'd ask you to remind the hon. Member across to do that.

 

Secondly, I think it might be worthwhile for the hon. Member to have a refresher course in the anti-harassment and bullying.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Mr. Speaker, I can't find in the Standing Orders where his point of order is; I know he changed it to a point of privilege. Again, I don't know where we would find the particular Standing Order or the particular phrase in order to be able to address his particular issue.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

 

MR. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would say to the hon. Member he should be very, very mindful of his own conduct, his past patterns of behaviour of conduct because they are not in keeping with the spirit of reconciliation with our Indigenous. I have been in his company in the past where he has marginalized the interests and importance of Indigenous peoples and nations in our province and it's not acceptable.

 

MR. SPEAKER: This is not related to the point of order that was raised. I'll give the Member a short – if he's speaking specifically to his point of order.

 

The Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MR. J. DINN: I was speaking on a point of privilege that if the minister wants to go down that road, he better make sure he has his facts straight, because I can tell you this right now, that was totally uncalled for. Anything about my past history with Indigenous or anybody, as president of the Teachers' Association, was always respectful regardless of who I was dealing with.

 

I'd ask for a retraction of that because it's just unacceptable and unparliamentary.

 

Thank you.

 

MR. SPEAKER: While there's no point of order here, it's a disagreement between two hon. Members, I would take this opportunity to remind all Members of the House that comments should be directed towards the Chair. This is the past precedent in our House and all Members should abide by that. It's designed to depersonalize the questioning and the answering and I ask all Members to follow that precedent.

 

Thank you.

 

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

 

Tabling of Documents.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Tabling of Documents

 

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 19(5)(a) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meetings held February 20, March 13 and July 23, 2019.

 

Also in accordance with section 18(9) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I'm informing this House that the current Members of the Management Commission are: the Speaker, the Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, the Minister of Health and Community Services, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and the Clerk.

 

Further 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 I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 15.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

 

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

 

Petitions.

 

Petitions

 

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

 

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

There have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions, whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly, not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

 

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would include the creation of a specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and intervention as required to ensure the safety of patients.

 

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition again today. I did so pretty much every day during the last sitting and I will continue to do so on behalf of a group which has been established called Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights.

 

Today, we have signatures here from people in the St. John's and Mount Pearl area, primarily. As I have said in the past, and will continue to say on their behalf, these are people, primarily, who would have family members who are in long-term care facilities.

 

I absolutely commend the government for the work they have done in the creation of new long-term care facilities. They've seen the need and they're reacting to that need. Nobody is disputing that. This group is not disputing that. What this group is disputing, though, is that there are many occasions where they have gone into these facilities where a loved one has been there, and that loved one has apparently, allegedly, not been receiving the care they deserve. Not because the staff are not doing their job, not because the staff don't care or they don't know what they're doing. None of those things. Far from it, but the issue quite often has been lack of staffing.

 

Now, there may be appropriate staffing on the books, but if you don't replace people when they call in sick and things like that, then you don't have the appropriate staffing at all times. Someone should not be going into a facility where they have a loved one who has Alzheimer's disease or dementia or something, walk in to the room, lunchtime, to see breakfast on the table that hasn't been eaten because there was no one there to actually feed that person. Those are the issues; or, for someone to be strapped into a chair all day or overmedicated. We know we have issues with overmedication that have been raised, because there's not the staff to take care of these seniors.

 

These are our mothers, our fathers, our grandparents; one day it could be you or I. It's an important issue. I ask the government to please do everything you can to ensure we have appropriate staffing at these facilities.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I rise in this hon. House today to present a petition on behalf of the communities and citizens adjacent to the Bull Arm Fabrication site. The background of this petition is as follows:

 

WHEREAS there are no current operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication site; and

 

WHEREAS the site is a world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate the local economy; and

 

WHEREAS residents of the area are troubled with the lack of local employment in today's economy; and

 

WHEREAS the operation of this facility would encourage employment for the area and create economic spinoffs for local businesses; and

 

WHEREAS the site is an asset to the province, built to benefit the province, and a long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and

 

WHEREAS the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of the province;

 

THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull Arm Fabrication site, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

 

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to expedite the process to get the Bull Arm Fabrication site back in operation. We request that this process include a vision for a long-term, viable plan that is beneficial to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Furthermore, we request that government place an emphasis on all supply, maintenance, fabrication and offshore workover for existing offshore platforms, as well as new construction of any future platforms, be they GBS or FPSO in nature.

 

Mr. Speaker, this is something that while it's in my district, yes, it does speak to the fact of our economy. We need work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This is evident. The quality of work by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the quality of our tradespeople is second to none worldwide.

 

We have a world-class facility that's deteriorating. We've already made that capital investment, Mr. Speaker. Why are we now considering making other capital investment with other proprietors, instead of getting this site back up and going and make it a world-class facility again?

 

There are many economic spinoffs. Look at all the towns that benefited from it the last time it was up and running and had more full-time employment. There are more tax dollars in the coffers for the economic development of our towns that also need some long overdue infrastructure.

 

We've propped up many other jurisdictions in our past, so it's high time we prop up our own. Let's show that rural Newfoundland is and can be more vibrant on the world stage.

 

Thank you.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'm pleased to inform the Member opposite, the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue – I listened very carefully to his remarks – that there is indeed work in Bull Arm today. There is, for the second time, a thruster swap out that's happening. This is new for our province, new work. There is another rig brought in to Bull Arm. This is new work for Bull Arm.

 

Of course, we are looking to – and I'll quote his words, Mr. Speaker: a vision for a long-term viable plan. That's exactly what we've been working on, a reliable plan for continuous work at Bull Arm. We have gone out for a request for proposals; we have been reviewing those proposals, speaking to the proponents of those proposals.

 

One of those proponents, Mr. Speaker, is a fabricator who is doing the work on the rig that I just mentioned. The other is a supply centre, and we're continuing discussions with that supply centre for further long-term work. I agree with the Member opposite, we're going to continue to maximize benefits to the people of the province.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. LESTER: Mr. Speaker, people on Income Support in Newfoundland fall way below the national poverty line.

 

In 2016, Advanced Education, Skills and Labour changed their policy to specify that in order to qualify for a bus pass people need to have a minimum of eight specified medical appointments a month. This creates a barrier for low income and vulnerable people to obtain basic necessities like food and essential medical services.

 

The requirement of eight doctor's appointments a month ignores the need of those living with chronic illnesses and disabilities who may not need to see the doctor, but often have no ability to travel by their own means. This also limits their ability to socialize.

 

THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows: we, the undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow bus passes to all Income Support recipients, all seniors who receive the Income Support supplement and all low income recipients who are in receipt of the NLPDP.

 

Mr. Speaker, when you look at our overburdened health care system, many of these appointments that are being filled are being filled by people who need to maintain that quota of eight medical appointments per month in order to maintain their bus pass. This creates far more financial drain and far more financial cost to our system than the issuance of a bus pass.

 

Not only does the issuance of a bus pass make financial sense when it comes to the Provincial Treasury, it also makes environmental sense. It's been proven time and time again that mass transit is far friendly to the environment than individual taxi or own personal vehicle.

 

Mr. Speaker, this is another decision that was made in 2016 to save money and it hasn't. It has actually cost our system more. I, therefore, support this petition and I look forward to the reply.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

 

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'm more than happy to advise the Member opposite that during election 2019, it was the Liberal Party that committed to providing bus passes to all people on Income Support in the St. John's metro area.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. MITCHELMORE: That is a commitment that we made in election 2019 that in early 2020 this would be established and I'm firmly committed, as minister of Income Support, in making and delivering upon that. That is in my mandate letter from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

 

One thing I'm very proud to report upon is that you look at the vital signs here in Newfoundland and Labrador that the caseload for Income Support has declined significantly here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to take actions so that we can continue to create economic opportunities for people on Income Support to attach the labour force, to get new skills and add more to the economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Giving them transportation, via a bus pass, is a great thing, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

 

MS. COFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

This may sound a little repetitious but this is absolutely important and speaks to my question earlier in the House. The background to this petition is as follows: There have been numerous concerned raised by family members of seniors in long-term care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly, have not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

 

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would include the creation of a specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and intervention, as required, to ensure the safety of those patients.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that I have received this petition and I will continue to pass along every instance of this petition that I get. Today, to complement the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I have signatures from St. Stephen's, St. Vincent's, Peter's River, Gander, St. John's, Grand Falls-Windsor, Clarenville, more from Gander and Marystown. This tells you that this is a province-wide issue.

 

I can talk to this from a very different perspective as well. I was very fortunate to have a mother who was a nurse and my mother worked in long-term care for an extended period of time. Now that she has retired, I've had ample opportunity to sit with many of her friends who are still working in health care. I say: How are working conditions for you? They say it is very, very hard for them to do their job, to adequately perform their roles and to care for their patients in their wings.

 

The reason for this they say is largely because there is less staffing and patients weigh more. They have more disabilities. They have more cognitive impairments. They have more physical impairments. While we may still have the same number of patients – although I do not think that is the case – those patients require more and more care, so maintaining the same levels of staffing that they've had all along is really counterintuitive. That means that patients are actually receiving less care when they go into these facilities.

 

I would like to continue to press this point. This is absolutely vital. This is hard on the patients who are delivering the services, as well as the people who are receiving those services.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

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

 

MR. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to –

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

 

MR. DWYER: Okay.

 

I've got a second petition. It's from another part of my district. The reasons for this petition are that: Highway 210 is the main road going through the picturesque community of Swift Current. The Department of Transportation and Works currently are working on a two-year project on Highway 210 from Garden Cove towards Piper's Hole. The current tender for the highway work includes Highway 210 only. The side roads of Swift Current are not included. The side roads of Swift Current are in deplorable condition. The side roads have not been repaved since the initial paving in the early 1970s. The side roads, which were used to divert traffic during the current tendered construction contract, are in worse shape now due to extensive traffic it endured.

 

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to considering paving/upgrading of the side roads, including Darby's Cove, Sharpe's Lane, Maple Crescent, Old Church Road, Academy Hill, Hollett's Point and Shoal Cove Heights in Swift Current to the current existing road upgrade project as an add-on.

 

Mr. Speaker, I have actually talked to the Minister of Transportation and Works on this, these roads were used as diversions to put in a culvert on the main road and thus has really deteriorated one of the roads, especially Sharpe's Lane.

 

What these people are looking for at this point in time, really, is to help them get through the winter. They're looking for some Class A and to be graded, but these are not big one- or two-kilometre roads. We're talking about little crescents that are adjacent to the main road.

 

I'll remind the House that this main road that goes right through Swift Current is actually Route 210, the Burin Peninsula Highway. So, it does see a lot of traffic. They're concerned, also, about the speed on that, but that's something that we can get into a little bit later. I'll bring a petition forward on that as well.

 

In the nighttime, a lot of the equipment belonging to the construction company is actually being parked on Old Church Road, which houses the post office and the playground in the middle of the community. When they house that equipment there at night, obviously, it takes up not only space but it's using those roads and deteriorating those roads as well.

 

I have talked to the minister about it and I'm awaiting a response. This is something that's going to be done over two construction seasons, so what I'm really petitioning the minister for is that he would consult with us, as a group, about what's going to happen in the next season, but get two lanes at least done this season.

 

Thank you.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

 

MR. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the petition.

 

Mr. Speaker, to his remarks about the challenges that the roads have suffered from the diversions, that's something, certainly, that the department will look into and will provide some grading this fall to alleviate the immediate concern.

 

Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite highlighted the value of Route 210 and this government certainly sees the value in 210. If you look at the aquaculture industry, the fluorspar mine in St. Lawrence and the dockyard, the new hub for aquaculture, the amount of economic activity that's happening right now on the Burin Peninsula is excellent and it's something that we've recognized.

 

Back, I think, under the previous Member, we put forward a business case to Ottawa to actually do some substantial upgrades to Route 210 in the coming years. I believe the most recent business case we had approved from Ottawa was somewhere in the $20-million range, Mr. Speaker, to provide upgrades to this very important highway in the province, and we will continue to look at this. This is going to become one of the main trade corridors in our province.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Orders of the Day

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 10, and I further move that this said bill be now read a first time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that she shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 10, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

 

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

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act,” carried. (Bill 10)

 

CLERK (Barnes): A bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 10)

 

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

 

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

 

MS. COADY: Tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

 

On motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 9, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 9, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

 

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

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act,” carried. (Bill 9)

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 9)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a first time.

 

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

 

MS. COADY: Tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

 

On motion, Bill 9 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province, Bill 13, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the minister shall now have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province, Bill 13, and that this bill be now read a first time.

 

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

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province,” carried. (Bill 13)

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province. (Bill 13)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a first time.

 

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

 

MS. COADY: Tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

 

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14, and I further move that said bill be now read a first time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

 

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

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,” carried. (Bill 14)

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a first time.

 

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

 

MS. COADY: Tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

 

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Order 2, the third reading of Bill 8.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that a bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 8, be now read a third time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

 

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

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 8)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

 

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Order 3, second reading of Bill 5.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and the seconded that the bill now be read a second time.

 

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.” (Bill 5)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House to speak to Bill 5, an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. I cannot state often enough how important it is that we keep the dialogue going on road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Since I became Minister of Service NL, I've had numerous opportunities to stand in this Chamber to introduce amendments to the act to help increase safety on the roadways in our province. The Highway Traffic Act regulates drivers and motor vehicle use on our province's highways. It is a significant piece of legislation with 215 provisions and a detailed Schedule; as well as 17 associated sets of regulations. It is important that we, as a government, regularly review the act to keep current with changes in safety codes, vehicle design and other highway safety improvements, as well as responding to driving behaviours.

 

Every time I have to consider making changes to strengthen the Highway Traffic Act, I am reminded of the people I have met and their stories of pain and loss. I've met with individuals and families who have had their lives forever changed because of incidents on our highways. It has certainly affected me in a profound way. I am also reminded of the blatant disregard for human life that is apparent when people choose to disobey the rules of the road and make a decision that impacts not only their own lives, but that of others travelling on our roadways.

 

Words cannot express the devastation that families live everyday, and I commend these individuals in their efforts to spread their road safety message despite their suffering. In many cases it may have been the unimaginable loss or injury of a parent, a child, spouse or a sibling. For others it may be a friend, a neighbour or a colleague.

 

A number of individuals, along with groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the STAND For Hannah foundation, for example, echo the same message that we try to communicate everyday, take your driving privilege seriously. Their stories and their faces are what we must keep front and centre every time we make changes to the act to help increase road safety. It has certainly made the attention our government has been giving to road safety very personal for me.

 

Mr. Speaker, over the past several years the Highway Traffic Act has been amended to increase the fines for using a handheld cellular phone while driving a motor vehicle. We have introduced tougher penalties for impaired drivers in this province, including new rules that we hope to help steer our young people in the direction of safe and sober driving habits.

 

We increased penalties for a number of offences that were less than $100, in hopes of deterring a number of behaviours that continue to pose risks on our roadways, such as driving too slow, driving with an obstructed windshield or illegally modifying a vehicle.

 

We also introduced amendments regarding excessive speeding, street racing, stunting, move over provisions and created a new offence for driving with due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons causing bodily harm or death. Additionally, we increased fines for the already existing offence of driving without due care and attention and driving without reasonable consideration for other persons. We made a modification to proof of insurance requirements, and we introduced a one-metre rule for cyclists and pedestrians.

 

Despite our best efforts, Mr. Speaker, there continued to be –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: – many reported incidents of unsafe driving on our highways.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

There's a little too much noise in the House. I ask Members to keep the conversations down so we can hear the Member speaking.

 

Thank you.

 

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: As my colleagues in the Departments of Education and Early Childhood Development, Transportation and Works, Municipal Affairs and Environment will speak to today, these behaviours are particularly challenging when it comes to trying to protect our children travelling on school buses or workers on a highway in a construction zone.

 

Last year, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation and Works conducted a pilot project using speed cameras which indicated that 43 per cent of all vehicles were speeding at least 10 kilometres per hour over the speed limit in construction zones.

 

It has also been well documented 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 will provide a solution in this scenario as well, as they could capture video evidence of vehicles that disregard the safety of our children and illegally pass the bus.

 

Last spring, when I stood in this House to introduce amendments to the Automobile Insurance Act, I also committed to develop amendments to the Highway Traffic Act

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

 

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: – to allow for the use of cameras as another measure to curb dangerous driving habits.

 

With all of this in mind, Mr. Speaker, today we are introducing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act which will allow for the use of camera technology as another means of enhancing road safety. These amendments will permit us to move forward to allow the following offences to be eligible for enforcement by an image capture enforcement system: failing to stop at a red light, speeding offences on all highways, speeding in construction zones, speeding in school zones and passing a school bus while embarking or disembarking children.

 

The act will also be amended to allow for registered owners to be charged for those moving violations in order to facilitate administrating penalties for infractions. Technology, such as cameras, for example, would only be able to target vehicles and not drivers, making this change necessary.

 

Mr. Speaker, it was also necessary for us to add three new offences to the act related to image capture systems. These are: prohibiting the obstruction of a plate to prevent the plate from being captured by an image capture system; damaging the image capture system; and, altering or removing the image capture system. These offences have fines ranging from $100 to $400. The City of St. John's has also expressed its support of deployment of this technology by law enforcement within city limits.

 

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the importance of continuously working toward improving road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador. The amendments we are debating today will enable us to move forward by enabling this image capture technology.

 

I would like to highlight, Mr. Speaker, that the technology we propose involves only an image capture of the licence plate of a vehicle. This, of course, is linked to the system that the provincial government already has in place, namely that of our Motor Registration Division, which is designed to enable us to manage the motorized vehicles and the people who drive them on our roadways. However, as the details of this initiative are developed, a significant part of our due dialogue will involve working closely with the Information and Privacy Commissioner as we develop regulations. We have given the commissioner our commitment that we will do so.

 

We will complete privacy impact assessments as the commissioner recommended and will take all necessary measures to inform the public as the process unfolds. We did such assessments in the pilots that were conducted in the construction zones. This demonstrates that the protection of personal information is always at the forefront of our decision-making process.

 

Mr. Speaker, it was our goal to find a solution which best mirrors our government's road safety objectives. As such, our amendments are modelled on Manitoba's legislation, given it aligns with our goals, while also providing the flexibility to adopt new processes and technology. I have also said many times in this House, Mr. Speaker, that it's important that legislation be clear and modern, responding to the people it saves.

 

Aside from amending the act regarding the use of camera technology, there are housekeeping amendments which are also necessary. We are consolidating previous changes regarding increased penalties for select offences to the schedule of the act for consistency purposes. Additionally, impaired driving sections of the act needed to be reordered for readability and understanding. For example, suspensions related to impaired driving will be consolidated by driver type, such as novice drive or commercial driver.

 

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the amendments put forward today help us continue our ongoing focus on strengthening road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are further proof of our government's dedication to making public safety a priority. These amendments provide us with the ability to now move forward and develop the necessary regulations that will capture the details for the implementation of camera technology.

 

I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the many advocacy groups and individuals, enforcement agencies and all stakeholders for their willingness to continuously work with us in our efforts to improve road safety in this province. Some of these individuals and groups have joined us in the gallery today. Through the changes we have introduced here today, along with other changes we have made in recent years to the act, our objective is always to help the people of our province develop safe and sober driving habits.

 

I respectfully move these amendments to the Highway Traffic Act to ensure continued support of road safety for everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

 

MR. O'DRISCOLL: Good day, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'd like to take this time here just to thank the minister and her briefing committee that did a great job yesterday when we were over – I think it was yesterday or the day before. They did a great job in giving some information, so I appreciate that.

 

It's my first time up here speaking on a bill and to look at the Highway Traffic Act, it was a pretty big bill. Speaking to a former critic here, he said you start there with the baptism certificate and then you end with a death certificate and everything in between, between marriage licences, driver's licences and everything like that. It's a pretty broad department and I could see a lot of amendments being made.

 

First of all, we will certainly go along with the safety part. That is something that we're definitely interested in. We agree totally that safety is first and foremost and it's something that, when we're looking at this, we believe in for sure.

 

Some of the stuff that we looked at was just organizing paperwork and putting fines in different orders. That's just housekeeping, so that seemed to be not too bad, but the one that really caught our eye would be the imaging and how the cameras would work or whatever you're going to call them, whether they're cameras or radars or whatever there may be. It's just interesting that we look at those and see how that's going to play out.

 

I did have an experience when I was in Portugal only a couple weeks ago. We were driving for, I'm going to say, three days, going back and forth to a condo. We were just driving along and a red light would come on, on the road, no intersections, no nothing and they're all roundabouts.

 

It took us three days, we were there and couldn't figure out what's happening. What was happening was when you're driving you're going the speed, some technology in the road was picking up you're going too fast, the red light would come on, you'd stop and it would slow everything down. Ten seconds later, the light went off and you'd just drove your business. I thought it was pretty interesting, and it took us three days to figure it out. We didn't know what was going on, no train tracks, no nothing, and no crosswalks so it took us, like I said, three days to figure it out and it was pretty interesting.

 

I think that's something, going forward – they have more roundabouts than we do and they're probably the ones to initiate that. They're bigger than what we have obviously, but they moved traffic. They do slow down when they come into it, so in those areas they move the traffic but they do slow it down. So, safety-wise it's pretty good, except for when you get in one with six lanes, that can be pretty harrowing if you're not used to it. That was pretty difficult to get through.

 

Also there was some pitfalls – when you were saying about the survey on the road when they were doing the construction zones, the number was pretty high; it was 43 per cent. That's pretty eye-opening that 43 per cent of the people driving through construction zones are 10 kilometres an hour over. We're after doing a lot of education on that. People somehow are not listening to it or taking heed to it, and it's interesting that's where that number was.

 

Where they machines that they're using, what they were using is probably some questions that need to be asked, but it was pretty eye-opening to see that 43 per cent of the people were going over that. That's something that certainly needs to be looked at and more questions need to be asked in that regard.

 

Some of the other stuff that we were talking about was the department officials noted there were a variety of such systems that were used across Canada and across the world in using these systems. Some places had them; some places had taken them out. Which is the right one? Which system is best to use? So, a lot of work needs to go into that and a lot of information. We certainly need to look at that.

 

Government has also chosen to give Cabinet authority to make the decisions on the bulk of the detail regarding the image capturing enforcement system through regulations. So that's where we have to be careful, where the regulations are. Where you're going to put them, is one thing, if they're going to be at intersections. Are they going to be in rural communities? Are they going to be on highways? Are they just going on intersections here in the city? Are they just taking plates? Are they taking them through the windshield? I guess, those are some of the regulations that you look at.

 

Sometimes with bikes you have smaller licence plates. I know the rule there is that the owner of the vehicle will get the fine. So if I'm driving your vehicle, Mr. Speaker, then do I get the fine or do you get the fine? Are you going to come after me? Those are some of the questions that we need to ask. How are they going to be calibrated? What system is it? Is it radar? What technology is it going to be? So there is a lot of stuff there that we really do need to add questions to and to ask questions.

 

According to the officials, the official equipment piece to the legislation change has not been decided and regulations will have to be developed regarding that. That's very important that we get that right and get it proper and, obviously, get that in the proper places. So it's very important that way.

 

Also, I had some briefing notes myself there. No definition is set in regard to the regulations of the system. Installing them, the one thing with vehicles itself and coming from a vehicle industry, if it's going to be taken through the front window, if you start doing that, if that's the way it's going to be or it's going to be a licence plate, it's coming through the front window, do you look at how the drivers are tinting their glass? Can you see the driver, if that's going to go that way or is it going to be the licence plate? Right now, it seems like the licence plate but will it come in through. That's something that they'll have to explore as well.

 

I'll do my best to get most of these questions out there. Hopefully, we will be able to move on and get some of these questions answered.

 

Thank you very much.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

 

MR. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

It is absolutely a pleasure to stand today and speak to this bill, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the advocates, some of the people in the gallery today, who have put so much time and effort into highway safety over the last number of years. It's truly heartwarming to think that they've taken their loss and their sacrifice and actually helped others.

 

As well, from the Transportation and Works side, the Heavy Civil Association of Newfoundland and Labrador have been strong advocates in the Department of Transportation and Works for improvements of safety for their workers, Mr. Speaker. I can speak first-hand, as the Minister of Transportation and Works, when it comes to what our own employees in our depots around the province go through year after year when it comes to safety issues.

 

I had the opportunity this summer, along with the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, to be on the West Coast and actually drop in to the depot in Doyles. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a number of years back, the Doyles depot lost one of our employees to a needless accident on the highway of speeding in a construction zone. That's not acceptable in today's age. The amendments that we're looking at today about image capturing systems will certainly help increase highway safety on our roads throughout the province.

 

Our department, Mr. Speaker, does a substantial amount of work on the highways throughout the years. This year alone some $130 million worth of money, of investment, was made on the roads throughout our province. Since we formed government, we've invested over $700 million in road construction in our province. Just last year, we were able to secure a new investment agreement with the federal government to address some of the local roads issues, some of the more northern and rural roads in our province as well.

 

One of the pillars of our Roads Plan has always been early tendering, Mr. Speaker. I bring this into the discussion this afternoon to talk about the amount of investment that we're making, the number of lane kilometres over the last number of years since 2015, over 2,100 kilometres. I think I'm on record this week in the House talking about, if you think about 2,100 lane kilometres, that's paving from St. John's to Corner Brook three times.

 

To the point here, there's a lot of roadwork happening and being completed in our province. One thing that we want to ensure is that when the men and women in our province are going out in the morning to take on a construction project, whether it's maintenance staff with the Department of Transportation and Works, some 800, actually, that go out day in and day out and maintain the roads in our province and an endless number of contractors in our province that go out and do our work throughout the year, that they're safe and they return home. Unfortunately, in my time in Transportation and Works, we've had a number of incidents, fatalities happening because people just don't pay attention to their driving and their driving habits.

 

I had an experience myself this past summer. It was a sunny Friday morning and I was heading out of the city back home, I was nearing the Roaches Line overpass, and we went into a construction zone. If you ever get caught up in a line of traffic in a construction zone because somebody is going 50 in front of you, that's me. I don't apologize for going 50 in a construction zone.

 

Somebody zoomed by me, Mr. Speaker, and if anybody is familiar with – there's a little crest when you go over the overpass at Roaches Line; this was a paving project, ongoing. Just over that crest in this construction zone, there was a Department of Transportation and Works truck with two staff members checking the quality of the asphalt that had just been laid. The vehicle that passed me in that construction zone, Mr. Speaker, went by me like I was stopped. I heard a screeching stop come from that vehicle, and we're so lucky that day that we didn't have a tragedy on our highways again.

 

Mr. Speaker, to say that I'm pleased today to stand here and take a few minutes to talk about that we're going to have an ability to ticket a vehicle and – the Member opposite just said, if he's driving your vehicle, Mr. Speaker, and we capture your licence plate, well, that's between you guys. At the end of the day, we just want to make sure that we use every single tool that we have, every single ability, to make sure that our highways are safe.

 

Mr. Speaker, the story I referred to is my own personal story, but I hear these stories every time I go into a depot, or every time I sit down with the Construction Association or a contractor in this province. I hear these stories of vehicles whizzing by in construction zones, and it's just not acceptable. This type of behaviour is not acceptable.

 

I understand that there are some privacy issues, and I know the department, along with our department, and even through our pilot project back in the fall of 2018, we extensively talked to the Privacy Commissioner because privacy is important, extremely important, Mr. Speaker, but so is safety and so is public safety and so is the safety of everybody on our highways.

 

The actual project that we did last year on the construction zone cameras was actually supposed to happen in the summer. The reason why we actually had to delay it into the fall was simply because we had to make sure that we had all the privacy boxes checked. We did and we'll certainly make sure that is a part going forward.

 

What we found in that report was extremely alarming; 43 per cent of vehicles over 10 – we gave an allowance. In the pilot project we did, we actually did an allowance of 10 kilometres over. So if you passed by the image capturing system in that pilot project and you were going 59, we gave that. We were capturing 43 per cent of the vehicles going over 60 kilometres, so this is 10 kilometres and over. Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating: That's not acceptable. In no way, shape or form is that acceptable.

 

When we looked at the technologies involved – and the Member opposite addressed this – we'll evaluate those from Transportation and Works' perspective. We'll evaluate those over the winter to make sure that we are getting the best technology, but, at the end of the day, we want to make sure, from the department's perspective, that when our employees go to work, when our contractors go to work, we want to make sure that it's a safe workplace.

 

We often hear people talk about workplace and workplace safety, but I think sometimes we forget that for a person out, whether they're filling a pothole or doing some shoulder work, or a contractor out doing major capital work, this is their workplace and they have every single right to be safe in that workplace, as you or I or anybody in this province deserves to be safe in their workplace.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that commonly comes up – and I'll just stay on the construction side for a minute – relates to, well, the construction signs were up and there was nobody there. I went through a construction zone and there was nobody there, the signs were up. There's a reality in that. The only sign that should come down in a construction zone is the sign that indicates people working.

 

Mr. Speaker, once a construction site starts, it's a construction site. I thought about this on the weekend. I was walking through the Avalon Mall – obviously under construction – and there was an area roped off with yellow tape and there was nobody working, but there was a reason that was roped off because it was a construction site.

 

When you go through a construction zone the next time and there's nobody working, it's still a construction zone and there are many reasons for that. It could be guiderail down, it could be a large piece of heavy equipment parked on the side of the road. There are all kinds of factors. It could be uneven shouldering. It could be uneven paving.

 

That's why these zones are construction zones. We've worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Association and their members to make contractors more cognizant that when they are finished a construction site these signs should come down. Again, just because workers are not present doesn't mean it's not a construction site, no different than you would see in any environment.

 

Mr. Speaker, we tried three different systems. They will be evaluated further as we make a final decision in which system we will be using next year. I'll repeat this: The Department of Transportation and Works in the 2020 construction season will be using construction cameras and image-capturing cameras. I look forward to the day we lay the first charges, because for far too long these things have been happening on our highways.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude my remarks but I do for a second want to thank the Department of Service NL. In my time in Transportation and Works, Minister Gambin-Walsh and her staff have made tremendous efforts when it comes to highway safety.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. CROCKER: I don't know of any time that I'm aware of a department that has taken so much of an emphasis on highway safety. A lot of it is because of the day we live in and people's attitudes and people's behaviours.

 

Mr. Speaker, I would think that we have some of the most progressive, robust legislation in the country right now. I can assure you from my perspective on our government is that we will continue to do everything we can to ensure safety on our highways.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes the Member for Labrador West.

 

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's great to see this kind of initiative taken with Service NL and in co-operation with the Department of Transportation and Works. That we start looking at the importance of finally using technology to capture those who are speeding in construction zones, who are passing school buses, running red lights and things like this. It's a problem.

 

There's a lot of research even backing the use of this technology. There's a report there that the City of Edmonton collected $32 million alone with only an investment of $6 million. The system does work. It's renowned.

 

We have to find use of technology this way, but we have to look at the privacy of individuals as well when we are implementing technology and make sure that all the boxes are checked and that everyone is protected, individuals, who may be there. We have to make sure this technology is also used correctly and properly.

 

Cameras, like I said, especially with the school buses – I've witnessed it myself in my own district. People just feel like they can pass a bus. The stop sign is out, the red lights are flashing, but it just seems that for some cognitive reason people just see this as okay and they don't place themselves in the shoes of a child who is trying to cross the street to catch the bus to go to school. We do have tragedies in this way and we need to find ways of using technology to capture offenders and also deter offenders.

 

Like I said, the minister said as well, about the use in construction zones. I worked partially in the mining industry, but also in the construction industry for a little while. I have witnessed people speeding through construction zones and placing the workers of said projects in jeopardy. These things are very important that we try to deter this behaviour.

 

We also have the behaviour, for some reason, that we don't any longer take our time and we no longer follow the rules of the road. I think this would be one of the biggest deterrents that we could place out there, knowing that your licence plate will be captured if you offend.

 

With the licence plate capture, too, we also have to be cognizant of our weather in this province and ways that sometimes salt, snow and stuff do build up over licence plates. Hopefully we can use other technologies as well to identify vehicles with that.

 

Other jurisdictions have been using this for a while. Ontario has been using this for quite some time. Manitoba, BC, Alberta, Quebec and I believe, unless I'm mistaken, I've even seen it in New Brunswick on their large highway. This technology is useful. It is great that we can start to move ourselves towards using this thing, because we just can't afford any more lives in the construction industry, lives of children on school buses. This is why it's important to move forward.

 

I really do want to reiterate that it's very important we also protect the privacy of individuals to make sure that it's not used incorrectly or jeopardize any individual with this image-capturing technology. We have to make sure that we work with the Privacy Commissioner; we make sure that we work with individuals in that industry to make sure that this is used for what it's intended to be used. That's where I feel with it.

 

I know when we built the Trans-Labrador Highway, when we paved it, there would be long sections with construction signs put out and people had their signs saying there's construction, there's fresh asphalt put down and it might be – if they're having a good day, they're moving along expediently.

 

I noticed, though, travelling back and forth between where I live and my wife's hometown, that they'd pass a construction sign. It seemed like their mind was just blank and thought there was no construction, and they'd zoom on through. I don't know how many times I saw the flag person with their flag sign swaying it just to get the people to slow down, because they would drive past a lady with a sign that said stop.

 

I don't know where this behaviour came from in this province but it is rampant. It is absolutely rampant that we have individuals who drive these highways without due care and caution. This is good. This will protect lives. This will protect people, and this is what we need here in this province.

 

Also, the sections with this bill, too; it's good to see the legislation for fines and that is all being straightened out to improve expedience through the legal system, to clean up the language and make it easier for prosecutors to read this legislation and to abide by it.

 

All in all, this is what we need. We need to make highways safer. We need to have the legislation easier to read and to bring this forward into this province.

 

I'm glad to see this, but I want to make sure that when it comes to the image technology and the way it's used, we have to make sure that the privacy and the importance of individuals is adhered to.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

 

MR. WARR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's certainly my first opportunity to rise and speak to a bill, so I haven't had the opportunity to congratulate you on your position as Deputy Speaker. I held the position for a couple of years and it was really a great experience to be able to sit in the Chair and watch over the proceedings of the House of Assembly. I know you will do a great job, as well as Speaker Reid as well. I pass along my congratulations to him as well.

 

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing today is we're debating a bill with regard to the Highway Traffic Act and the amendments to it. “This Bill would amend the Highway Traffic Act to correct inconsistencies between sections of the Act and the Schedule to the Act; reorder the impaired driving sections of the Act to improve readability; authorize the use of image capturing enforcement systems; and move penalties listed in section 175 of the Act to the Schedule to the Act.”

 

While it's not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak to all of that, I'm going to wear two hats today: one as the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development and, certainly, in the absence of our Minister of Justice, I'll have a few notes on his behalf as well.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, and, specifically, the amendment to allow the use of camera surveillance in school bus zones. This amendment is another important measure to curb dangerous driving habits. Unfortunately, there is still a great need for such a measure to protect and enhance the safety of students across this province.

 

Mr. Speaker, it's not uncommon to witness motorists speeding in school zones and passing a school bus, even when the bus is at a full stop with the red lights flashing and the stop arm extended. We see this happening when students, some only primary age, are getting off or on the bus.

 

It was just last week – and my colleague across the way had mentioned today in one of his questions with regard to Skills Canada NL. We had the opportunity to attend CNA just here on Prince Philip Parkway to make those announcements last week. Myself, my EA and director of communications were actually on the lot waiting for the students from Gonzaga to disembark from the bus, lights flashing, stop arm out, engaged. I think people just don't realize that whenever that happens and wherever it happens, it's the law. It doesn't necessarily have to happen on a highway, it can happen in a parking lot.

 

I think for the most part, Mr. Speaker, people just need to get in touch with the laws of the Highway Traffic Act, especially when it comes around school buses, because the vehicle actually never even slowed down. If he was driving 20 kilometres on the lot, he drove 20 kilometres an hour when he passed the school bus. There's no ignorance for the law. That person, to me – and, obviously, I should have taken the licence plate and actually reported it, and not thinking fast enough because I was so concerned about the students.

 

This behaviour is despite current school bus safety laws. Under the Highway Traffic Act, fines for illegally passing a school bus range from $500 to $1,200. Excessive speeding in school zones can lead to vehicle impoundment for up to three days and fines from $400 to $1,800.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. WARR: Still, we are all aware of incidents where drivers are simply not following the law and are putting the safety of school children at risk. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, and it is our duty and our responsibility as a government, school districts, busing contractors, bus drivers, parents, students and, most importantly, the motoring public to obey the law and make the safety of students our top priority.

 

To this end, my Department of Education and Early Childhood Development partnered with the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District, and Service NL and law enforcement agencies across this province in September to raise awareness about school bus safety laws and to remind everyone to be vigilant when driving through school zones.

 

Mr. Speaker, the message was simple: to remind drivers, parents, students and the general motoring public to keep safety top of mind, to share safety messages through social media channels and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, to obey the rules when travelling in and around school zones. Again, we still see incidents where drivers are ignoring the rules and the law.

 

Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, we have been exploring the use of cameras to help identify drivers who do not stop for a school bus and at potential legislative changes that would be required. This has included discussions with the school districts and vendors.

 

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that our government is now able to bring this amendment forward and to have Bill 5 debated in the House today. The use of camera technology in school zones and on stop arms will help improve safety and is an important measure to help curb dangerous driving habits around school buses. As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Service NL, noted, cameras in school zones and on school bus stop arms would capture video evidence of vehicles that disregard the safety of our school children and illegally pass a bus.

 

This is another means of enhancing safety in school zones. The amendments will follow such offences as speeding in school zones and passing a school bus while children are getting on or off, to be eligible for enforcement by video evidence. With these proposed amendments in place, we look forward to discussions with our partners and stakeholders on the development of regulations.

 

Mr. Speaker, one incident in a school zone is one too many and Bill 5 will provide us with another tool to keep our children safe. When I talk about one incident in a school zone, I want to talk about an incident that I witnessed 30 years ago. It was in my hometown and my hon. colleague for Labrador West actually referred to it in his comments about winter driving and we all need to be cognizant of the fact that we need extra time to slow down.

 

Mr. Speaker, I was going to work, actually just walking and passing a school bus that was stopped and saw a young child crossing the road to get across to the bus. That young child was knocked down by a vehicle that couldn't stop. That child was a grade kindergarten student, five years old and my daughter's best friend.

 

It was horrific. Like I said, I deal with it even today. The story ends well. She was in cast for quite some time. I took the opportunity to go over and stay with her until the emergency response team arrived and took her to the hospital. I remember picking up her schoolbag and taking it with me. I told her parents, some time after that, that I had her book bag and they just said we've got her another one. Mr. Speaker, I hung on to that schoolbag and proudly presented it to her when she graduated from grade 12.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. WARR: It was a special time for me and she had no idea that I had her schoolbag. I kept it for those 12 years; she was in grade kindergarten as I said. Again, to my colleague's comments, we got to be cognizant at all times of exactly the type of roadways that we're driving on. It can sneak up on you pretty fast. It's only a drop in the temperature and the roads become very slippery.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of our government's continued commitment to ensuring the safety of drivers and passengers on our province's roadways. Public safety is a top priority for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and improvements to the Highway Traffic Act are designed to make our roads and highways safer, as well as to help ensure compliance with the act. The changes we are debating today follow a long list of improvements our government has made to the Highway Traffic Act, with the travelling public of our province in mind.

 

As the Minister of Service NL stated, we have amended the legislation within the last several years to reduce excessive speeding, stunting and street racing. Move Over provisions were enhanced by requiring drivers to reduce their speed by 30 kilometres per hour below the speed limit and to move to an adjacent lane when approaching law enforcement or other emergency stop vehicles at roadside.

 

Mr. Speaker, also, a new offence for driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons causing bodily harm or death was also added. These are but a few of the significant changes we have made with increased safety top of mind. All of these changes were made in consultation with safety advocates including Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, the STAND for Hannah foundation and victims' families. They were also made with the support of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

 

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to work with stakeholder groups in seeking ways to raise awareness about road safety. These changes to the Highway Traffic Act speak to our government's commitment to safe and sustainable communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our job as a government to do our best to further the protection of the people of our province.

 

Today, government is building on these amendments to further protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the introduction of camera technology. In an effort to increase safety for all road users in the province, changes to the act will allow for highway cameras to be used as a means of increasing compliance with the rules of the road. We recognize this is a first step, as these amendments simply enable us to move forward and develop the details on the best use of this technology.

 

We are confident, Mr. Speaker, that we are moving in the right direction, as every means of improving road safety is a win for all of us. I'm happy to stand in my place today to support the amendments to this bill and I thank the hon. minister for allowing me the opportunity to do so.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to be able to stand here in this House today and talk about safety on our roads and highways. It's an honour to do so.

 

As the Minister of Transportation eluded to earlier, any day that we can add more tools to our toolbox is a good day and we need to focus on that. It is alarming to think that even today as we stand here, there are people out there right now who are passing school buses in school zones, who are speeding through construction zones.

 

It hard to imagine how anyone cannot see a big, yellow school bus with red lights flashing and not understand that that means stop. It is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could still proceed to drive through that. But, at the same time, it's happening. As a result of that, again, we have to take additional measures to try and fix it. This idea of a camera system is one of those.

 

The same thing on our highways. All of us, or many of us, know of people who have been impacted or killed unnecessarily on our highways. A college friend of mine, former worker with the Department of Transportation and Works, lost his life on the Outer Ring Road as a result of speeding unnecessarily through a construction zone. I also know of lots of other people that have had similar experiences. So it is time to take an extra step and talk about what else can we put in this toolbox. I think that's what we're talking about today: How do we continue to try and police this illegal activity?

 

At the same time as we talk about the camera system, though, I would also like to talk about ensuring that we have enough police presence on our highways and our roads. There have been lots of challenges with highway enforcement and the talk and the need for more highway enforcement. So let us not lose sight of making sure that we take advantage of everything that we can. So it's not just about the cameras, it's got to be about the total package.

 

The other thing I want to make sure, when we go to implement a system such as this and we talk about using technology and cameras and tracking people's licence plates, we know that there are a significant number of people out there with licence plates where you can't read the numbers anymore because they've peeled off. And as a result of that we need to make sure that we follow up and make sure that people actually have a licence plate on the back of their vehicle that you can actually read. So I think there's some work to be done on that.

 

But overall, at the end of the day, trying to prevent people – the education has been there. Recently, the chief of police in St. John's said we've tried education, we've tried a lot of other things, but now it's, perhaps, time to try enforcement. This measure and the fines associated with this will hopefully help deter some of that activity.

 

The education part still has to continue. I believe the minister is right when he says that even though the signs are still up but there's no one working, that doesn't mean it's not a construction zone. I agree with the minister, it very much is a construction zone. But at the same time, there's an inconsistency. A lot of times you'll drive through and sometimes the signs are down, sometimes the signs are up. So there needs to be that consistency developed, as part of this, to make sure everybody understands that just because you don't see anybody working, doesn't mean it's not a construction zone. I think that's part of the education and part of the program that we have to put forward on this.

 

I'm very happy to stand here today and talk about increased safety on our highways and our roads. Too many instances of people – and we hear it all the time, there seems to be an alarming increase in the speed of people on our highways. We've seen that now with – hear reports in the papers all the time and in the news about 150 kilometres an hour and well over the posted speed limits. That's a real problem and that's where I go back to the whole enforcement, the highway enforcement and those things as well, to try and capture some of that.

 

On the school busing piece again, it's the idea of how do we do this. Hopefully, if this can stop one person from going through or passing a school bus stopped and prevent a tragedy, then it's well worth the investment. I look forward to further discussion and the regulations to come.

 

Thank you.

 

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

 

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's a pleasure, once again, to stand and speak in this hon. House, this time to Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act.

 

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to commend the Minister of Service NL and the government because there's no doubt over the last four years for sure, there has been a lot of progressive legislation brought in as it relates to safety on our highways, whether it be changes to the Highway Traffic Act, issues around impaired driving, imprudent driving, street racing and Move Over laws and everything else.

 

I'm going to give credit where credit is due, as I always try to do, and say that I do appreciate there's been a lot of work done in terms of road safety. I absolutely support that in principle.

 

As we know, the bill is a fairly thick bill, but in terms of substance, there is a bit of housekeeping there in terms of the rearranging of schedules and legislation around impaired driving, which doesn't really change anything other than make it easier to read and make the legislation flow better. That's important that it's done. The real substantive change in this piece of legislation, of course, is around the use of camera technology for enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act.

 

I want to say right off the bat, when it comes to the issue of school buses and the use of technology on the stop arms of school buses, cameras and so on, I support it 1,000 per cent. I've said so publicly many times. I've written the minister about it, requesting that it be done. It's being done in other jurisdictions.

 

I'd also like to see the fines for people who pass school buses, I think it might be $400 or $500 now, let's up it to $1,000 as far as I'm concerned, because there is absolutely no excuse, none. I don't care who it is. If it was constituent of mind I'd say: b'y, if you want to vote for me, too bad, sorry. You passed a school bus; no sympathy from me, zero, zilch, and I think every Member here would agree with that. There are certain things that in principle we all believe is right and there is no excuse.

 

I certainly applaud that initiative of putting cameras on stop arms of school buses as a way to deter that activity and to keep our children safe. I don't think there's anyone in this province that would be against it, I really don't. There might be somebody upset if they broke the law and they got caught or whatever, and, as I said, too bad about them.

 

I think when we look at other things like speeding, running red lights, speeding in construction zones, speeding in school zones, all the issues that are outlined here in the amendment with the addition of section 177.1 image capturing enforcement system, I think we all agree with the spirit and the intent of it. I know many of us have said in this House of Assembly when it comes to all kinds of things, that we need to embrace technology. Technology is out there.

 

Now, for some of us guys who are starting to get up there a little bit, like myself, I'll be the first one to say I haven't totally embraced technology the way that perhaps I should and could, but my children have and my grandson will, I'm sure, as we move on. Younger people have, and that's the type of thing that comes with change and so on and it's a good thing.

 

If we can find ways of utilizing technology to make our lives easier, to make our lives better, to help our governments function, to help law enforcement, to help ensure the laws of the land are followed and to have that tool in the tool box to assist, that's all a good thing, no doubt about it, and I support it in principle.

 

Now, there's one thing that I don't support in this legislation. There's one thing that I don't support, Mr. Speaker, and it comes back to something I've said now numerous times in numerous piece of legislation; I think I've been pretty consistent on that. It's the ongoing concern I have as a Member of this House of Assembly. It's not a new concern and it's not something that was created by this administration. It's the process, it's the system, but it's a problem I have with the system, and that is that quite often much of the meat of the implications for these bills that come before this House are left to the regulations.

 

I don't know how many people watch this, but for anyone who might be watching. When we keep talking, bringing up this issue about regulations, what do we mean? Well, what we mean is this: That what we are debating in this House of Assembly, the actual legislation, all Members get an opportunity to debate, bring their views forward and we get to vote either yay or nay on that piece of legislation.

 

A lot of the details around the things we're voting for are captured in regulations, which we are not debating and which we are not voting for in this House. When we allow a bill to go through and leave the regulations to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is what's being proposed here again, as usual practice, then what we are basically saying is we are leaving it to the government, we are leaving it to the minister of the department to decide on what all the details are going to be.

 

Now, in fairness to the minister, she's going to have staff and expertise and she's going to get feedback and all that. No one's suggesting – I'm certainly not – that the minister is going to sit down one night on her laptop and start typing up regulations just on a whim. That's not how it works. Like I said, there will be professionals and there will be stakeholders, I would assume, and professional staff. I'm assuming they will do jurisdictional scans to see what other provinces are doing to develop the regulations, but at the end of the day, it is the government, the minister, who will decide all of the details.

 

At that point in time, once those regulations are passed, whenever that might be, we all got to live with it. The government can come back and say, well, you voted for it. If there's something in the details – and the devil is in the details – that the public are outraged with or doesn't make any sense, they'll say, you voted for it. No, I didn't vote for it. I voted for the act, but I left all the details to you, as is the process.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting that this minister or this government is going to put in regulations that are going to be flawed and mean-spirited and anything else – absolutely not. I'm sure they will do a good job. They'll do the best job they can. They will take advice and try to do it right. I'm sure they will.

 

The thing is with regulations, Mr. Speaker, once the regulations are in place, they can be changed at any time. For argument's sake, we have a Cabinet shuffle and a new minister comes in, despite what the intent of this minister might be, the new minister might have a different outlook on the world and decide to change things up. We won't know about it. It won't be debated. We won't have any input.

 

If the government changes in a year from now or two years or maybe four years from now – we'll see – but the government changes and a new administration, a new minister comes in, that minister can have a look at the regulations and say, I don't like that, let's make a few changes. It doesn't have to come to us. It doesn't have to come to the Legislature. We have zero input. We don't vote on it. The minister does what he or she feels like doing. I assume upon consultation with his or her colleagues and so on, but you get the point.

 

Now, if we were just looking at, as has been specifically captured here, when we're talking about camera enforcement systems, 177.1 to be added. It says: “An image capturing enforcement system may be used in accordance with the regulations for enforcing (a) subsections 106(10), (12), (14) and (16).” What is that? Well, that's red lights. That's red lights, that's left turning with a green arrow and that's flashing red lights. That's what that covers. They can make regulations to use cameras for red lights, basically.

 

Also, subsection 110(3). What's that? Speeding. You can have cameras on the highway and if the speed limit is 90 and I'm going 100, the camera captures me, gets my licence plate and I get a ticket in the mail I guess.

 

Then, of course, what's the definition of a highway? Right now we might be talking about on the Trans-Canada Highway, but does that mean every street in the City of St. John's there will be a camera on every corner? I don't know. The highway is not necessarily the Trans-Canada Highway or Veterans Memorial Highway.

 

The highway, as far as I understand, could be any street. It could be some little road down in Pouch Cove, Pouch Cove Highway. It could be Water Street. It could be Topsail Road. It could be Commonwealth Avenue. There could be cameras on every corner. I'm not saying that's going to happen. I know it's a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is – I'm saying it to make the point that based on this for speeding, there could be cameras on every corner, in theory.

 

Subsection 110.1(4), speeding in a construction zone. We understand there are issues there, but we also understand there's a lot of confusion around construction zones when the signs are up, the signs are down, there is construction or there isn't construction. Maybe they're finished for the weekend. There are no hazards. There's no equipment there. There are no holes in the ground, but the signs are still up.

 

There is speeding in a school zone. We all, I'm sure, agree with that. That's subsection 110.2(4).

 

Then there's subsection 137(1), passing a school bus. This is the part where we're saying that we're going to allow camera technology, I'm assuming to be placed on a stop arm of a school bus, as they're doing in other jurisdictions, to catch people and to charge people who are passing a school bus. As I said when I started out, that's something that I have advocated for, I wrote the minister about, I've called the open-line shows, I've done interviews about it because I think that's something that needs to be done.

 

I wish that section could be hauled out on its own and we could vote on that right now, because I'd support it 100 per cent right now. It's almost like an omnibus-type situation where there's good stuff in there but then there's concern. Do you vote for something that you want, knowing there are concerns that you have over here, or do you not vote for it and then you lose something good over here? I don't want to lose any of it because I think it's all a good idea, but that's kind of the conundrum we have at the moment.

 

Here is the part that I have my biggest concern, and this is why I can't support it as written: “177.1 An image capturing enforcement system may be used in accordance with the regulations for enforcing … (f) other sections of the Act prescribed in the regulations.” Other sections of the act. Now we're not talking about red lights – we are talking about red lights, we're talking about speeding in construction zones, we're talking about passing school buses, we're talking about speeding in school zones, but then “other sections of the Act prescribed in the regulations.”

 

So that means anywhere else. That means while this is our intent, this is our main focus, every single section of the act can be dealt with in the regulations for camera technology. That's how it reads. It may not be the intent, but that is exactly how it reads.

 

That means if I vote for this, in theory when the regulations are written up, we can start putting cameras on every corner and say: b'y, you did a rolling stop. Then when they're talking about speeding, police officers haul you over, they have some discretion. You were going five kilometres over or 10 even, slow down; or, I got my emergency lights flashing, I'm speeding, I'm on my way to the Janeway with my child. Okay, I understand, try to slow down and we'll even help get you there.

 

A camera, you're either going the speed limit or you're not going the speed limit. One kilometre over or you're 30 kilometres over, beep, that goes off, a picture taken and so on. Now, maybe it can be adjusted for discretion. Again, we don't know that, do we? Do you know why? Because it's going to be in the regulations, which we don't know and we don't get to see.

 

Like I said, the broader piece for me is that with section (f) it says – even though we're concentrating on school zones, passing school buses, speeding, construction zones, by putting in section (f) you are giving the minister – again, not necessarily this minister, any minister of any administration down the road – giving them the ability to put cameras wherever the heck they want for any offence they feel like. Regardless if it makes a whole lot of sense, regardless if it eliminates any discretion, regardless if it targets the wrong people. Because that's the beauty of having police officers, that's the beauty of having human beings, because a police officer has the ability to utilize his discretion.

 

If my grandmother is going down the road and she doesn't make a complete, full stop. She does a bit of a rolling stop or something, he could haul her over and point it out to her and say: next time around try to remember it, okay. I'm just doing it for your safety. She's not going to get a ticket in the mail.

 

If someone is going a little bit over the speed limit and they have some reason why they're in a big hurry, that police officer can say: Well, yeah, technically you're over, but you're only five or six kilometres over; I'm not going to give you a ticket for that. Slow down, keep it in mind next time. And any other offence that can occur. Again, I'm not saying it's the government's intent; I'm sure it isn't, but it opens up the door to put cameras everywhere for everything, and that is a concern I have.

 

If you want my support, one thing you need to do is get rid of section (f), and if you want to start adding other offences under the Highway Traffic Act that you can utilize camera technology to try to police, if you want to add other offences, then you come back to this House of Assembly with your proposal of what you want to add those offences to, and we can have a debate and we can determine if it's fair and reasonable and makes sense and would be acceptable to the public at large, and if it is, we'll vote in favour of it. But I'm not prepared to give you the opportunity to do whatever it is you decide to do after I support the bill. Those things could be detrimental and offensive and certainly against the wishes of my constituents.

 

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll be taking my seat.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

 

MR. TRIMPER: Interesting, eh?

 

Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.

 

I think it's the first time I've stood and spoke to a bill in three years. I may be a little rusty, so let's see what happens.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. TRIMPER: It is a great honour to be here and represent the great District of Lake Melville. I wasn't going to speak today, but I had a great reminder. I was sitting in my chair and I saw three dear friends sitting up there in the audience, and I've seen them sit in those same seats many times over the last few years. If you need any inspiration at all to really get on your feet and talk about something, it's those three ladies, and I will come back to them.

 

For those that are watching at home, and just to bring us all into where we are in this day, we are dealing with Bill 5. It is An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act and it's doing essentially three things: It's correcting inconsistencies between the sections and schedule of the act; it's reordering impaired driving sections for readability; and it's authorizing the use of image-capturing enhancement systems.

 

That's what it's doing. This is second reading, and in second reading, before we get to Committee, we need to focus on the rationale: Why are we doing this? Unlike my previous colleague, we are not to get into the clauses of the bill; it's all about: Why are we doing this? Why are we here? Well, we're here because, frankly, I'm very proud to be part of a group of people who, not during this Assembly but during a previous Assembly, the previous administration as well, brought forward some five separate hard moves against impaired driving and districted driving. This is now the fifth and, for five times, I've sat and watched those same people sit in those chairs. That's why we're here today.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. TRIMPER: I had the honour, and previous to this minister, to sit in that same amazing Department of Service NL. It's a fascinating place because they deal with some 44 pieces of legislation. There are hundreds of people and there's essentially only two of each and they all do a whole bunch of different things, but I can tell you there is a very dedicated group of people in there. As indicated earlier, this minister has carried on and I'm very proud to see this going because we have a serious problem in society. That's the rationale.

 

This isn't just about tightening up and doing a little administration. It's because this continues to be a very serious, deadly problem. I bet if I asked for a show of hands in this Legislature right now as to whether anybody has ever lost a loved one due to a distracted or impaired driver, I bet you we'd all put our hands up a couple of times. It's just an ongoing problem and I just reflect on my own personal loss. Again, that's why we're here.

 

Back in 2017, before I had the honour of becoming the Speaker, when I was minister of Service NL, we brought in a bill, Bill 68; I remember it very well. It was an interesting time because it was a serious advancement on dealing with the issue of impaired driving. I remember the folks from Mothers Against Drunk Driving up in the audience and working very closely with them, as well as the other ladies – I'll mention their names in a few minutes, but it was a serious, aggressive move and I'm proud to say that not only did this government bring it in but it enjoyed the full support of the entire Legislature. I would suggest that's probably been the case with the previous four moves, as I've indicated. So everyone has been here with great determination. I hear from one of my colleagues that is, in fact, the situation.

 

Back in Bill 68, I just want to tell folks a little bit of a story and why this takes so much conviction and energy. Bill 68, that was in 2017, it was in March, it did three or four things. Essentially, it brought in an interlock system for those who had been arrested with an impaired driving offence. If they were going to get back behind the wheel, they were going to be operating that vehicle for some time with an interlock system.

 

It also allowed police officers to impound a vehicle of an impaired driver. Previously, you used to be able to go and grab the car as soon as you were done with your processing, get back in it and drive on home. Then, finally, we raised the zero-tolerance age limits up to, I think it was, 22 years of age. Those were just some key moves.

 

I don't want to digress from the rationale of this bill, but I want to tell everyone here a story. As I was on my feet some three years ago talking about that bill – and a lot of people here in the audience talking about it – my office phone was ringing. The majority of the calls that were coming in were very supportive of what we were doing, but I can tell you there were a few who called – and I want to mention her name because she's no longer with us. She has to be one of the most amazing administrative secretaries that a minister could ever enjoy. Her name was Madonna Pitcher and a dear friend of the ministers and I and many others who would have known her. She was fielding calls all that day while we were here debating that bill, Bill 68.

 

When I walked back in after a long day in the Legislature she was both elated and absolutely bewildered that there were actually people calling in complaining, challenging the government at the time: How dare you look at this as a money grab? They saw it as a revenue-generating opportunity. It was almost incredulous to think that such a concern that I'm sure touches every single resident of this province across the country and perhaps around the world, that you would be challenged on such a vice to suggest that you were somehow doing it to put some more money in the coffers. That's what we're up against and that's why we're here with what is seemingly step five over these last few years. We're dealing with a very serious situation.

 

I did want to do a couple of more things. When I concluded Bill 68, the emotion in this Legislature was palpable. There were a lot of people, I would suggest, probably in tears just thinking about loved ones they had lost. As I concluded my remarks I read a list of names of victims, people who have been killed by a drunk driver. I spoke for quite a while with that list of names, it was perhaps quite an unusual move, but I think it was all about – no, I don't think, I know it was all about driving home the message as to just what is going on and why we are all collectively, as legislators, so determined about this.

 

So I read those names. What I'd like to do now is talk about other victims and those three ladies who have been sitting here witnessing us again in this Legislature, all of us: Ms. Gail Thorne, Sarah Pittman and Frankie Ralph. I hadn't seen them in sometime but several of us have been going up to visit with them as the debate has been unfolding because those three ladies are still victims. They will forever be victims, and that is why we're here today.

 

I want to say to them and to the organizations they represent – STAND up for Hannah, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the RNC, the RCMP, these organizations – these people are all still dealing with it and we need to feel that energy. We need to keep going.

 

When I just went up to talk to them, I asked them – and we reflected back on the last few years, and as I said there's been some five big moves, this is number five. I said, what do we have left to do? They thought, and we'd been sitting there thinking for some time while others were speaking and we concluded – they suggested it's still a serious, societal, attitude problem. There still tends to be a tolerance, and I've heard Members talk about being witnesses to situations and so on but until we all stand up, not just for Hannah, but for all of ourselves and really get to the crux of this, we are going to continue to encounter abuses.

 

Here we are tightening up bills. We're tightening up enforcement procedures. We're tightening up situations where we can actually capture these offences and bring it to prosecution. We're doing all that but, despite all that, we still hear these amazing stories. Every morning when we turn on the news, it's still going on around us, crazy levels of impairment and so on. We agreed, and I would suggest to the floor, we need to keep going.

 

I just spoke with the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development about the concept of bringing this into the curriculum of high schools. As our youth become of age and start to drive and start to appreciate the amazing responsibility they have now as they get behind the wheel of a vehicle and while they have – as many have said here today – that privilege, they also have a huge responsibility to everyone and they need to think very seriously about that.

 

I will throw that out in terms of the rationale for this bill. I look forward to the debate. As the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands has concern about the details, we'll get into those details, but I can tell you the conviction that I've seen in the Department of Service NL, that I've seen on this side of the House and that I've seen on that side of the House, I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that we will get there with, again, another stronger message to our province and to everyone in it.

 

Anyone who wants to visit and drive on our roads, that distracted driving, impaired driving is not going to be tolerated here, and we are going to get to the bottom of it.

 

Thank you very much.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

Again, it's an absolute privilege to get up here and speak to the House of Assembly and represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your new position. It's nice to be back in the Legislature again to have discussions like we're going to have here today.

 

It's interesting, because I listened to the Member – I wasn't going to start off this way, but I listened to the Member, the former Speaker, get up and speak that time, and I can assure everybody in this House that the people on this side of the House, and I'm sure everybody in this House, utmost, more than anything, safety is first. We want to make sure the lives of our loved ones, our children, our families, anyone, is priority one. I'm sure that's with everybody in this province.

 

I look at the Department of Service NL, and my colleague got up earlier today as the critic. He was the first one to speak, and I had the opportunity for four years to be the critic for Service NL when you were minister and now the new minister. I'm going to applaud government and say there's some fantastic work that's after being done when it comes to the safety of our roads, to the enforcement and making sure that people are aware of what's happening out there and also to make sure that there are proper fines in place too.

 

Do you know what? We will never always have it done. We'll never have a time that we'll get here in the House of Assembly and say, b'y, we got it all done; we don't need to do anything else. I have to applaud the minister, she's done a fantastic job in her portfolio as minister.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. K. PARSONS: I believe that her concerns are the same concerns that I have.

 

Today, I look at this bill and, again, it's another example of doing things right and making sure that we do things properly.

 

Listen, I looked at what happened here – we talked about pedestrian-bicycle accidents. I can remember a time just up here, just past the Confederation Building, where there was an accident where a young man lost his life. I had a good friend of mine who lived in Flatrock one time, moved to Clarenville, and he was struck by, I think it was trusses or something on a truck that hit the bicycle and he was killed.

 

Any death is too many; one death is too many. If there is anything we can do to make sure – there was great legislation brought in, and the minister got some criticism over it, but we, here on this side, supported it. That you should be a metre away from a bicycle rider. That's all about safety.

 

We made some changes when it comes to impaired driving. Things have changed. A novice driver or a new driver, I think it was up to 22 years old, the regulations are no tolerance. You just don't have a bottle of beer, you don't have a drink of wine. There's no tolerance, and those are great things. We, in the Opposition, have supported it.

 

We will continue to support this government as long as it has to do with safety and making sure that things are done properly on our roads, because we all have to drive them. We all have family who will be on those roads driving. We want nothing but safety. Safety is a major concern for everybody in this province and we want to make sure the roads are safe.

 

We had some issues when it came to speeding and stunting. We saw the examples of the corvette doing donuts on Kenmount Road and everything else, but those things today – I don't know, when I grew up I saw it in my community. I saw it in drag racing. I don't see it today. I don't see it like I saw it when I grew up.

 

Do you know what? That's because we bring in regulations to this House and we try to stop that stuff because we're concerned about the safety of people. So all those things have been great. It's great that we brought them in.

 

I have to say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, he said something earlier today and it was interesting. I'm going to just talk a little bit about safety when it comes to our construction workers and people on the highway. He said something today that I should have thought about it but I didn't think about it.

 

He was saying about – when I drive through construction zones on the highway, and I'd say a lot of the people in this House it's the same thing, and there's nobody working, I say: what did I slow down for, there's no one working. He's correct, that's still a construction zone. Because somebody is not working there, that is still a construction zone. It may mean that you should slow down because there's a big place dug out in the middle of the road or there's a guardrail out or something like that.

 

Now, when there are people working there, I don't know – and the minister can probably answer this one – maybe it changes the speed a little bit. I know in a lot of them it's 30 kilometres and it may be that – because you mentioned 50 kilometres, but I think in most of them it slows down to 30 kilometres.

 

We've seen too often – we've heard it and we hear it in the news, someone in a construction zone, somebody got killed. Now sometimes it's company issues. It could be something rolled over or whatever. Whatever it is, we don't want to see it.

 

Listen, when a person goes out and leaves their home in the daytime and goes to work, whether it's at the Confederation Building or it's on the Trans-Canada Highway, our families want to make sure they come home safe. So this bill today will definitely – definitely – help the safety of those people that have to leave and go home and make sure that get to work and get home safe to their families. That's what we want to see as an Opposition Party, and I'm sure that's what everybody in this Legislature wants to see.

 

Another part of this bill, the minister talked about school bus safety. Sometimes I really get appalled, I don't know if people don't know the difference, but when you're on a four-lane highway and a bus stops and puts out that arm, you'll see, because it's on the inside lane and there's another lane between, the crowd over on the other side thinks they don't have to stop, and do you know what? There's nothing more that bugs me than that, because I don't know what that child is going to do when it get off the bus. Is the child going to go to its right or is it going to go to its left? It seems like on two lanes, people have a little bit of common sense and know that, listen, it's a bus stop, they may walk across, but I've seen it a few times on four-lane highways.

 

I'd love to be an RNC officer or an RCMP officer at that time because that's something that should be ticketed because, listen, honestly, a child going to school and we put them on a bus in the morning, we just pray to God that they come home in the evening. I have never experienced it, don't want to experience it, but I would never want to be a parent of a child that got injured because of something. That's something I only can imagine, because I really don't want to get to (inaudible).

 

So, that's a great thing. Let's put cameras so that anybody that does that, they get a fine, and I agree, I think somebody said here today, I don't know if it's the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, that it should be – I think it's a $400 or $500 fine now, he said $1,000; I'd say $2,000 because that's stuff that we shouldn't tolerate. So, those are important things that we should do. Speeding on our highways, sure, we got to slow people down. There are too many accidents and stuff like this.

 

Again, this bill, and I'm not saying anything bad against government, I'm not saying anything, I've been around for a while and I've seen a lot of legislation come through House of Assembly. I've been on both sides of this aisle here. I've been on it when we agreed to it, but you'll always hear the thing: the details are in the regulations.

 

Something started here a little while ago that we were going to look at the legislation so that we can talk about this piece of legislation and say that it's in different parts of the country. I believe it's in Alberta, BC, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. I believe the minister mentioned that we're going to be looking more along the lines of Manitoba and going with what they've been doing, but it's interesting to see that – and I don't know if it is or not, but I haven't heard anything from Atlantic Canada. I know one Member mentioned that it was probably in New Brunswick.

 

I'd like to see the regulations because I know, and I've read that there are some concerns about this type of legislation and what the legislation has done in other provinces. While we could say let's look at Manitoba, perhaps we should look at Alberta and BC and the other places and make sure that what they're doing and the good things with their legislation is what we do with our legislation. It's making sure that this legislation is done right.

 

I applaud the minister and government, this is the type of legislation we need to do to make sure – I also listened to the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands, and not too often me and him agrees, by the way, but this time we kind of do. There are a lot of regulations here and I'm a little bit nervous of what can happen, once you pass a bill like this, what can happen in regulations. Sometimes I think we should look at making sure that the proper regulations are put in place.

 

Like I said earlier, I agreed with every part of the intent of this bill, what I read with the intent of this bill, but there are also regulations there that can be stretched a little bit too far. One section opens the door to everything. Opens the door to having a camera anywhere at all that a person can view. I don't know the privacy. The minister mentioned that it's only a view of plates, that's the intent, but what will the regulations say? That's where I think we need to really have a look at this bill.

 

Mr. Speaker, again, safety trumps everything. Safety is what we should be here for. The best interests of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the reason we sit in this House of Assembly and it's the reason we debate these bills. We'll disagree a little bit back and forth, but I think yesterday what I heard, most people want to make sure that it's done right.

 

I'd like to see some changes in this bill and I'd like to see the regulations. I'd like to see the government, the Opposition, the Third Party and independents work together to make sure that we do it properly. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. I think that's what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to see when we do a lot of legislation in here.

 

Like I said, when I was on the other side, we did, our government of the day, the PC government when I was there, we had a lot of legislation come through that the details weren't there and I always wondered: Where are the details? They'll say that will be brought up later and stuff like that, but I think it's a time for us, as legislators, to ask important questions and make sure that what we want to see in regulations are in the regulations because sometimes – listen, this minister's intent today could be great. That minister today could be another minister tomorrow. This government today could be another government within a couple of months, who knows, things change. So, it's good to have it done properly in the first place.

 

I want to make sure that all the regulations that are in this, that people have input. I'm not an expert. We have a Member there from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, he was out on the road and saw what people do, saw what regulations, saw what needed to be done, but I bet you if he was an RNC officer, there are a lot of times when, if there was a camera, they would have given a person a speeding ticket, and nothing, that's it, they got the speeding ticket. But when he hauled that person in, he might have changed his mind and maybe said, listen here, hold on now. Let me help you out here or do something – there'd be a reason. Not every time there's a reason for speeding because there is no reason for speeding, but it puts the human aspect into it.

 

Again, one part of this we talked about today is going through red lights. Now, how many times have people in this Legislature have come to an intersection and say how did that accident happen? Somebody had to run a red light. Normally, if you run a red light it's because you're not paying attention. You're distracted by something or you're just not paying attention; you never looked up and saw the light was red.

 

Well, that can happen. That can happen and that's another good part of this legislation. I have no problem with that, but I have a fear of this legislation just opening the door to put cameras everywhere. I know, and probably I'm like some of them here, I come from the old school and everything else. Maybe that's the way we should go, I don't know, but let's talk to people that have this legislation. Let's look at what's happening in BC. Let's look at what's happening in Alberta. Let's have a look at what's happening in Ontario.

 

The Member for Lake Melville mentioned about those ladies that were there today; there are many more like them. Let's make sure that if we're going to do legislation that we do it right so that they don't have to come to this Legislature any more.

 

We've seen it too often. I stood in this House when we talked about impaired driving and the legislation. I have to applaud everyone that spoke that day. I think there were – I don't know how many speakers. I think everybody wanted to get up and talk and we had the gallery full.

 

Do you know what the one nice thing about it was? We all agreed, we made changes and the changes will work in the future so that people from MADD don't need to worry. We'll always have to worry about our loved ones out in vehicles, but hopefully we can do something to make their lives safer. That's what we're here for. Let's do the legislation and let's make sure we do it right.

 

At the end of the day, somebody says, oh my God, you're delaying this or you're going to try to delay it. That's not so. We don't want to delay anything. Let's do it right, get it done as fast as we can to make sure that the right legislation is in for the safety of everybody. That's what it's all about.

 

I say it every now and then when I get up that I have two little grandchildren and I think the world of them. There's nothing I would do to make sure that their lives and my loved ones and everyone else's loved ones are safe. Let's do a piece of legislation, let's do it right and make sure we do it so we don't have people having to come here to the House of Assembly and protest or hope something is done right. Let's do it right in the first place.

 

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a part of the changing times. Legislation years ago – I've seen some changes in this House of Assembly. I'll soon be going on 12 years in this House of Assembly and I've seen a lot of changes here and, you know what, most of them are good. They're good changes. I applaud government, I think there's so much good stuff in this that I want to see, but I think we have to do it right and make sure we do it. I know we're going to do it for the right reasons and that's the safety of our loved ones of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Thank you very much.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER (Reid): The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

 

MR. BRAGG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis was talking about being old school. I don't think he's much older than me and probably the same age. You talk about cameras. I couldn't help but think – and I try not to look at the hon. Member, but the old saying was a picture was worth a thousand words. We're up here today to debate the Highway Traffic Act, Bill 5.

 

Safety always and must be the priority. For anybody who's driving, who's working on the roads, you have to think safety. Safety has to be always number one. We all agree with that for sure. The hon. Member talked about the old school and where it's going to be with privacy. I would question that because if you look around this room right now, there are cameras looking at us. You walk up the corridor, there are cameras looking at us. If you're driving on the road, almost every second vehicle right now has a dash cam, so there are cameras looking at us. There are traffic cams and there are highways cams. There are cameras everywhere today in our society.

 

I'd say if you were in New York City right now, you cannot make a step without 10 different pictures of you on a camera. So, would cameras be everywhere? I don't think that with our geography, you're going to see cameras everywhere. But will you see cameras in areas where we have major concerns? The hon. Member over there for Mount Pearl - Southlands talked about the school bus – major concern. A major concern to know that someone would pull out into the street and pass a school bus with a flashing red light.

 

Every week, I drive about a thousand kilometres. For some people, that may be a year's driving for them, what I drive in a month. Every week, I drive a thousand kilometres. We leave here when the House closes, there are four or five of us from Central and we drive out into our districts. I can guarantee you, the cameras that would come into effect will slow down the traffic.

 

The major thing that I see is speed and distracted drivers. I don't do a survey, but I drive a lot, and you can ask any Member here who's constantly on the highway. Our Trans-Canada is probably the safest time now it's ever been. You heard the Minister of Transportation talk earlier about the upgrades that have been done to the highway. Our highway is probably in the best condition you've ever seen it for years.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. BRAGG: But the best conditions bring excessive speed, and anybody here who has been on the highway can see it. The Member opposite there drives out as far as Clarenville to go home. I'm sure if he's driving 100, it's like he's parked on the side of the road; 110, you may keep up with it, but I can tell you, a lot of traffic just zooms right by.

 

About four weeks ago, I was leaving and driving in to the city – I drove early one morning. I passed through my neighbouring community on the main road before I got to the highway. When I looked, a RCMP officer was pulled off on the road. It was 6:30 in the morning. I knew him so I just swung around and turned around and said: What's on the go? He said: I had reports of people doing 140 and 150 kilometres through this small community, and my ambition is to stop it. This officer had to sit there that morning to patrol the highway. I know that's their job; I understand that, but the traffic cam would take care of that problem.

 

The minister has stats there, in construction zones, how fast people are going. Almost half the vehicles exceed the speed limit, and the minister was right: I dare you to go 50 in a construction because there would be cars and trucks piled up that much behind you, you'd almost think you're Mother Goose walking across the road with all the little goslings behind you. It's amazing, when you actually maintain the speed limit in a construction zone, how fast traffic piles up behind you.

 

Mr. Speaker, you do a lot of driving. You drive probably 10 hours to get home; you see it. I've seen people passing in places they should never pass. I've seen people doing some crazy things on the highway, and whatever we can do to increase highway enforcement, we have to do. We have to make every possible effort we can. What we're talking about here is a traffic-imaging camera. It'll be up, but it will be posted.

 

Almost everybody here probably drove the 401 at some point in their life. There's a big billboard, half the size of this building, that outlines your speed and what your offence is going to be. It tells you that this is patrolled by traffic cameras. That is hundreds and thousands of vehicles in a run or a day, a week and millions in the run of a year. It helps to patrol that.

 

We have the new pull-over legislation. I see it first-hand because I see tow trucks on the side of the road. I see RCMP officers with people pulled over. I see ambulances. The pull-over rule works. You slow down and you make room; you don't endanger anybody's life.

 

So, that's new. We've done a lot of things, and bringing in the camera, the imaging, I'll call it the speed camera, for the sake of enforcing our highways – who hear haven't heard in their districts: Where are the RCMP all the time? We don't see enough police force.

 

They have big areas to patrol. What a great way to patrol areas. There's not a week that we don't look at our television, at the news, and there is someone in a motor vehicle accident. Most times it's distracted driving or speeding. So how can we not up the hand and up the ante?

 

There may be some concerns. Sure, but the biggest concern has to be the safety of every single person that travels our highways 24 hours a day. If we're going to go backwards because we may think that we're old school – we're into a new era right now.

 

The Member opposite showed me a few minutes ago, the Northern Peninsula, a picture of snow on the highway. TW has a slogan that says: Snow Means Slow. In the next month or two I can guarantee you, you'll see cars and trucks bottom up in the ditch because snow did not mean slow to those drivers. You drive to the conditions.

 

I see it. I live it. There are times I go home and say I had a close call. Nobody measures the close calls, but when you're doing 100 or 110 one way and someone is doing 110, 120 or 130 the other way, you don't want to be a part of that impact.

 

I came upon an accident two or three months ago where the first thing the people who came there said: I can't believe how fast that car was going. The car was off the road out in the ditch.

 

You're on the highway, you drive and the road is not great and, all of a sudden, you go and it's the car that just passed you. Hopefully you'll see the RCMP with them pulled over, but more often than not you'll see them causing a problem down the lane. They may not put people off the road but you'll have people and their heart is going thump, thump, thump because they said I can't believe how close that was. They shiver.

 

We worry about moose when we're driving on the highway. That's the biggest thing for anybody who drives on the highway after hours is moose. We always worry about moose. I had a close call with one a little while ago. All I have to say is it wasn't the moose's fault because the moose was not in the car, but the car behind me was that close when I hit the brakes, I had to let go of the brake. I was almost better hitting the moose than worrying about the impact coming behind me.

 

If a camera is anywhere in this province – anywhere at all – it has to help how safe our roads would be. It has to control the traffic flow. What are you worried about? Let's be fair. You want to see how fast you can get to Gander or how fast you can get to Grand Falls, but you don't want to get there and it cost you the extra $500, because a tank of gas probably cost you $80 to start with. I know my wife, if I get caught with a ticket, I can tell you right now my allowance for the week is gone.

 

Mr. Speaker, I make fun of that but with this legislation what the hon. minister is trying to do and what we're trying to bring in is for the safety of everybody here. All your loved ones, people you don't know, people you'll never meet, it's all about their safety. How can we ever dissuade that? How can we vote against something that promotes the safety of our highways? That's something like telling the minister don't pave any roads, Minister. Don't waste your money paving roads because we're not putting up the cameras, the potholes will slow them down. We don't do that because that creates its own hazard.

 

What we're doing here now, I can't say it enough because I drive so much – and I challenge anybody here who's never driven across this province who can't say they had at least one close call, because someone coming towards them was distracted, passed when they shouldn't have and drove too fast. This is what this is about: controlling the traffic flow, keeping every single person here safe. We don't want to see any more headlines that say fatality last night, head-on collision.

 

The Veterans Memorial, I don't know if there's a weekend without there is someone off that stretch of road. I drove it with the minister. There are little cameras that tell you how fast you're going everywhere. I don't know if that's something that you monitor your speedometer by and say oh, 140 on mine, 140 on that, works great. That's not the intent. The intent is to tell you you're going too fast.

 

We could bring in speed bumps. Obviously, a lot of towns do it, on their own town roads where the traffic is slowed 30, 40 kilometres and you're putting in a speed bump. But this will be the speed bump for your wallet. Guess what? The Member opposite asked – and I had a briefing on this. The ticket goes to the registered owner. I may be driving the Minister of TW's vehicle and if that vehicle was caught in the radar, then the ticket is assigned to the registered owner but the registered owner knows who drove the vehicle. May lose his mind – let's be fair; you loan out your vehicle to someone and you get a fine come in the mail for $250 for speeding or passing a school bus, you're going to be mad but you're going to know who had your car that day or your truck that day or your vehicle that day.

 

I don't see how we can do anything here but look at this in a positive way. Will there be a little bit of negativity from it? Maybe so, but I'm sure if we save one life, just one life by putting this in there, the investment we've made is well worth any debate we will have in this House.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, on that note, I will take my chair. I would encourage everybody – first, I tell you, if you're not so sure what to do, if you should vote on this bill, drive to Whitbourne now. Go get in your car, drive to Whitbourne and back, you do 100 and get your passenger to count the vehicles that go past you and, like, blow by you. I challenge every person here. I'll actually take four in my car right now and we'll go do it, because you will come back here and you will say I cannot believe how fast people drive.

 

Anybody who can say any different than that probably never driven outside of the centre of this city and most people here, I would think, have driven outside the centre of this city. We're not on a raceway, we're on a highway. We're on a highway that needs to be protected and I think we're on the right move to make that protection.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's hard not to agree with these changes to the act. Safety is paramount and I think the minister said to keep the dialogue going on safety. Safety on our roads is a must.

 

The Member for Cape St. Francis actually mentioned a young man who got killed up on the highway on a bike; ran into a Kent truck. That was my brother and Jim's brother. That was about 10 years ago. That was on the last day of school. It was 27 degrees, blue sky, clear skies. He was riding home from down in Torbay, the school he taught at; going home to meet with his sons, take them swimming and start the summer off. He ended up being driven into a flatbed and hit here at the chest, breaking his neck. It's still hard to talk about it.

 

There's nobody who can relate to safety on the roads until you have someone who dies from that. I remember the call here at work. The longest drive I took from here to the Health Sciences. My brother and I, my family and our extended family watched my brother die. We had to make a decision to take him off life-support, and that's because of an accident on the highway.

 

Three years later, I'm working in my office again and I get another call: Mr. Dinn, come to the Health Sciences. Of course, what do you think is going to happen? They say: There's been an accident. Your wife and two daughters were in an accident.

 

So, I'm over there. They were T-boned while making a left-hand turn, which traffic has stopped to give them an opportunity to do. A car came down – we'll see it all on the way home tonight; we'll see cars and traffic that create those inside lanes where no lane exists – and my family were T-boned. All I get is: Get to the hospital; they've been taken there in an ambulance. I thank God there were no major issues there.

 

Until you experience this – and I hope no one ever has to because it is very sudden. You're enjoying the day, a great day, the last day of school and you never make it home because of road rage, someone speeding, someone making their own rules on the road. It is unbelievable when you think about it. We've heard stories here today about different incidents happening.

 

I applaud anything that we can do to make our roadways safer. As the minister said, we have to keep the dialogue going here because we will never make it as safe as we can, but we can continue to make it safer. I applaud this. Again, as regulations come out, we will have to see what comes out in regulations, but this is an issue so prevalent around here.

 

The Outer Ring Road, the Peacekeepers Way, Veterans Memorial Highway, you ride those roads any day and you see people speeding by, people running through construction zones without a care in the world other than getting somewhere two minutes earlier. You can drive at 10 kilometres, 20 kilometres more across the whole province and you're saving, what, a half-hour, at the end of the day? Anything we do that can improve safety on the road is certainly applauded.

 

I have to applaud Chief Boland.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. P. DINN: I applaud Chief Boland for what he's trying to do. This is not a knock at government, but with limited resources, you try to do the best you can. I know as a councillor in Paradise we looked at – and I think he implemented it with a couple of other municipalities since – bringing in and having the municipality purchase the car and have retirees manage the cars to try and deal with speeding and other violations on the road. He spoke, I believe, last night up at Kenmount Terrace and I think they are looking at forming a police and traffic committee. These are things we need to be doing.

 

I live in a district with four schools – or, sorry, five; I have four K to six and one K to four. It was mentioned already today, you have young kids going off to school – I always dread the first day and the last day because they have no cares in the world. You have a four-lane highway and for whatever reason the bus stops, puts out its arm, but the other two traffic coming the other way for some reason feel they don't need to stop. I've seen so many near misses. I can't even imagine a parent with a child who's gone off to school and expects to arrive there and come home safe that never makes it. It really hits at the core of why we need to create as safe of an environment as we can. The highways are a huge one to address – the highways with speeding, with cellphones. It's crazy.

 

The only thing with this – and, of course, we went through this as well in Paradise in terms of cameras. I know we installed cameras in all our public areas and we went through quite the process on that in terms of whether they're able or not to be there. I believe cameras are a deterrent. I think they will help address some of the issues. I don't think you can replace the value of actually having human resources right on the ground with a patrol car in the area. It's hard to replace that. Like I said, I applaud Chief Boland on what he's trying to do there.

 

We get up here in the House – and I won't keep you long because I know we're nearing the end here today – and we talk about the 1.6-kilometre busing. We talk about that from a safety point of view. I know we all have safety paramount and we work with what we have, but this here on the highways, I would suspect most of our people get killed on the highways now. There are a lot of deaths on our highways and 99.9 per cent of them, I'm sure, are avoidable.

 

As we push this through, in terms of approval by all of us, I can't see it being denied in any way. As we move forward with this, I really hope we take an effort to look at the regulations as we develop them to ensure they address what we want them to address, to ensure that they don't affect another group in a negative way because, of course, we have to deal with privacy and confidentiality.

 

We'll probably catch the speeders who sped for one time. As we know, there are others out there who continue to go on and on and on. We pull them over, and they got thousands of dollars in fines. Again, I know we continue to improve safety and I think we need to look at some of those individuals and see how can we keep them off the roads.

 

I know we no longer do the yearly vehicle inspections. Some of that may be an opportunity there, because I've heard some of the cars on the roads, they don't know how they're on the roads. Some of the stuff we might have to backtrack on, but the bottom line is ensuring the highways are the safest they can be for all who are on them.

 

I can only say, having gone through two highway-, roadway-related incidents which resulted in the death of my brother and Jim's brother and – he's still with us everyday, but all avoidable, all avoidable. I wanted to say that. More than speak to the bill, to be honest with you, I just wanted to remember him. Again, as we move forward, let's make these the safest highways we can have.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'm glad to rise to offer some insights or some different perspective because, in a sense, the stories we hear tonight – and I take my hat off to the Member opposite for telling his story – some of these are very difficult.

 

I go back to the comments from the Member for Lake Melville. Our job in here is to lay out a rationale for a piece of legislation, and that is what I would hope to do from a variety of perspectives.

 

If you look at the causes of fatalities on the roadways in this province, three factors, three features seem to be prevalent, and they are highlighted, one or all of them, in pretty well every incident that you hear from the RNC or the RCMP when they issue statements – albeit, limited usually – on the nature of the accident. They talk about alcohol being a factor, they talk about seat belts or lack of seat-belt usage being a factor, but they also talk about speed.

 

The principal aim around the camera technology is to provide a solution to some driving infractions which are just simply down to careless ignorance or disregard of some of the, what I would call, low-speed rules of the road. The other biggest, single factor is around speed. The rationale behind the cameras is they are basically an extension of enforcement.

 

The technology, I was actually amazed when the original debate around St. John's and the city council putting in cameras came up. These had actually been established as techniques in my previous country some years prior to my leaving. Highway cameras, speed cameras in the UK are the norm, to the point where the number of speeding tickets they issue is fairly steady. The number of speeding incidents on the main highways has actually been significantly reduced to the point where they've actually been able to redeploy law enforcement resources away from these main trunk roads because, basically, they have become self-policing.

 

One of my staff in the department went on a trip to the UK and, as part of that trip, had to travel from the north of England to the south. It was a five-hour journey along one of those motorways. Unbeknownst to him, he collected seven speeding tickets on the way simply by being ignorant of the existence of these cameras. The technology is sophisticated. It relies on number plates. In the UK it's a little bit different, they have number plates on both ends of the vehicle. So they have options with bidirectional technology which we wouldn't necessarily be able to use here.

 

They are calibrated and they allow 10 per cent in the UK. That's what they have been set at. Ten per cent over the speed limit, you're okay, 11 per cent you get dinged. The other thing about them is they are adjustable. For example, if you have overhead gantry signs, which are common in the UK, which denote a change in speed limit because of road conditions – and these are able to be done on the fly in metropolitan areas – the speed cameras automatically reset to the new speed limit plus the margin. They have reduced the number of accidents, reduced the need for policing and they have generated a modest amount of revenue, by the look of it, from Canadian travellers.

 

From my own perspective, the rationale there is self-evident, but I'd like to bring a slightly different view because, for three decades, I was related to the calls that the Member opposite would have received. I spent a lot of my working career in emergency departments. Indeed, sitting here listening to some of the stories and particularly the one from my colleague from Green Bay, reminded me of some incidents I really would rather forget.

 

It's interesting that even just thinking about that now means I have to take a deep breath because that was my first job as a resident in emerg. It was certifying an 11-year-old girl dead on her first day of school, hit by a speeding traffic car, and I can still see that to this day.

 

The issue for me then as a physician was if this was a public health crisis, I could see medical officers of health actually declaring it as such. If you look, we have had provinces declare public health crisis on opioid deaths. They are dwarfed in this country by deaths related to alcohol, but we hear nothing. Even those are dwarfed by deaths on the road, yet we do not have the same outcry around public health about the careless use of the most deadly weapon any of us will come to possess.

 

You hear about gun regulation and gun legislation. The most dangerous weapon, and we all have them, is the vehicle you get into in the morning. It takes a moment's distraction, a moment's thoughtlessness to wreak absolute havoc on somebody else more than likely. Because we made vehicles relatively safe for their occupants, it's the pedestrian and the motorcyclist who will come into the hospital literally in pieces as a consequence of that.

 

If you want to see the best of Newfoundland and Labrador driving, go to Birchy Bay Resource Road on a Friday afternoon. You will see a mix of pickups, cars, bikes, ATVs. They're all puttering along at 20 to 40 kilometres an hour, people wave at each other and they pull over to let you pass. You get off Birchy Bay Resource Road on a Friday afternoon and go to the Road to the Isles and it's like Death Race 2000, that movie that they don't show anymore because it's politically incorrect. It's horrendous.

 

I dive 3,900 kilometres a month, on average, most of it is highway driving. I would say 80 per cent of it is highway driving. I keep thinking I ought to buy a dash cam. I could do one of those YouTube Russian driving style videos of the idiocy I've seen on the road.

 

But the other perspective I bring now is less emotional in a sense because it's not as personal and not as literally as visceral between the sights, the touch and the smell. As Minister of Health, we have a significant public health issue. We have not chosen to address it as a public health crisis, but every day we allow speeding cars on the road without any further deterrent, we run a risk that is needless. You see the evidence of that risk in the number of times phone calls, like the Member opposite received, are made from emergency rooms, literally, every day in this province. It's not just one emergency room in St. John's doing it. There are emergency departments all over the province, each and every day, who are dealing with this issue.

 

We have three of these causes that we can identify, these risk factors; this deals with one, which is probably in my experience, the commonest, that simple lack of attention to the speed limit. The laws of physics are immutable, as far as we know. For every increment in speed, you stand a greater chance of suffering death or dismemberment. Your risk of death as a pedestrian being hit by a car doing 30 kilometres an hour is half what it is when you get to 50 kilometres an hour. At 80 kilometres an hour, if a car hits you, your chances of survival are pretty well zero – pretty well zero.

 

So, speed and death and dismemberment are linked. The longer we leave it in an environment where we are permissive – driving is a privilege, not a right. People who are not prepared to follow the rules must take the consequences.

 

This system, this change to the regulation, allows that to happen. The technology, the image-detection systems, this is old technology. This is not even piloting technology or demonstration projects. You can buy there off the shelf. If you want to look at it as a cost-benefit analysis simply on the cost of the cameras, it's $150,000 to $200,000 to buy a camera. Given the experiences on Peacekeepers highway when the RNC did a traffic stop, they were handing out 45 tickets an hour.

 

You just think how long it would take for a camera to generate its return on investment. I actually did the calculation on the back of an envelope, pretty much like the way some previous governments have designed hospital builds, but it worked out that in three weeks, that camera would be a pure revenue generator. That doesn't take any account of the real driver behind this, which is the price to the health care system, if you want to do it in dollars. The real price you saw when the Member opposite got up and he has a box of tissues by there and he wants to remember his brother who doesn't come home for supper anymore. That's the driver for this piece of legislation and this amendment. It makes absolute sense and I would argue that any delay on this is totally unjustifiable on any moral or ethical grounds whatsoever.

 

Given the hour of the day, however, I'm going to stop on that point. This is an ethical imperative, as well as a medical one.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that we adjourn debate.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that we adjourn debate.

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

 

Carried.

 

The hon. Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), I hereby give notice that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12.

 

Considering the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that the House do adjourn for the day.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House does now adjourn.

 

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.

 

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow, 1:30 in the afternoon.

 

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.