September 17, 2020
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 46
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Are the House leaders ready?
Government House Leader ready?
Opposition House Leader ready? Yes.
Third
Party House Leader ready? Yes.
The
independents ready?
Okay.
Admit
strangers.
Order,
please!
Okay,
we're going to open the broadcast now.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today, we have Members'
statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Lake Melville,
Stephenville - Port au Port, Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Labrador West,
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to advise that Muriel Andersen has just made a wish and blown out the
candles on her birthday cake, and she did it in typical independent style – all
on her own. She also raised her six children on her own, in Makkovik, as her
husband had passed away at a young age.
The
respect for her determination is such that she is known across Labrador as Big
Gram or Aunt Mu.
Born
before the 1918 pandemic, she grew up feeling the devastating effects of that
outbreak. She is now living through another at the long-term facility in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay. Usually, members of her family and friends gather to celebrate
with this remarkable woman on her birthday. I have attended previous events
bringing greetings and, most importantly, her favourite – root beer. While
visits in recent months have been limited, she continues with her positive
outlook and infectious smile.
Ms.
Andersen has also shaped the composition of this House of Assembly, having been
the mother or grandmother of three MHAs, including the present Member for
Torngat Mountains.
I
therefore ask all my colleague in this Legislature to congratulate Muriel
Andersen on her 103rd birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
local food bank had closed due to COVID-19. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Council
3742 took on emergency food distribution in our community. At the height of the
pandemic, they saw a need and, without hesitation, created an efficient and
effective drive-through food distribution operation.
This
small team – Clyde Russell, Bob Miller, Conrad Benoit, Joe Eckert, Paul Kane,
Garfield Jesso and Tom O'Gorman – assumed responsibility for fundraising,
financial accounting, food ordering, donations, publicity and the safe operation
of the program. The team expanded the service to the Bay St. George area, where
food banks had also closed.
The team
networked regularly with a wide range of community partners and sponsors,
including Rotary, Town of Stephenville, Royal Canadian Legion, St. Stephen's
Parish, the Lions Club, Bay St. George Status of Women Council, Stephenville
emergency services, Food First NL and others. Throughout, our Food for Families
Program received outstanding community support with individual donations both
large and small.
Starting
April 17, the program ran for 12 weeks, served 572 families, distributed 13,500
pounds of food, costing $32,000. Volunteers expended 876 man-hours. This is a
prime example of community-minded people and organizations filling a critical
need in times of crisis.
I would
like all Members of the House to congratulate this wonderful group of volunteers
and all the people involved with this program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
acknowledge a leader from my district who, for his entire adult life, devoted
his life to the spiritually, socially, educationally and physically well-being
of our provinces citizens. I speak of Archdeacon Ron Lee, who in his 86th year
is still a very active citizen in our province.
From his
days as a young boy fishing in Petty Harbour to travelling the province as an
employee working on the Newfie Bullet, to travelling the Coast of Labrador
aboard the Kyle as an educator,
Reverend Ron Lee has been a pillar of strength and guidance, not only for the
parishes he served in, which number in the dozens, but for every other citizen
of those communities.
He has
been a leader in serving the people of our province in Labrador, the West Coast,
South Coast and Central Newfoundland, but it was the leadership role he took
after returning from retirement to serve the people of Bell Island as the
Anglican minister that I got to call him a friend.
Ron not
only was a major part of the building of a new church in the community, but was
a driving force in promoting inclusion of all citizens through the church's
outreach centre. Never one to shy away from making his views known, Ron would
look beyond the religious boundaries to ensure that all citizens' issues were
addressed on the island.
I ask
all Members to join me in thanking Archdeacon Ron Lee for his dedication and
service to the people of Bell Island, and our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I
recognize Peter Blackmore, an outstanding member of our community who has
dedicated his life to spreading kindness and generosity in any way he can.
Peter is
known for his love of fishing and is a pro at catching ouanancihe. Recently,
Peter was gifted fly-tying supplies from the family of a community member who
had passed away. Peter saw this as an opportunity to give back to the community.
He tied salmon and trout flies for a pay-what-you-can donation and all proceeds
would go to the Janeway Children's Hospital. His original goal was to raise
$500.
One day
he ran into a friend who told Peter about the birth of his son. Peter's friend
expressed that he was forever thankful that his son, who is now living a healthy
life, thanks to the role the Janeway Children's Hospital plays in the lives of
the people of this province. Hearing this, Peter decided he would do more. To
date, he has raised over $3,000.
Today, I
would like to acknowledge Peter Blackmore. I encourage all Members of this hon.
House to join me in recognizing his kindness and generosity and thank him for
his dedication to Labrador West and the greater community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I
honour a gentleman in my district who has been bestowed the Newfoundland and
Labrador Award for Bravery, Mr. Gary Briffett.
On
August 15, 2015, three children were playing on a raft on Terra Nova Lake. Wind
took the raft to the center of the lake. Two children were able to get back to
shore. One child, Jenna Phillips, was thrown into the lake and managed to hold
on to the raft for a little while.
People
on the shore were unable to get to the raft. An onlooker, Nelson Rose, had
noticed a WaveRunner on the beach in front of Mr. Briffett's cabin and went
directly there to ask for assistance. They launched the WaveRunner and raced to
the area of the incident.
By this
time Jenna had released her hold on the raft.
Mr.
Briffett jumped into the water and secured Jenna to his life-saving vest. Due to
the high winds, the WaveRunner overturned, sending them back into the lake.
Eventually they were able to get control of the WaveRunner and were able to get
back to safety.
I ask
the House of Assembly to join me today in giving Mr. Briffett a round of
applause for his heroism.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to acknowledge in this hon. House a gentleman who has dedicated his life to
sport in this province.
Carl
Lake has been a pillar in our provincial sporting scene since his early days as
a ballboy at St. Pat's Ball Park in St. John's in the late 1950s. After a brief
tenure as a player, Carl found his true love on the baseball field in 1967 when
he began umpiring games. From that point onward he became a fixture at St.
Pat's, either behind home plate or on the bases.
Local
games, provincial contests or national championships, Carl has been umpiring
baseball games in this province for 53 years. And on September 1, Carl
officiated his final contest at his beloved St. Pat's Ball Park.
Inducted
in 2006 as a builder in Baseball Newfoundland and Labrador's Hall of Fame, Carl
recently told the local media St. Pat's was his heaven. We should all be blessed
with Carl's advocacy for baseball and provincial sports in general, through his
time with local media and on his own website, SportspageNL.ca – please check it
out; it's a gem for local sports in our community.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating my friend Mr. Carl Lake on 53
years of dedication to the sport of baseball and for his continuous promotion of
local sports in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in congratulating
and thanking Carl Lake on his contributions to local sports.
Mr.
Speaker, Carl Lake is a pillar of the sporting community in this province. His
love and passion for all sports, especially baseball, has inspired many. Mr.
Lake recently retired after 53 years as an umpire in the province's baseball
community. I know players, coaches, fans and sports organizers will miss his
dedication and professionalism on the baseball diamonds.
Mr. Lake
has spent his life promoting local sport; thus, I believe it would be suiting to
take this opportunity to encourage all residents of the province to also support
local and amateur sport. From the soccer field to the hockey rink to Mr. Lake's
home on the baseball diamond, we should all follow his lead to encourage
volunteers and cheer on athletes whenever possible.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Congratulations to Mr. Lake on his contribution to sports in the province. His
long career and commitment to the sport are admirable. He's an inspiration to
all athletes and umpires and I am delighted to know that the little bit of
heaven that is St. Pat's exists in St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker, and play ball.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, today I acknowledge September 21 to 27 as International Week of the
Deaf.
This
occasion is celebrated by deaf communities around the world – individuals who
are deaf and hard of hearing and who share a common visual language. In Canada,
Mr. Speaker, that language is American Sign Language.
Newfoundland and Labrador deaf culture and American Sign Language enrich our
province's colourful personality. As Minister Responsible for the Status of
Persons with Disabilities, I am pleased to see this year's theme is “Reaffirming
Deaf People's Human Rights.”
Our
government recognizes that accessible communication is paramount in ensuring a
fully inclusive province where all citizens have equitable access to information
and opportunity. Access to sign language and services in sign language are
critical to the full realization of deaf people, and our province has shown true
leadership in this area.
In
keeping with our commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, which strengthens linguistic and cultural viewpoints of deaf
people, we were one of the first jurisdictions in the country to include
American Sign Language interpretation at COVID-19 media briefings.
During
International Week of the Deaf, I invite all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to
recognize the language and culture of the deaf community, as well as
accomplishments and contributions that the deaf community make throughout the
province.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in signing happy
International Week of the Deaf.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and for
teaching us a little piece of the American Sign Language to celebrate this week.
As the
minister already acknowledged, September 21 to 27 is known as International Week
of the Deaf.
This
year's theme of “Reaffirming Deaf People's Human Rights” allows citizens who are
part of the deaf community to know that their rights are respected and that they
have our support and there's a good system in place for them.
The
province has made great strides to include American Sign Language in all
government media briefings. Access to government services for people with
disabilities is critical and we still need to continue to do more for this
sector that is so important to our society.
I join
the minister in inviting all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to recognize the
language, culture, contributions and accomplishments of the deaf community right
here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and join him in
recognizing September 21 to 27 as International Week of the Deaf.
Reaffirming deaf people's human rights is essential in creating an inclusive and
a just society. I compliment the government's recognition of the importance of
accessible communication and its inclusion of ASL interpretation at COVID-19
media briefings.
With
this in mind, I call on government to go one step further and to take concrete
steps to address the systemic deficiencies outlined in the recent report by the
Child and Youth Advocate with regard to deaf education.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers.
The hon.
the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, COVID-19 has
tested the limits of small business in our province, across the country and
around the world. In the face of such challenges many local business have been
working hard to adjust – proving their resilience by pivoting in innovative ways
to continue to reach clients and serve both here and abroad. I would like to
take a moment to just highlight a few of these remarkable companies.
PolyUnity, a medical tech start-up formed by three Memorial University medical
students, has shifted its product offerings and are now using its technology to
develop personal protective face shields for front-line health care workers.
JRAS
Medical Inc. has recreated a version of its product which originally assisted
congestive heart failure patients in a clinical setting to now allow patients to
use it from home, reducing the risk of exposure to COVID at a clinic and
reducing patient load.
BioAtlantic Medical Services has recently increased its focus on automating
ventilators to help hospitals prepare for COVID-19. And TotaliQ has offered a
free version of its software aimed a sharing health and safety information
related to COVID-19.
These
are just a few examples of the adaptability of our local communities and
companies. We commend these leaders for their creativity and ingenuity to find
solutions together and adjust to our changing world. We will continue to work
with our province's innovation ecosystem.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I thank the entrepreneurs and the innovators
in this province for acting quickly and modifying their products and responding
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The
modifications and new products are helping people live in a COVID environment,
while the new services are helping ease service delivery for many medical
professionals. PolyUnity, JRAS Medical Inc. and BioAtlantic Medical Services are
just three examples, they are a true testament how our homegrown talent can
offer world-class needed products.
In this
COVID environment, creativity and flexibility has become a mantra of many. I'm
pleased to see our innovators leading the way.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I would
like to commend these companies for their efforts at stepping in and finding
ways to improve technology to help patients and health care workers maintain a
safe working and living environment during COVID-19. In light of the pandemic,
it's important that we increase our focus on local manufacturing solutions and
stimulate the growth of these innovative industries within our province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
minister suggested I was not doing my job as an advocate for the offshore unless
I had written to Mr. O'Regan. Knowing as she does that writing to O'Regan is
useless, I wrote to the prime minister instead on May 28.
Would
the minister table her request for specific offshore actions, along with the
federal responses?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
a very important issue to the families and to the workers offshore and, indeed,
to everyone here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We've been very focused on trying
to find solutions to this. We've written to and spoken with Minister O'Regan who
is the minister of Natural Resources, federally. We followed up with a letter in
April, which is all on our website by the way – followed up again in April; we
had multiple discussions over this period of time. We had a press conference in
May. We followed up again in June.
I'm glad
the Member finally wrote to somebody back in May, after our press conference,
but I will say while he's been focused on solutions, we've been focused – while
we've been focused on solutions, he's been focused on politics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. COADY:
There's your politics again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
It's interesting to note that my reference to writing to O'Regan being useless
didn't receive any rebuttal.
Yesterday, the Premier said every single day I phone the federal government and
hold their feet to the fire. Yet, he has no reassurance for offshore workers
worried about their jobs.
Is the
Premier getting a live person on the line or is he just getting voicemail?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks volumes to hear the laughter from the other side.
I will say, and it's been public, Minister O'Regan who is the federal minister
of Natural Resources, has said repeatedly that there will be aid coming, that
there will be solutions coming, he said that publicly. I take the man at his
word.
The
Premier has been very public in his support for the oil industry. He's been
speaking with Ottawa as well. We do anticipate something.
These
are very stressful times for workers, very stressful time for the industry. And
while we're focused on solutions, they're focused on politics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
It leaves offshore workers and construction workers to wonder when this
government will stop taking Minister O'Regan at his word. Is six months long
enough? Ten months? How long?
If the
Premier calls Ottawa every day, does he brief the minister on the call and can
she update us on today's call?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
I'm very
pleased to have the Leader of the Opposition and the PC Party finally – finally
– involved in this file. We've been involved for the last six months working
with industry, working with unions, working with workers, trying to find
solutions.
This is
a global pandemic and a global problem for the oil and gas industry. I'm glad to
have as much support as everyone in this province coming together to try and
support the oil and gas industry and the workers.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I will say that we have been very focused on finding solutions.
They're very focused on politics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
It leaves us to wonder where we are getting with these daily calls.
When the
media asked the Premier about support for the offshore, he said: That's with
Ottawa, not with me.
Is the
Premier giving up on those hard-working offshore and construction workers who
are about to lose their homes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That was
totally disingenuous. I think the people of the province understand that. Again
and again and again we have said to the Opposition – actually, we have said to
the people of the province, we've spoken with industry and we've talked to
workers. We've been working on a solution, and we've found some solutions.
Everything that we can do provincially we're doing. The Premier has said he's
looking to Ottawa for their support as well. They are a joint venture partner in
our offshore. They reap benefits of our offshore. As a matter of fact, all of
Canada does.
Again, I
say to the Member opposite, focus on the solutions like we are, not on the
politics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Speaking of solutions, the
Premier's Liberal friends in Ottawa are stalling on three major files: rate
mitigation, fiscal stabilization and help for the offshore.
If the
Premier can't deliver support for the offshore, how can people trust him to
deliver anything on the other major files?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS. COADY:
I tell you what's really
stalled, Mr. Speaker, is their involvement on any of these major files.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
I can tell you right now, Mr.
Speaker, they have not been involved in anything to do with rate management.
They put out a plan that didn't even add up. They have not been involved in the
oil and gas industry over the last six months. And I will say this: We put out a
plan last year on rate mitigation that was very fulsome. We have met with the
federal government. The federal government came out in February of this year. We
did an announcement on the cost of service delivery. Officials all throughout
COVID have been working.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I can hardly
hear myself speak, the chirping from the other side. I guess we're getting to
them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
But, Mr. Speaker, I will say
this: On every single one of those files we're very active, we're working for
solutions and we're finding them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister
of Finance, people are listening and they're getting tired of these empty
answers, empty questions, empty promises. People need more than what they're
listening to. You're pre-paying; you're empty, empty, empty.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Listen to the word, it's empty; there's nothing coming back. They're waiting for
answers.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
Your question, yeah, right
on.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday
evening Minister O'Regan was –
MR. SPEAKER:
Proceed.
MR. PETTEN:
– touting the federal
investment for a safe tree planting during COVID-19 and said: There have been
many priorities in the past several months. While I understand the environment
is important, I suggest the minister's time would be better spent supporting our
offshore workers.
I ask
the provincial minister: Who do you agree with, Minister, Mr. O'Regan or me?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, Mr. Speaker, I could
give a very glib one-word answer to that, but I think this debate deserves a bit
more. What I would suggest is that we continue to work for solutions on these
very crucial issues. It wasn't lost on any of us on this side about the fear
that's felt by the workers out in that sector. I know it's not lost on the
federal government and I know it's not lost on the Members opposite as well.
One
thing that I would strongly suggest is that this is a matter that's beyond
politics and if you truly want to help the situation, I would appreciate maybe
some concrete solutions or suggestions and not just the politics that's going
on.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
he agrees with me. If we're playing politics – we're trying to get answers,
we're trying to work on solutions and all we're getting back is leave it with
us, we're working on it. People are getting tired of those answers, Mr. Speaker.
The
federal Liberals are promoting tree planting and other green initiatives, but
this will not put our workers back to work, Mr. Speaker. Liberals are Liberals,
whether they're in Ottawa or in our province.
Is the
federal minister lending assistance or is he unwilling to support his own
province? Which is it, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to see that the Member opposite sounds very pro-environment when he complains
about tree planting. One thing I would say is that we continue to work on this,
continue to –
MR. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
You asked a question, I'll
give you an answer. Please stop chirping.
Mr.
Speaker, we're continuing to work on this, but what I can tell you is that
they're complex issues and they require complex solutions. We're working with
the operators, we're working with the federal government and we'll continue to
work on getting solutions to this.
I say to
the Members opposite: I have yet to hear during one question or one debate this
week, one simple suggestion or solution of what you would do to help fix this
problem and that we all face.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Outside
of the environment, I'm also worried about people losing their homes. Maybe the
minister and his government could share the same concern.
I say to
the minister, there's no shame in admitting you're over your head. Have you
spoken to the federal minister since his three-day Cabinet retreat, and was the
offshore even on the agenda?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, if you want to
talk about politics, we're three questions in and now they've resorted to
lobbing insults. I'll come back to the same point; these are all very complex
situations. We're all facing this together, yet I have not heard one suggestion
from the Members opposite about what they would do to fix this.
MR. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Member wants an answer,
yet he can't stop talking long enough for me to try to give him an answer.
MR. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
would say to the Member: I challenge you to stand up and ask the question and
say one thing you would do to help fix this situation.
MR. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Go ahead, ask the question –
ask the question. You know nothing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
You know nothing. One
solution – one. One concrete thing. What are you doing?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
Members to restrain themselves.
We're
going to proceed with Question Period, and I ask Members to restrain themselves
a little bit here. Members have a right to ask questions and Members have a
right to answer and be heard in doing both.
Next
question.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, there has been a concerted effort to ensure that women have jobs in
the skilled trades. With the crisis in the oil industry, jobs for women in the
industry are especially vulnerable.
What
specific plan does the minister have to ensure jobs are protected for women in
the skilled trades?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
would go back to an answer that I gave earlier in the week when I responded to
the Member because I appreciate the concerns that she's hearing from members of
her community and, certainly, I appreciate the ones that I'm hearing from
members of my community.
Right
now we need to continue working on getting a fix to this. When we talk about job
creation, we have to realize that the financial ask that has been made of this
province is simply too substantive for this province to take on. We will
continue to work to ensure that jobs are out there for the women and men of this
province, but they have to be within range of something that the province can
actually do.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, that's no answer to whether there is a plan.
At the
rally yesterday, I spoke to two women. One, she lost her job on West White Rose.
The other, who fears her job is in jeopardy.
I ask
the minister: Do these women have to worry about their future, or will you
commit to actually instituting a policy of community benefit agreements?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
would say to the Member opposite is that we have some good news. Everything you
suggested is actually already in place. There are women's work plans that form
part of these community benefits. There are women's work plans that fall under
Transportation and Infrastructure when it comes to these projects.
The fact
is that these things are already there and we'll continue to work to ensure that
women are getting these jobs.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
He asked for concrete suggestions and solutions. I've offered one. They are not
in place.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, studies prove that women have been the hardest hit by
the COVID pandemic; yet, ironically, the new Premier has made the decision to
remove the stand-alone Status of Women department.
I ask
the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women: How can a decision to water
down such an important department be justified at this critical and vulnerable
time for women.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
take a little bit of exception to the question. What I'll say to the Member is
since I've been in this portfolio, the 19th of August, I've been travelling
quite a bit around this province. I have sat down with 11 of the 13 Indigenous
organizations, a number of women's centres and do you know what I heard? People
were very pleased. They recognized the intersectionalities between the Status of
Women and Indigenous women talking about important topics like missing and
murdered Indigenous women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Just lunchtime, Mr. Speaker,
I sat down with my federal counterpart discussing gender equality.
Back to
the Member's earlier question, Mr. Speaker, when she says there is none. I was
the individual that sat down with three Atlantic ministers and Newfoundland and
Labrador was the lead on the gender equity diversity employment plans. Mr.
Speaker, we led that for our offshore and our resource-based.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a constituent who's packing up his young family and leaving the
province to find work elsewhere. My constituent worked on the West White Rose
Project but, as we all know, the project has shut down and its future is in
question. Fortunately, he found work at the fluorspar mine.
Mr.
Speaker, my constituent, a resident of this province with a young family, the
future of this province, was replaced by an out-of-the-province worker allowed
to come back under the guise of an essential worker.
Can the
minister tell me why a willing, capable resident of this province cannot find
work?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was
summoning your attention. I appreciate your patience.
This is
an important question. I cannot speak to specifics of an individual case, but if
there is a particular breach of a labour standard, if there's been a replacement
of a worker that's in contravention of labour standards, this is a matter that
can be brought forward. The specifics of this particular case on its face are
disturbing; however, we would have to identify the pure facts and examine them
on their face.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, our initiative and our priority here in Newfoundland and
Labrador is to train Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for local jobs; that
training initiatives have been very successful. While I'm very pleased to hear
that the hon. Member's constituent was able to find alternative work, we always
want to make sure they're able to keep that employment and that they're trained
in the best possible skills to be able to do so.
If there
are specifics around this employment circumstance which need further
investigation, I would be happy to receive further information from the hon.
Member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, the minister did not hear what I had said. This gentleman was
replaced by an out-of-province worker.
Why is
it that we continually hear stories of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not
being able to get a job in their own province because they are replaced by
out-of-province workers? Minister, how do I convince this individual and the
thousands of others like him not to leave our province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for the great question. As the minister before me spoke, if
this is an individual case you want to discuss and take it outside this office,
I'm more than willing to talk about that.
I don't
know the qualifications of the person you're talking about. I don't know the job
that they were looking for so I can't speak to the specifics, but yesterday in
this House I did outline some numbers that showed that 95 per cent of the
projects we have ongoing in this province are being employed and worked on by
local Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Since the middle of March how many individuals
have been granted exemptions to enter Newfoundland for work?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The
travel exemption is all I can speak to. We don't have a breakdown
comprehensively of the reasons from the early days. We are collecting that now.
I can certainly go back and supply that figure.
The last
exemption figure I saw for all travellers who were allowed into the province
over the course of the entire pandemic is 16,000 or thereabouts, but I can
provide a detailed breakdown to the Member opposite without any difficulty.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, of those individuals who have been granted an exemption and entered
Newfoundland for the purpose of work, how many were allowed to proceed directly
to the workplace?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, that depends on the nature of the work. If they were
essential workers and deemed essential, then they are required to isolate for 14
days, with the exception of the period when they are on site. At that time, they
are required to observe COVID-19 precautions. There is an occupational health
and safety oversight and a requirement for them to do that. No one is allowed to
roam freely.
I do not
have the breakdown of those figures as to which might be essential workers. I
can certainly try and get that for him.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
I would expect if people are
entering this province to work, that the Department of Health should know where
they are – they're working alongside Newfoundlanders, Minister.
If
individuals are permitted to enter our province to work, I ask the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure: Where exactly are they working?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, that's a bit of
a broad question. Where would they work? It could be in the medical field, could
be in the labour field, could be knitting, could be sewing, could be cooking –
any number of areas, I'm thinking, Mr. Speaker. Unless they call me and tell
where they were reporting to exactly, I would have no idea in this world.
I trust
the Department of Health medical people that would give the proper exemptions to
the work site in which these people go, but where they actually go –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAGG:
They could be a lightkeeper,
Mr. Speaker. They could be someone who works on a boat; they could be digging a
ditch – any number of options in this province where people could come in and
work.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
I would suggest that they're
probably knitting stones for the Premier to turn.
I ask
the minister: Is he okay with the amount of carpenters that are working over in
the Corner Brook facility? Does he think that it's okay for carpenters from
Quebec to work in that facility with so many unemployed carpenters here in
Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite once again for his question. We went down this road
yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in which I gave a number, but this was quite specific in
the West Coast hospital. This number, as I stated yesterday – and I'll table
this; I'll actually take a picture and text it to you if you like, if you don't
want to wait for the tabled document.
The West
Coast hospital: 30,265 hours worked; 27,901 hours were worked by Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, 92 per cent. I do not have the actual breakdown of who picked
up nails or who drove in nails, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
a fairly straight-forward question so hopefully I'll get a simple answer to it.
This past February Trades NL wrote the then minister responsible for Labour
requesting a jurisdictional scan across the country to look at best practices
for Labour Relations Boards. He got a response that this would be taking place
as soon as possible.
A
similar letter was written to the current minister, so I ask the minister a very
simple question: when will this scan be completed? I'm just looking for a month,
one of the 12 months and perhaps a year.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
I think the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, is trying to ply me into a glib answer or
to a funny answer which I will not provide him because it is a serious, serious
issue.
What I
will say is that I respect and appreciate the hon. Member's intervention. It is
important to keep apace of best practices in other jurisdictions. In fact, I
would suggest that we do this kind of analysis on an organic or a rolling basis.
It's not meant to be a one-off.
Quite
frankly, Mr. Speaker, I'm engaged in that right away. As soon as I have a
result, rather than give a specific tombstone timeline, what I'll say to the
hon. Member in respect to the office that he holds and the service that he
provides to this House, I will share that information with him directly as soon
as it's done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
I thought it was a simple question. Even give me a quarter. If it's going to
take place in the third quarter, next year, whatever.
When
will the scan occur? Because it's apparently been happening since February.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member does catch at a disadvantage in the sense that if I
were to say that I knew the exact date of the completion of a task, then the
task would have to have already been completed. If you say that you know exactly
when a job will be done, it means that you know when the job will be finished.
I would
like to do this as soon as possible, but for me to give sort of a rhetorical
flourish of, oh, I can guarantee you it will be done by December 1, that would
disingenuous, Mr. Speaker. It will be done when it's done properly and done
right. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I will share that
information with him at its earliest opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People
are worried about their homes, their cars and their families' future. How would
you feel if you were in this situation? In almost all provinces in this country,
some level of unlocking pensions prior to the retirement eligibility has been
opened. Consultations finished September 30.
With so
many people waiting desperately for an answer, how long will it take to see
action on this issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
MS. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much the question.
To date,
six jurisdictions in Canada allow some form of unlocking. No provinces have made
special accommodations for COVID-19. This is a very complex issue. The last time
we did consultations, for example, most parties were not interested. Again,
we've received over 70 submissions and I look forward to receiving the
recommendations of the consultations. I'm confident then a report will come to
the House, and changes to legislation, if recommended.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, recently the Labour Relations Board accidentally sent the names of
Grieg workers who signed union cards to Grieg, and several of those workers were
let go before the vote could take place.
I ask
the Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour: Will he commit to introducing an
amendment to the Labour Relations Act
to reinstate automatic card certification, which was removed in 2014, so workers
who want to unionize are protected?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
There is
an independent investigation of a potential privacy breach. I would not, as a
minister, wish to prejudge what the outcome of an officer of Parliament's
investigation would be. However, there is clear evidence of a serious situation
enough that the chairperson of the Labour Relations Board itself did indeed
provide communication of an action plan related to this incident, as well as the
Privacy Commissioner conducting an investigation.
However,
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the electronic versions of certification cards
were a COVID-19 response. As I understand it, if there is a suggestion that a
privacy breach could not have occurred if there was card certification in some
form, then I don't think the hon. Member has an awareness of the circumstances
around this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Education when was the English School
District's May 27 report discussed at the Cabinet table. The minister replied he
didn't believe it was discussed. The report indicated the district needed three
inputs from the government to design a plan, and that a return of all students
to class would require additional staff and infrastructure.
I ask
the minister for clarification. Is he telling us that given the calls for a plan
at that time, and given that a report existed seeking government input with
significant financial implications, this report was never discussed by Cabinet?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the report that
was provided, (a) on the cover letter, (b) on the conclusion of the report,
states very clearly that the report was intended for further dialogue, further
consultation with other stakeholders in the development of a plan. That's
exactly what happened.
The
report went to the Department of Education on May 27 and the first week of July
there was a plan introduced, Mr. Speaker, that took the wide spectrum of
possible solutions that were contained in the report and analyzed those,
consulted with stakeholders and put a plan together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
still no further ahead on that one, but considering that it specifically asked
government for input, I would assume it's one of the stakeholders: government.
I ask
the Minister of Education: Is he content that in at least one classroom in this
city, 24 students and their teacher are crammed into a poorly ventilated small,
windowless classroom with a little over 16.5 square feet per person, which I
believe is less than what is permitted by fire regulations? How is this safe?
How is this even acceptable under COVID-19 measures?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I believe the
Member, in his pursuit of asking people for pictures of unsafe conditions in
schools, was presented with this particular case. I know that he brought it to
the attention of the English School District.
He was
advised that the classroom had mechanical ventilation. I remember in a
conversation that the Member had with me that he was saying are windows a good
substitute for mechanical ventilation. Well, this classroom has mechanical
ventilation. It seems like he's had a change of heart, Mr. Speaker.
The
English School District had gone in, made alterations in that classroom, made
changes in the classroom and have indicated that it seems that both teachers and
students were happy with the changes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for a quick question and
quick answer.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Mr. Speaker, Labrador West's
economy is growing. The problem is that our hydro capacity is maxed out. We need
more electricity.
The
former PC government started the third-line project then cancelled it, while
this government sat on its hands on the issue for years. This project will bring
many jobs to both construction and the mining industry.
I ask
the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology: Will he commit to the project
to help our economy grow?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question from the Member opposite. I know how passionate he is
about it because he came to my office an hour and a half early for a meeting the
other day.
In
saying that, we had what I thought was a really good conversation about this. He
explained to me in great detail the demands that are being faced by Lab West and
I know that I've seen them first-hand from being up there.
What I
can commit to right now is understanding more about the needs, working with the
providers and trying to do more, but I fully realize that whether it's data
centres, whether it's mining – you name it – there's great opportunity there and
we need to maximize it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Yesterday I was asked to table the report by a consultant entitled
COVID-19 Economic Response Initiative Summary Report: Engagement
Process, Themes, and Responses. It's dated July of 2020. I did get a copy of
it to ensure that this House has a copy.
As
Members opposite and people around the province know, I did table earlier this
week, of course, the contingency analysis, the money that we've spent on COVID
as well. I'll be happy to put this before the Legislature.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
maintenance and upkeep of the roadway through the community of Cold Brook is the
responsibility of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Sections
of the roadway have been in a deplorable condition now for over five years and
need repairs and resurfacing. Children are required to ride school buses twice
daily over the roads where sections of the paved road are actually missing.
There have been a number of close calls where vehicles have had to swerve in
order to avoid driving over a section of roadway where the pavement is totally
missing. The residents of Cold Brook deserve better.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing, upgrading and maintaining the
paved road through the community of Cold Brook in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, we've heard a lot of discussion around school busing in different
communities and children not being able to get on the bus. I'm happy to report
that in Cold Brook, every child is able to get on the bus, the problem we have
is keeping the bus on the road. That's the problem. It's a little different
problem. In saying that, I want to thank the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure, who acknowledged the issue and my petition last time and has
agreed to look into this matter. I look forward to a favourable response.
Thank
you.
No
comment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Member opposite for the petition. I look forward to working with the Member to
see what we can do to rectify the situation there and other parts of the
province. Can't guarantee anything at this point, but guaranteed we'll look at
it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
petition is regarding the Route 520 roadwork. Route 520, also commonly known as
the North West River Road, has been in dire need of significant repair and
upgrading for many years. The communities of Sheshatshiu and North West River
use this road to work, shop and access health services at the Labrador Health
Centre. The road is in dire need of upgrades in various sections along the Route
520.
In the
spring of this year, these communities were advised by Transportation and Works
that work would be tendered for this construction season. September 1, local
leaders from Lake Melville were advised that the work to be tendered this year
was cancelled.
Community leaders are extremely disappointed and feel this cancellation will
even lead to further deterioration of Route 520 of the North West River Road.
Route 520 is alive with potholes, unsafe shoulders and ruts that create the
potential to hydroplane. This leaves portions of Route 520 unsafe to travel at
various times throughout the year and commuters really are concerned for their
safety.
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 address safety concerns along Route 520, and that
these portions of roadway can be repaired and upgraded before the end of the
2020 construction season.
Going
back to petitions, why is this important? It's important for two reasons: one is
about lives and the other one is about respect, Mr. Speaker. Safety is a huge
factor. I've driven this road myself. It's really unsafe; it's riddled with
potholes, hydroplaning potential and sheets of ice. It's very hazardous.
A couple
of years ago I was driving down to North West River; I was in the passenger side
in the winter. We were driving; we weren't speeding. We hit this sheet of ice
and we actually ended up swerving and turning 360. The reason why we weren't
injured was because there was no other traffic on the road. Sheets of ice, very,
very hazardous.
It's not
just about North West River and Sheshatshiu accessing services in Goose Bay, as
this petition talks about, it's about connections. North West River and
Sheshatshiu have heavy connections to Goose Bay. These strong connections really
force people to travel back and forth on this unsafe road.
That
gets me to the second thing: the delay. This means another winter of unsafe
travel. That actually leads to respect. Why should Labradorians have to endure
unsafe travel? I'm going to use the words that were mentioned by the government,
the words: this matter is beyond politics. That was said about, what, 15 minutes
ago. You know something? The safety for our people to travel back and forth is
basically a matter that's beyond politics and something needs to be done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure, with a reply to the petition.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Member opposite for the petition.
Her
parting words or the shot across my bow was safety. Safety is considered to be
the number one priority in our shop, the safety of everybody who uses the roads.
The Member talked about turning around and doing a 360 or a 720 in the road.
Snow means slow, as does ice. I drove that road this year and the Member is
right, the contract was called back. The contract was cancelled because the
contract came in at almost double the price – not good value.
Mr.
Speaker, to find good value next year we're going to do more than what we
anticipated to do. We're going to bring that farther, we're going to upgrade
more of that road. It's not possible to be done this construction season and the
Member opposite would know that. We're into the middle of September now; you're
talking about a month. We cannot pull it together in a month, but we'll give
them our assurance that next construction season we plan to actually put a
tender out that would do more than was anticipated, so it will be better.
MS. EVANS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BRAGG:
I did not heckle the Member
opposite when she was speaking. I would expect some respect. I'm glad that the
recordings did not pick up what the lady said, because it's very personal to
every section of this highway that safety be paramount.
We know
by the memorials by the side of the road sometimes that things happen. We don't
accept all that responsibility. People have to drive to the conditions. They
have to. This year, more than ever we've seen higher speed limits than we've
ever seen before. You've seen it on the news. People need to maintain and drive
the conditions of the road, and pay attention to the conditions and the posted
speed limit.
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.
WHEREAS
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live
inside the English School District's 1.6-kilometre school zone, therefore do not
qualify for busing; and
WHEREAS
policy cannot override the safety of our children;
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 eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all
elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where
safety is a primary concern.
Mr.
Speaker, I presented petitions like this many times in this House. My colleague
from Conception Bay South has done the same. My colleague from Conception Bay
East - Bell Island has done the same and others have done the same from Harbour
Main.
If
anything though, this whole COVID pandemic and the schooling issues – which
there are many and I do commend government on trying to deal with it, but the
busing has highlighted the importance of safe transportation to and from school.
It's also highlighted the many pressures it puts on families and their children.
A
gentleman was on one of the talk shows earlier this morning, from my district
actually, and spoke about the areas where there are no sidewalks. Whether it is
eight or 10 or 12 kilometres or 1.6 kilometres, safety becomes a huge issue
getting two and from school, especially in the winter months when snowbanks are
high and there is absolutely nowhere for the children to walk.
I
realize, talking to others who I've spoken with, that not every school zone or
school district is created equal. There are some that have well-plowed sidewalks
for getting to and from school, but there are others where the walk to school is
really treacherous and dangerous.
We've
heard the word safety in this House already today. This is hugely a safety
issue. It would be terrible if a child is injured or killed trying to get to
school. It's not just about the 1.6, it's also about the families, maybe a
single family, a family working shift work. Getting children to and from school
in a safe manner has to be paramount.
I call
on government, while we have had a great chance to look at the busing situation,
to now take a closer look at the 1.6 and the areas within this province where it
is not a nice to have but a need to have.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, individual residents, municipal leaders, including the Conception Bay
North Joint Council, have spoken to me repeatedly over the months about the
deplorable road conditions in the District of Harbour Main.
WHEREAS
the district is made up of many smaller communities and towns like Holyrood,
Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South River, North River, Roaches
Line and Makinsons who have roads in desperate need of repair and paving; and
WHEREAS
these roads see high-volume traffic flows every day and drivers can expect
potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many washed out areas along the
way;
We,
therefore, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned
call upon the House to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
immediately take the necessary steps to repair and repave these important
roadways to ensure the safety of the driving public who use them on a regular
basis.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very pleased to hear our Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure just state a few moments ago how safety is number one priority
for him as minister. If he truly means that, then I would expect to see some
immediate action with respect to the conditions of the roads that I have
mentioned.
In the
past 15, 16 months since my election one of the biggest issues I hear about from
my constituents are the roads. Many people, motorists, residents are getting
increasingly frustrated by government's inaction to address these concerns.
Individuals are upset with any lack of real assurances to them that necessary
restoration work will be undertaken, that work will be given the priority it
deserves. It's not only individuals I hear from. I have people calling, emailing
my office, but I also hear from municipal leaders.
I have
letters upon letters, Mr. Speaker, from so many municipal leaders throughout the
district. They are very concerned. They have reached out to the previous
minister of transportation and works indicating there has been an ultimate – and
a disregard for their legitimate grievances about the roads. Members of the
Conception Bay North Joint Council have also spoken to me. They've written at
length to the minister and yet there's no action.
Mr.
Speaker, we're calling upon this government and this new minister, who claims
the number one priority is safety – let's prove it and have some work be
commenced on these deplorable roads in the District of Harbour Main.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure, with a reply.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for the petition. Safety should be number one in everyone's
mind, not just mine and the department I represent. Safety should be number one
and you should drive to the conditions of the road.
I'm sure
the hon. Member living in her district would know Route 75 this year has seen a
substantial upgrade. Ten thousand cars a day use Route 75. We are investing in
Route 75 in the Member's district.
I drive
this province; I realize the conditions of the roads. There are over 10,000
kilometres, 700 kilometres in my own district alone, Mr. Speaker. If we could do
all the roads overnight and flick our fingers like that, we would. The thing is
we are tied to budget constraints.
As
everybody would know, we are going to debate a budget here on the 30th of
September. At that time, you will see actually what we have in our roads budget.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the questions in Estimates. There's a five-year
Roads Plan coming out now; EngageNL, go online. I encourage everyone here, all
members of the public to get out, say your part about the condition of your
roads.
But if
you look at it, if we can do the main trunk roads, the main priority roads, you
know the roads have to come back. We need to get where the traffic is. It's
vitally important. Route 75 is vitally important to be upgraded and I'm glad
we're investing in the Member's district.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a
petition here to ensure schools are safe for the return of students in
September. In 2008, the provincial government introduced a provincial teacher
allocation model to address the educational needs of students by providing class
size caps for Grades K to 9, and additional administrative time for school
leaders. This new allocation model was to be reviewed in 2011.
Following the implementation of the class size caps, government instituted a
soft-cap policy which allowed classrooms to exceed the caps established in 2008.
Adding onto that, certainly with inclusive education, we saw the integration of
students with complex and special needs into larger classrooms with fewer
supports and we have seen certainly an awful lot of complications and challenges
that schools, teachers and students have faced.
With the
new physical distancing expectations and school classroom health and safety
protocols resulting from public health guidelines, class size and composition
matters more than ever. On July 29, Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children
recommended smaller class sizes should be a priority strategy as it will aid in
the physical distancing and reduce the potential spread of any index case.
Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to ensure
schools are safe for the return of students in September. I understand that the
NLTA has a similar petition with over some 12,000 signatures on it and I'll
present both to the minister at the end of this.
I will
say that there's a concern that I've heard from parents and teachers alike – I
heard it yesterday on Cross Talk –
with regards to the safety of schools at this point in time. I will again go and
say to the minister the measures and the investment of computers, of the extra
teachers and all these things are welcome. They are a good start but one of the
key things that need to be addressed, Mr. Speaker, is clearly the whole notion
of class size. It's creating significant challenges in our schools at this point
in time.
The 2016
budget saw the introduction of combined grades, but it also swelled the size of
single-stream classes. So we do have issues in this school year that are
basically coming down to the inability to physically distance. We do need the
resources to make them safe and I'll give you one clear example: not only
allocation but the allocation of resources. In one school in this city – and
I've spoke to the administration – 700 children, eight wings, four floors, a
gymnasium, they have one cleaner on from 7 in the morning to 3 in the night who
is expected to make sure all the high-touch surfaces are clean. It's impossible.
That's in addition to other equipment.
What is
definitely needed here is that while we've made a good start, Mr. Speaker,
certainly we need to address these issues in a lot more detail to make sure that
they continue to be safe.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education with a reply to the petition.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Member would know, under the Education
Action Plan that this province brought in, the accumulated numbers of
additional units in school this year are 343. That includes 200 teacher learning
assistants, 104 reading specialists and 39 reading resource teachers. In
addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we've had the 25 additional guidance counsellors,
the 15 administrators and the 10 teaching positions dedicated to virtual
learning, as well as the term contracts for the 70 substitute teachers.
In terms
of having schools open safe, there have been safeguards put in place in
high-traffic areas: the additional disinfection materials, cleaning supplies and
so on, as well as cleaning supplies being provided to busing contractors. The
English School District provided masks to both teachers, students and other
staff.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of other things that have been put in place, such as
the occupational health and safety resources that we put in place this year for
the safety of the people working within our school systems, as well as public
health nursing positions.
Mr.
Speaker, we've put a number of additional resources in place this year, over and
above the 343 additional positions that are in place as a result of the
Education Action Plan.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3, second reading of Bill 41.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
MS. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, that Bill 41,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
seconding reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act.”
(Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 41 entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act, be now read a
second time.
The hon.
the Minister.
MR. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Today,
I'm going to chat about the amendments to Bill 41, An Act to Amend the Insurance
Contracts Act. It's a relatively short bill, two pages, but very important to
protect residents of the province.
As I'm
sure we all know, insurance is kind of a complex financial instrument. When you
buy insurance, particularly home insurance, you're really buying a claims
experience, really. It's not like a coffee that you have or a car that you drive
around, sometimes when you buy insurance it's all about the price. You don't
really look at all the nuances of what you're getting. It's very complex, even
for people who know what they're talking about; very complicated, especially
when you get into tenant and home insurance, all the policies and deductibles
and riders. I feel like you need an education to really understand it.
Most
people, also, do not read their insurance contracts. I, having worked in
insurance, also did not read my insurance contract. Even if you do read your
insurance contract, it's hard to understand exactly what you're buying and you
can't really compare apples to apples. It's not easy.
In
Digital Government and Service NL, it's our responsibility to help protect
consumers, particularly when they're buying financial services products such as
insurance. We're here today to talk about the
Insurance Contracts Act which governs
the terms and conditions of insurance contracts in the province.
Every
day people in Newfoundland and Labrador buy insurance from insurance companies
and brokers to help ensure a degree of protection and for remuneration should
situations out of their control arise. Again, this is a form of protection
against a possible risk. Specifically, when we're talking about home insurance
and tenant insurance, these are not mandatory unlike auto insurance. The
transaction you're buying is when you have that you're protected and then you're
compensated for your loss if you have a flood or your house burns down or
depending on the limitations in your policy.
In the
past, we've seen insurance contracts that contain an intentional act exclusion.
This means an insured person may not recover for any loss arising from their own
intentional or criminal act. In this instance, a policyholder or a dependant of
a policyholder would have to be listed in their home insurance contract – it
would have to be listed as an intentional act exclusion. I actually looked at my
policy and it's not in my policy, and, as far as we're aware, it's not common in
policies at the moment.
The main
thing we're talking about here is this intentional act exclusion. In our
proposed legislation today, we are, I guess, prohibiting the use of that in
insurance contracts for people in the province.
Historically, we've seen this used to prevent wrongdoers from benefiting from
their own wrongful actions. However, there is kind of a knock-on negative effect
of this. It could be controversial and could have significant unintended
consequences where an insurance policy covers multiple insured individuals. It
prevents one insured from committing insurance fraud for the benefit of another,
denies coverage to all insured persons on a policy and this can result in an
injustice where one of the insured is victimized by another.
In 2017,
Mr. Speaker, the Board of Directors of the Insurance Bureau of Canada
recommended to all its members operating in provinces and territories without
such legislation that they voluntarily align their insurance policies with other
jurisdictions in terms of offering coverages for innocent co-insureds.
At the
moment, there is nothing in our legislation to prevent an insurance company
dealing with a home insurance claim in Newfoundland and Labrador from denying
coverage to an innocent co-insured. So with this change, we are hoping to remedy
that today.
Although
these situations would be infrequent and, again, as far as we understand, this
is not a common occurrence in insurance policies in the province but if it
happened, the repercussions to the innocent parties would be significant. We
believe that most, if not all, insurance companies currently operating in the
province already follow this intention but this change will protect home
insurance customers from malicious acts on behalf of their co-policyholders or
dependants.
This
also harmonizes our legislation with other Canadian jurisdictions. It aligns
with other legislative changes that have been made to offer a degree of
protection for individuals facing complex and difficult family situations.
As far
as our research goes, we believe this only applies to home insurance. Our teams
looked across Canada and we have not found these types of exclusions explicitly
in, for example, auto insurance contracts. In the legislation, it doesn't
specifically apply to home insurance, but as far we're aware it will only apply
to home insurance policies.
This is
focused on consumer protection. That is the primary means of this. Insurance
companies, we believe, are already following this, so there won't be a burden on
the insurance companies.
I just
want to give two examples to illustrate how not having this could play out.
Let's say two siblings are co-owners and co-policyholders on a home with home
insurance and let's say their policy contains this intentional act exclusion, or
an exclusion for intentional acts. Let's say the siblings have a heated
argument; one maliciously burns the house down for the insurance money or
something. If it's proven the house was maliciously burned down, neither would
get any insurance compensation if this clause was in their insurance contract.
The
legislative change would mean that only the person with the malicious intention
would not get any, but the other innocent individual would get a prorated amount
of what the insurance contract would be. If one individual was not involved in
that malicious act, let's say if they were 50 per cent policyholder, they would
get 50 per cent of the value, rather than neither of them getting nothing.
We also
saw this in a Supreme Court case, Scott vs. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance, where
parents and a son – the 15-year-old son burned their house down. They had this
clause in the contract and they didn't receive any compensation. They took it to
the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court maintained this exclusion policy,
which meant the parents could not get any compensation.
We
believe this legislative change will increase consumer protection around
insurance in the province. If we pass the change, we'll be aligned with other
jurisdictions and better protect residents to ensure they get the financial
protection that they are paying for.
I ask my
colleagues to support these amendments to help protect consumers.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of
all, I'd like to thank the department for the briefing we had on Monday. It was
much appreciated and it just shed some light on it. After listening to it, we
certainly will be supporting the changed legislation.
Just to
give some background, and you did most of it, but I'll just run through what we
have here and just give an example. You nearly gave the same example I was going
to give, but I will go through it.
The
Insurance Contracts Act comes under
the purview of the Department of Service NL, obviously, is where we're to. As
the name suggests, the Insurance Contracts
Act contravenes the terms and conditions of all types of insurance contracts
in the province.
Department officials noted that the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which is IBC,
which represents 90 per cent of the auto, home and business insurers in the
country, have been pushing for this amendment since 2017. Insurance companies in
our province are supportive and have been aligning in the direction of offering
coverage for innocent co-insured.
As the
example my colleague across the way had used, if you have a couple that's
married and someone decides to have some domestic abuse and go back and destroy
the house, the victim, I'm going to say, doesn't get the right to be able to get
their house back in order or get things fixed, I guess, would be the easiest way
to say it. With that being done, it seems pretty unfair, and I'm sure it's
happened a lot in this country and in this province. And we'd like to see that
changed. With that change, I certainly agree with that.
Sometimes I think when I look at it and saying they're going to get half the
amount back, I nearly think the unintended person should nearly get her full
amount back. She's still going to be in her house and she still has upkeep to do
and kids to raise or whatever the circumstances may be. Sometimes we look at
getting half back; sometimes they deserve to get back to where they were and be
able to live their normal life. That doesn't happen and probably left out in the
open with our legislation now. Hopefully, this legislation moving forward will
correct that, and by all means we'll certainly like to see that.
The
proposed amendments consist of two sections being added to the
Insurance Contracts Act. Section 18.1
is added to permit loss recovery by innocent persons, meaning if the contract
contains an intentional act exclusion, the exclusion coverage will apply only to
the person whose act or omission caused the loss or damage, who abetted or
colluded in an act or omission, who consented to the act or omission and who
ought to have known the act or omission would cause the loss or damage, and who
is not the actual person.
Again,
we support this motion and this legislation and look forward to getting into
Committee and just asking a couple of general questions and see how it goes from
there.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree
with my colleague here, as well as the minister, that this is an important piece
of change in our legislation. It's another housekeeping thing that has come
before the House. It is unfortunate we're one of the last provinces to correct
this in the system, but it's being corrected. That is the main thing.
We speak
to the importance of innocent peoples in situations of joint insurance and stuff
like that. The two examples that my colleagues have given are excellent examples
of the loophole in the system where individuals are left holding the bag when
someone else's actions have harmed them. In this case, it's great that we are
moving forward, that innocent parties in these joint situations are not harmed
or dinged or whatnot. I'm glad to see that this is being adjusted, and the
housekeeping of these acts is good.
It's
good that these things get reviewed and checked. We find these loopholes and
correct them as best we can, but unfortunately, of our sister Houses across the
country, we're the last again, but hopefully we'll be the first on something
else.
I'm glad
to see this. We'll get to Committee and ask the questions there that need to be
asked. I'm glad to see that this is before the House and we can correct this and
keep people from being victimized in some cases as well.
Thank
you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, reviewing the Insurance Contracts
Act and the specific amendments that have been proposed, I support the
amendment. These types of amendments are important, even though, as has been
noted, it is not really a common occurrence that we see in play here. It's
somewhat infrequent. However, it still affords protection to innocent parties.
As has been stated, this specific clause that is of concern here is the
intentional act exclusion clause. As has been stated, it's sometimes inserted in
insurance contracts. Basically, what it does is it excludes coverage for an
insured person for any intentional conduct, whether it be criminal or otherwise,
or actions that have unintended consequences.
I think
the important example for me is the one when we see that multiple people who are
insured under policy, sometimes there's a danger that coverage for all of those
people can be eliminated, even if the loss or the damage that has been caused by
only one of the insured by an a commission of an intentional act. This means
that even though there's an innocent insured, they're still going to be excluded
from coverage. They're not going to be compensated, yet they are innocent of any
wrongdoing or any kind of intentional act that resulted in damage or loss. Mr.
Speaker, that's an unfair consequence, that's an unjust result and that's why I
would say that this is a good amendment to remedy any kind of outcomes that
would unfairly prejudice innocent parties.
Another
point that I'd like to make with this relates to incidents of family violence or
domestic violence. For example, if we have one individual or one partner who
caused damage, the other innocent party, innocent victim, may end up also being
denied coverage, being denied compensation. That, of course, would be a true
injustice. That is why this is an important protection for innocent parties.
The one
proviso, though, I would make here is in regard to the fact that it appears that
the innocent co-insured must co-operate with the insurer's investigation of the
loss in order to be awarded benefits. The only comment I would make about that –
and this has to be carefully monitored – is would this present problems for
people that are innocent and victims of family violence? What would the
consequences of this be for that victim if they are co-operating with the
insured against their partner?
I just
wouldn't want to see the innocent party being put in any danger, especially if
it's a volatile domestic violence situation. I would ask that be given extremely
careful attention to ensure that innocents are protected in these kinds of
scenarios, innocent victims, and that they are not placed in further jeopardy
against their, perhaps, abusive partner.
Other
than that, these amendments are important, I think, even though they may not
apply and they're not often inserted in insurance contracts. Even if they're
there occasionally, we still have to make sure that they're corrected and
remedied so that no one is left with an unfair outcome.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia - St. Mary's.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The last
time I spoke in this hon. House about insurance it was auto insurance but today
it is home insurance. Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the
Insurance Contracts Act will provide an increased protection for
innocent co-insured policyholders.
The
Insurance Contracts Act governs the
terms and conditions of insurance contracts in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Intimate partner violence is often accompanied with assault, threats and
property damage, and the abuser knowingly harms his or her partner. This person
tries to control or to overpower the relationship by using intimidation, threats
and physical force. Most victims of intimate partner violence are women, but men
also can be victims and have been victims, Mr. Speaker. I know since I became a
politician that I have worked alongside two men who are victims of intimate
partner violence.
The
amendment we are introducing here today aims to address a gap. It's a huge gap
in insurance coverage and protection, and it aims to prevent unintended
consequences from hurting various parties, in particular where incidents of
family violence are involved.
Mr.
Speaker, this is very important because this is something we are adding to the
other things that we have done around residential tenancies and we've done some
work in Justice and Public Safety over the years. So here we are again today
doing an amendment that is going to assist individuals who are victims.
Mr.
Speaker, what it really means is this amendment can prevent an angry spouse from
hurting the ex-wife or the ex-husband by destroying the family home when they're
on the way out the door, so to speak. If a partner or a past partner were to
damage the home or burn it down – arson, for example – and your particular
insurance policy had this coverage for the innocent co-insured, the homeowner
would be covered.
Intimate
partner violence can affect anyone, Mr. Speaker, it's any age, any gender, race,
sexual orientation. It does include, usually, behaviours that are meant to
control a partner.
This
amendment is very important here today, Mr. Speaker. While every relationship is
different, intimate partner violence typically involves an unequal power.
Hurling insults, as I said, threats and emotional abuse wear a person down. To
destroy their home, that would be the ultimate defeat rendering them helpless.
Some
perpetrators may use the threat to destroy the home as leverage to get their
victim to do what they want. So insurance contracts often include intentional
act exclusion clauses that basically do a disservice to others who as part of
the contract did not benefit from the coverage done by another co-holder as a
result. Such clauses had the effect of denying the coverage to a holder as a
result of the wrongful actions of another. It was here that an injustice could
occur. It is that injustice that we want to address with this amendment.
Insurance is meant to help you in the event of an accident and in the event of
need. It's not meant to deprive you of the very protection you need at one of
the most vulnerable times in your life.
Mr.
Speaker, parents could separate, for example, but the home is still in both
their names. The one living in the home decides they're not letting the other
have any profit from the sale of the home. So, again, we see arson. They burn
the house down, and normally with arson there would be no coverage. However,
with the amendments, the one who didn't cause the damage and wasn't engaged in
the crime will receive a benefit.
This
amendment addresses unintended consequences; it addresses a gap in our insurance
coverage and protection and it brings us in line with the rest of Canada. PEI
will be the remaining province without this coverage if we adopt this amendment
today. The Insurance Bureau of Canada supports this amendment, as the minister
has indicated.
Mr.
Speaker, I strongly support this amendment, as you can tell, and I think it's a
really good thing for us to do here in this House of Assembly today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to this
motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I trust
my light is on.
This is
a very important piece of business the House is engaged in today. Insurance is
not a small matter for Newfoundland and Labrador families, for the financial
well-being of all of us. The changes to the
Insurance Contracts Act are not small
changes either, when you take into consideration and in perspective of the
evolution of the insurance product as a whole and the insurance industry as
whole. There is a matter of political economy related to insurance, as well as
natural finance and economy, and statutory reform is sometimes seen to be an
intrusion on the capitalist system or the financial markets, and unwelcomed.
Mr.
Speaker, this is very welcomed by very many and it is a break from past
consideration. Normally, an insurance contract holds a clause that says for the
acts of intentional or criminal nature – for any act which is intentional or
criminal that causes a loss, those losses are automatically excluded.
In fact,
in the past those who held insurance contracts on homeowner's insurance faced
losses from those who were dependants who were not necessarily perceived to be
members of the contracting party itself. Minor children, for example, who
committed intentional, even criminal acts within the household itself, one would
have expected in the past that that would have been insurable and the payout
would have occurred based on the nature of the loss, but insurance companies
held firm on the view that intentional acts and potentially criminal acts would
be excluded.
Mr.
Speaker, the study or the sociology of insurance is just as important as the
study of its political economy. I want to refer to some very important work from
Ericson, Doyle and Barry called Insurance
as Governance where they kind of give a framework for how important
insurance is to each and every one of us but how little it is understood.
They
write: “Although the insurance industry is among the most pervasive and powerful
institutions in society, the sociology of insurance remains nascent.” They go on
to express the view that: “In spite of its significance for people's lives,
insurance is a product that most buy with little appreciation. They spend large
sums of money to purchase something they have little knowledge about and
therefore cannot adequately assess with respect to price and features. The only
material thing they obtain at the outset is a piece of paper: a legal contract
that they rarely read and even more rarely understand” and hope they never have
to.
Mr.
Speaker, in the evolution of our society and the perspective that we expect our
institutions, including the insurance industry, to respond to modern-day
concepts of fairness and respond to modern-day concepts of political economy,
this legislation is the right legislation. It acts outside of the contract
itself and provides a statutory requirement that nullifies the policy; that does
not respect that at times an intentional or criminal act can still be insured if
the balance or an interest of the parties are not equal. This is a very, very
important point because it gives fairness to multiple parties to an insurance
against the actions of one of the parties.
Mr.
Speaker, when we think of the modernization of insurance, it is one of the most
important products that are available to us as a financial product, as a
security product. As we look to the fact that the environment in which we are
insured is changing, climate change is making greater impacts on insurance,
insurability and payouts, when we look at the fact that society is modernizing,
when paternalistic ideas within insurance policies are now becoming more and
more exposed to a more modern, a more open version and the law is following
suit, these are important sociological phenomena that this Legislature now is
acting upon.
It's
incumbent upon the fact that we have a responsibility to do that, for the
legislatures of our country, to act in the best interest of its people. While
the insurance industry may at times very much dislike government intrusion into
its affairs, I can tell you the insurance industry often calls upon government
intrusion into its affairs. For example, in the products that it sells there was
a concerted lobby from the insurance industry to prevent banks from selling
insurance because they felt it would be an imbalance for the consumer.
While at
times it may be voiced that the insurance industry does not like unfair
government intrusion in terms of their underwriting and their risk management of
policies, it affects their risk management portfolios, let's be clear, the
insurance industry calls upon government, more often than you might appreciate,
for government intervention for their benefit. Mr. Speaker, it's the
responsibility of this Legislature to act in the interest of the consumer, to
act in the interest of the insured and to ensure that there's a balance of
parties who are subject to the contract in question.
Those
who expect to receive a benefit against risk, against a personal lost through
collective risk management, deserve to have that enshrined in law because at
times, as we've seen through the courts, through the adjudication of insurance
policies, that does not always happen by insurance companies.
In a
modern context, Mr. Speaker, there are other reforms that could be contemplated
for example. Is it fair and reasonable that those who are of an interest to the
contractor or to the management, the adjudication of risk, those that have a
direct interest, should they be a part of the adjudication of the risk?
Adjustors, for example, Mr. Speaker, more and more often are becoming a wholly
owned entity of the insurance companies. They are not disconnected or
disinterested parties in the outcome of a claim. Other things, for example, we
think of whether adjusting occurs at a local level or whether there's telephone
adjusting.
We look
at employment levels. I know the previous administration, for example, had a
significant program to a particular company to provide incentives for employment
here locally which now is – I understand the term of that contract is now closed
with marginal results.
The
president of a major insurance company operating not only in Newfoundland and
Labrador but throughout Canada, RSA Canada, just announced that – the CEO
indicated there would be significant changes in their workforce structure and
that more and more telephone work, as opposed to retail outlet work, is being
contemplated within that company. The footprint of insurance companies,
therefore, is changing, and the impact and the overall benefit of insurance
company activity in small jurisdictions like Newfoundland and Labrador is
changing as well, and not necessarily for the better.
This is
one example of a reform which I believe is very, very welcomed by consumers, by
those who are disadvantaged in a power imbalance in particular. That is breaks
strong, significant history and jurisprudence, former jurisprudence which always
was in favour of the insurer for acts of deliberate negligence or intentional
criminality. That is a break in pattern which cannot be overstated.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I will be supporting this legislation, and I applaud the Minister of
Service NL for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Her work is very
much appreciated and she's showing she's very much on the side of consumers.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take long this time. I'm really not going to take long.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
I guess, as usual though, as
opposed to simply voting on something, I at least like to have the record say
how I voted on it and have it stand.
I'll be
supporting this piece of legislation. I think it's a good piece of legislation.
I didn't realize this kind of situation actually existed, that it would be a
thing, but after hearing it explained, I can see why it's something that we
need. We have it in other provinces, and, again, it's just a protection to
individuals. I'm not going to repeat everything that's been said, but I looked
at it and when I had it, I asked for an example.
Basically, just so I'm clear – and I'm pretty sure I am – what this piece of
legislation comes down to is if, for example, you had a husband and wife, they
owned a property and they had insurance – both names were on the insurance – and
they had some marital issues or something and the husband moved out or whatever
but the house was still insured in his name, and god forbid he came back to the
house one night or something and did serious damage to the home and so on, maybe
burned the house down, who knows? Things can happen. Worse things have happened.
The
bottom line is we would have a situation then where the house would be gone and
because of the intentional act, the insurance wouldn't cover it. Here would be
the spouse left with no home and no insurance on the home. Based on what we have
here, he would get nothing, but she would get half the insurable value for the
home.
The same
thing could happen in a business partnership, not in a corporation. If I had a
business and it was a partnership, two of us owned the building, and my partner
decided they were going to burn the building down – it was an act of arson or
something like that – and the investigation determined it was arson and I didn't
know anything about it and I was no part of it, under the current rules, the
business would be gone and it would not be insured.
Obviously, the partner who was involved, besides going to jail, he would get no
insurance money, but me, as the partner who had nothing to do with this act and
knew nothing about it, my business would be destroyed and I wouldn't get any
insurance either. Once again, this particular clause allows in that particular
scenario that if I wasn't involved and I'm a partner, I would get half the
insurance.
That
only seems like justice to me, seems like the right thing to do. It's happening
in other jurisdictions. I'm surprised that it wasn't covered off here before
now. I don't know if something happened here that made us aware of this or if
it's just a jurisdictional scan that picked up on this. I'm not sure how that
occurred, but it seems to me like a good amendment nonetheless.
With
that said, I'll be supporting the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the minister speaks now
she will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much,
everyone, for your feedback, particularly the Member for Ferryland; the Member
for Labrador West; the Member for Harbour Main; the Member for Placentia - St.
Mary's; the Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour; and the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands. I think you all brought up excellent points.
The
Member for Harbour Main, you asked about innocent co-insureds and that they must
co-operate with legislation. That is consistent with how all the other provinces
also have their legislation. Currently, insurance companies are operating in
this manner, in the spirit of this legislation. I have no reason to believe that
it would be an issue, but it's certainly very important to consider. As well,
the superintendent of insurance also oversees all disputes with insurance
companies that individuals might have as well, so they're kind of an extra check
and balance that residents or consumers have in dealing with insurance.
I just
wanted to clarify. I think I used the word prohibiting when I was speaking,
which probably wasn't a good word to use. Just to clarify, we are exempting the
application where a clause is used where there is an innocent co-insurer. The
word I used, prohibiting, probably wasn't the best word to use, so I just wanted
to clarify that.
Again,
thank you very much everyone. I look forward to answering any questions and
discussing further in Committee.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that Bill 41
now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Insurance Contracts Act. (Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Deputy Government
House Leader.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Mount Scio, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 41.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 41.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act.” (Bill 41)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Insurance
Contracts Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Deputy House Leader.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I ask
that the Committee rise and report progress on Bill 41, from the Committee.
CHAIR:
The motion is that I rise and
report Bill 41 carried without amendment.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act,
without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred
and has directed her to report Bill 41 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
Now,
sorry.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now?
Now or
tomorrow?
MR. CROCKER:
Now.
CLERK (Barnes):
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, third reading
would be tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill 41 ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 2(a).
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve into a
Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution and Bill 40 respecting
the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that I should now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into
a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution and Bill 40.
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.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply,
the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
considering the resolution and Bill 40 respecting the granting of Interim Supply
to Her Majesty and the amendment to clause 2.
Resolution
“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her
Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial
year ending March 31, 2021 the sum of $1,560,324,100.”
CHAIR:
Shall the amendment to clause
2 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm glad
to have the opportunity to speak again. Madam Chair, as we've said in the past –
we all know but for anyone who is watching – we are doing Interim Supply, which
is a money bill, which provides flexibility for Members to bring up basically
any issues that they wish. I've certainly had a number of constituents and
individuals throughout the province reach out to me on a number of issues, so I
want to take this time to address a couple of them for sure.
Madam
Chair, the first issue I want to address is the issue around the essential
worker top-up program. The money, I think, primarily if not totally, is federal
money. It's for essential workers who worked during COVID-19 and provided us
with all the goods and services and so on that we required.
It was
put in place for workers at the lower end of the pay scale and there's a whole
list of people who could qualify for it. I'm not going to get into the whole
list but we think of home care workers, we think of workers who are working at
the grocery stores, other retail outlets and so on that had to work through
COVID-19. I think we appreciated through COVID-19 just how essential a lot of
these workers are to us all. I know that everybody would agree in this House
that we owe them all a great debt of gratitude in getting us through so far.
This
program, of course as I indicated, is federal money, but it was left to the
provinces to design the criteria. They were given parameters by the federal
government, the provinces would be, and then they developed their criteria. I
think that then had to be approved by the federal government. Then the province
could move forward in administering the program and the money.
I'm
absolutely sure and confident in saying that this program was put in place by
both our federal and provincial government for the right reasons, to help those
that required the money at this time and those who put themselves and their
families at greater risk than many. The intentions on behalf of the federal
government and I believe the intentions at the time, and still the intentions of
the provincial government, are honourable and everybody wants to do the right
thing by these essential workers.
Unfortunately, it's like any program and, particularly, these programs during
COVID-19. A lot of them are, let's face it, somewhat reactionary and perhaps did
not take the same amount of time and scrutiny as other programs would take
because we were in the middle of a pandemic. That's totally understandable.
Given
the fact that we are in a pandemic, I think that all parties involved did a
great job and their heart was in the right place. Unfortunately, though, there
are a number of issues which have arisen in this program that I'm sure a lot of
them probably were never contemplated, and there are unintended things that have
happened that have now come to light. I know that the minister is aware of a
number of these things. I have chatted with him about it. I've had discussions
with officials in his department about it and I know that they are working on
solutions. I know they have and I have told everyone who's asked me, people in
my district and others. I have told them that and I'm confident that they're
going to work to resolve a number of these issues.
Some of
the things that have happened, Madam Chair, that are of concern – and I've heard
from employees and I've heard from employers as well. There were definitely some
challenges with the compatibility issues, if you will, with the software system,
the LaMPSS that government is using. I've heard from employers that was a bit of
a nightmare for some of them – compatibility issues.
I heard
that there was issues with once they sign in they need some sort of a password.
They'd request a password and had to wait a long time to get a response and get
those passwords. There were other administrative issues around providing the
information that they felt were somewhat onerous. I have to say that in speaking
to officials in the department this morning they recognized there were some
concerns and they tell me that a number of those things have been addressed. I'm
glad to hear that.
I've
also heard that there are employers out there who have not applied for the
money. This is a big one – employers who have not applied for the money. The
money cannot get into the hands of the workers for which the money was intended,
unless the employers actually apply for it. It's very, very disappointing to say
the least, to hear that there are employers out there who just didn't bother to
apply for the money.
That
doesn't mean that's the case in all cases because I also know there are
employers, like small employers, that were so busy just trying to keep their
businesses afloat and dealing with the federal government on programs just to
keep their own businesses alive, who may not have been in tune with everything
that was on the go. This may have passed them by and they didn't even realize.
That's a possibility as well.
There
are also situations I'm told, or is being alleged, where employers have applied
for the money, they have received the money and even though that money is
supposed to be distributed to the employees immediately or at least within I
think 10 days – I stand to be corrected on it, but I think it's 10 days. There
have been allegations made to me of employers who have had that money in their
hands for an extended period of time and have not paid it out to the workers.
Why they
have not done that, I have no idea. I can't speak for individual circumstances,
nor will I. There may be some reasons that are valid and there may be some
reasons which are absolutely unacceptable. I don't know, but these are things
that I have been told.
I guess
the purpose of bringing this up now – and the minister is aware of it; I thank
him for his commitment and his department's commitment to work on these things,
but I did want to have it on the record in the House of Assembly that these
issues do exist.
There
are other issues as well. Here's another one I've forgotten, and probably one of
the more important ones that have happened. We've had situations, Madam Chair,
where – and I'm going to use home care as an example. Here you have, say, home
care workers and when COVID started there were a number of workers who said to
their employer: I'm not going to work. Perhaps they were immunocompromised, they
had family members who were immunocompromised or whatever the case might be. So
they did not go to work.
As a
result, here you have situations where there are people who require home care
who now don't have that home care. So the home care employers would say to the
home care worker: Listen, I'm in a bind here and this lady is not getting care,
can you work some overtime? Can you work some additional hours to get me out of
a bind to provide care for this lady? The workers took it on at additional risk
to themselves.
As a
result of taking on those extra hours, they didn't qualify for the program
because the program is $3,000 gross or less a month to qualify. So if you had a
home care worker who was making, say, $2,500 a month and they would have
qualified, now they're working overtime to help out the employer provide the
service and they made $3,200, now they're being punished for actually stepping
up when the time was needed.
There
were cases where there were, say, a husband and wife, for argument sake, and one
of those people got laid off, they needed the extra money at the time so they
cashed in on their vacation time or money they had banked with their employer,
got that extra money and that was enough to put them over the top that they did
not qualify for the program because now they went slightly over $3,000. Even
though, under normal circumstances, they would have qualified, because they took
that one-time extra payment, they didn't qualify.
These
are the kinds of things, Madam Chair, that are going on. The minister is aware
of it. The department is aware of it. I know he is going to do his best to
address it. I thank him for that.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just
want to make a few brief comments with regard to the Interim Supply and budget.
I guess if nothing else, it's about setting priorities as to where we're going
to spend our money and how we're going to allocate it.
Often we
get asked the question: Where are you going to come up with the money? And
certainly the Third Party has often said it's not a matter of coming up with the
money, it's about what are our priorities and where do we allocate it.
One
thing that's become abundantly clear – and I think we all recognize – is
certainly with dental care. Any of us who have worked in any unionized area or
any company that has a dental plan, you know that part of that insurance plan is
about dental care. It's probably one of the most expensive yet one of the most
necessary health insurances to have.
We also
know that not everyone is fortunate to have that, and it has a significant
impact on not only on their dental health but their physical health, their own
self esteem, their own ability to go out and get a job and so on and so forth.
It has repercussions throughout.
It's
certainly an issue that the national party, NDP, has advocated for the adoption
of a national dental care program for uninsured families who are making less
than $90,000 and do not have access to dental insurance. But it became very
clear when I was campaigning as well, and even since, how seriously the deficit
in dental health is.
One
issue has come up to my attention recently and has come to the attention of Jack
Harris, who's the Member of Parliament for St. John's East. And I'll read from
his letter, Madam Chair: “One issue recently brought to our attention was the
fact that individual children who are beneficiaries of the Children's Dental
Health Program have aged out as beneficiaries of the subsidized dental services
during the lock down mandated by government … after mid-March when dental
offices closed.”
So there
is a concern that has been brought to our attention that those children who aged
out during that time may not be covered. That they've lost that time when they
could have dental appointments or services provided. But as a result of that
since that time, now that dental services have been reinstated, they're unable
to avail of those appointments that they would've been able to take care of
during that period.
As I
said, in effect COVID-19 – Mr. Harris goes on to say: the COVID-19 pandemic
prevented these children from receiving dental care that they need. This letter
he writes is to the Premier and the government to extend the eligibility of this
program for a period of time to permit them to obtain the services that would
have been missed.
In terms
of priorities, this is very much – certainly, as we debate this, I'm hoping that
– as I understand it, no decision has been made on this as to whether it will be
extended. I'm hoping government will see this as a priority to make sure that
those children who aged out during the pandemic will have an extension of time
so that they can have their dental needs taken care of.
As a
said, it's the key to not only dental health but also other health issues and
also to a person's self esteem. I have the letter here to table if you wish.
Thank
you very much, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
If the
Member wants to table the letter, if he has leave he can certainly do so.
Does he
have leave? Does the Member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll
just speak on this motion also. I hear a lot about the offshore here recently,
and you hear a lot of bantering back and forth. Some of it is political, some of
it is concern trying to get issues done. I don't think there's either party here
that wouldn't want to see a resolution to it, no matter who you are in the
House.
I
remember back, I'm going back to 2002, and even earlier than that with the FPI
hearings, when we had a major issue with the fisheries, and this is just a
suggestion – maybe it's gone too far in the Legislature here now. I remember
when that happened they set-up an all-party committee, that everybody would come
together as one and go to Ottawa as one.
At the
time it was an all-party committee with the Liberals, who was in government, the
PCs and the NDP. They picked two people, three from the Liberals, two from the
PCs and one from the NDP. They combined, they had hearings and they went as a
unified voice to Ottawa. I'm just throwing that out there because I know on the
FPI hearings that I was on – that once again reunited to go all across the
province to have public hearings. We went into a lot of areas, we heard a lot of
emotion and then we came out as a unified front on what we should do.
That's
just something that has been done in this House on several occasions, that when
there's such a major crisis people would unite together and have a united front
in Ottawa on that. It's just a suggestion to the Deputy Premier, the Leader of
the Opposition and Leader of the Third Party that if there's any way you can sit
in a room where there are no cameras and nothing around and see if there's some
way you can go together, if you can come up with a good solution, because it has
been done before. I remember the all-party committee going together as a group,
staying as a group, getting their vision together as an all-party committee and
going to Ottawa.
That's
just a suggestion, because you always hear it in Question Period and I think
everybody would like to see a solution to it. But if we can stand together with
the offshore workers, if we can all stand together and go as a united front, I
think it would do us all much better. It would definitely do the families of the
workers, the people who are working there and the families that depend upon the
offshore, we would do them a much better service if we decided to do that.
That's
just a suggestion for the Deputy Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the
Leader of the Third Party if someone wants to, as we all used to say, put a bit
of water in your wine and give a call, just have a look at it and see what we
can do. It has worked. Trust me, it has worked. I know there are people here
that were a part of it back in the days when there were times that we really
came together as legislators and really came together as people of the province
for the betterment of the province. Not the betterment of your party, not the
betterment of yourself, but the betterment of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I'm just
throwing that out there because I was a part of it on one occasion for that. I
offer and I hope someone will make the first call to meet in a private room
somewhere and see what we could do as a united front.
The
second thing I'm going to bring up – and I say to the Minister of
Transportation, I know the Member for Terra Nova has brought it up. I just want
to say to the Minister of Transportation, there are workers in the last couple
of days that have come in from Ontario and Quebec. They're doing drywall at the
hospital in Corner Brook. I know the Minister of Transportation has listened
attentively. If you want to go out on the site, I will gladly bring you out in
the area and watch them coming on and off the site.
The
question I have to ask is – and I know the Minister of Health is here and I'm
not sure if he's the right person to answer this – who deems people essential?
This is where I have the problem with it. Who deems people essential? How can
you deem a drywall worker essential for Newfoundland and Labrador?
AN HON. MEMBER:
They work for Marco.
MR. JOYCE:
That's the other thing I was going to bring up. If you notice all these cases,
it is Marco. I know John Allan was very close and I know Dwight Ball was very
close with Marco. How can people coming in for construction of the hospital, the
long-term care – get it very straight, I'm glad the hospital is going ahead. I
am glad but no one yet has informed me how you can deem a drywall worker, a
drywall labourer, as an essential worker in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. He can walk in and walk on the site and work without going through the
normal restrictions of a person coming into the province from Ontario and
Quebec. The government, all they say is: deemed essential.
The
question has to be asked: Who deems them essential? How do they deem them
essential? Is there influence in there that as by luck someone from Marco got
these workers coming in because they have a contract signed with someone in
Ontario or Quebec, companies they work with all across Canada, however it's
done? Is there influence involved here? I don't know, but it's just strange that
these individuals – and I said it before and I'll say it again because I was
hoodwinked by Dwight Ball, by John Allan and Marco. I got hoodwinked on the
long-term care facility because I was guaranteed there were going to be local
workers.
I went
on Open Line on John Allan who said he
spoke to Dwight Ball, there will be local workers being hired. I went on NTV
with Don Bradshaw on a Friday night and said: I just got word, just spoke to
John Allan who was speaking to Dwight Ball who was the premier –
CHAIR:
I kindly remind the Member not to name individuals by their name inside the
Chamber.
Thank
you.
Continue.
MR. JOYCE:
Why not?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Because it's a rule.
MR. JOYCE:
Where's the rule? What are you talking about? You're allowed to talk about who
you're talking about.
Anyway,
I went up there on a Friday afternoon and was told –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I'm
going to call order. We're going to do this and we're going to do it
respectfully, everyone in the Chamber. This is a very important topic we can all
agree, so, please, let's keep the levels to a respectful level. While Members
are speaking, let's give them the respect.
They
have the floor. Continue.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know it's getting a bit rough.
I went
up on NTV and said: No, they're going to hire local people, put your résumé in.
On Monday morning, I made a call and they said: No, we're not taking them. I can
tell you – I said it then and I said it in this House – they would not hoodwink
me. John Allan and Dwight Ball would not hoodwink me on the hospital. I
presented petition after petition after petition after petition.
I can
tell the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, you can stay there and
say, okay, there's 8 per cent not. That number is creeping up. They started
coming in this week. I ask the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure,
you have to step in there. There is still two years of work left for those
labourers out in Corner Brook – two years. I don't care if they're just from
Corner Brook. If they're Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, however the union
decides I'm fine with it. The least of my worries.
If you
take the other side, forget work-wise, but who deems someone essential as a
drywall worker to come in and not have to go through the restrictions of COVID?
I can't get that answer. This is where the people in the province can't get
answers. Is it connections somewhere? I don't know but I can tell you that the
workers that I spoke to, standing at the gate where people were driving in, just
got in and going right on the site. There's no question that is happening –
absolutely no question that is happening.
I say to
the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, I say to the government:
Please, these workers don't want to go away. The rotational workers then, if
they go away, they have to come back here and isolate for another two weeks
while there's work right up. Anywhere in the province they can drive to. They
can rent a house in Corner Brook, don't have the restrictions and come home for
a week or two weeks. If they're on rotation and want to come over to St. John's
and rotational back and forth here two or four or 14 days on and off, they would
still be with their families. Yet we have it here and we can't as a government –
I ask anybody on the government side. Someone stand up and say how a drywall
worker is deemed essential.
What are
the qualifications to be deemed essential? I can tell you and I can tell the
people from government that when it comes to the people of Humber - Bay of
Islands, of Corner Brook and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, if we're going to
stand up and say we're doing this, let's just do it. Let's not say people are
essential and use that word essential and then, all of a sudden, let people come
in with other people here who could do it, and no one can explain what essential
means and no one can explain how the process works to deem these people
essential.
I'm
asking anybody from government who's a part of this here – because I can tell
you one thing, Madam Chair, on my last few seconds, if that was someone in the
government, if they were needing to go away they would be asking the same
questions I'm asking right now. Why don't we just find a way to keep local
workers working and not let people come in and explain what essential is and who
deems them essential.
CHAIR:
The Member's time has
expired.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers –
MR. LANE:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The
Chair recognizes the Members for Mount Pearl - Southlands again.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak again
Madam
Chair, I have a couple of issues. The first one I just want to speak to is the
idea of rotational workers but before I do, I do have to say this based on what
my colleague has just said. Every one of us in this House – every single one of
us – can attest to the fact when election time comes and you're going around,
how often do you hear people say can't trust politicians, looking after your
buddies and everything else that's going on, you're all alike and we all end up
wearing it.
You
wonder why people are skeptical like they are, when as my colleague just so
eloquently put it, there are Newfoundlanders having to leave, go away to work,
doing rotational work, coming home, having to isolate, can't see their families
and everything else associated to it. At the same time that's happening there
are people coming from outside the province, in this case coming to Corner
Brook, working on the hospital.
I don't
care if it's 8 per cent, 2 per cent, 1 per cent or a half per cent. I don't care
but coming in here not having to self-isolate, coming from Ontario, coming from
Quebec and taking jobs that Newfoundlanders here are quite capable of doing.
They're on the unemployment line or on CERB or whatever they're on, or they're
having to travel away to work and they can't get a job and these people come in.
Can you imagine a drywaller putting up a bit of gyprock and plaster and so on?
You're telling me there's nobody here in the skilled trades in Newfoundland that
can do that, we have to go bring them in from Quebec? Absolutely ridiculous.
When the
question has been asked over and over again as to how did these people get
deemed essential? Who decided that there's nobody in Newfoundland able to do the
job? Can't get an answer, Madam Chair. Why can't we get an answer? Could it be
that the real answer is not something that anybody over there wants to say?
Could it be that what is being thrown out there is absolutely what's going on?
You wonder why people are so skeptical and so angry all the time with everybody
in this House. I'm not talking about the government, all of us. That's why
because of that kind of stuff. People are sick of it. They are sick of it.
Anyway,
staying on the topic, I guess, of rotational workers, we all understand the
restrictions that are in place due to COVID-19. We really do. I've been on
record numerous times in the media, social media, in the House of Assembly that
the Minister of Health and Community Services and Dr. Fitzgerald – I don't agree
with everything– by and large, they have done a fantastic job in getting us
through this pandemic. They have. They've been great communicators and
everything else, and people are generally pleased. They really are.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Yeah, absolutely.
I do
recognize and thank Dr. Fitzgerald and the minister that they did make an
announcement recently on rotational workers, to make it a little easier on them.
The rotational workers would say that more could've been done, that we could be
doing more testing and so on like has been happening in other provinces. Let's
do more testing and, by doing more testing, possibly reduce the self-isolation
time so they can have some quality time with their families when they return.
Be that
as it may, there was some movement made for rotational workers, but there was
another group of rotational workers besides the ones that go to Alberta and BC
and Ontario for work. They are what would be known as international rotational
workers. There are a number of them in Newfoundland and Labrador; there are a
number of them in my district. I spoke to a gentleman last night. He's in the
oil and gas industry. With everything that's going on, he's out of work so he
had no choice. He works over in Africa. I can't tell you the name of the part of
Africa. He did tell me; I forget the name.
Anyway,
regardless, he's over in Africa and he rotates; he comes back and forth. When he
comes back, he arrives here, has to go up to his cabin. He's up there
self-isolating for two weeks and then he has a week left to spend with his – he
doesn't even have a week left to spend with his family because in addition to
the isolation time, it takes him two days to get from Africa to Newfoundland,
two days to get from Newfoundland back to Africa, so that's four more days gone.
He really has no time at all to spend with his family.
His
question is, what is the difference between me coming from the work camp in
Africa than somebody coming from a work camp in Alberta? Specifically, given the
fact, according to him – I'm only going by what he told me – the work camp that
he's in, they have not had one case of COVID-19, not one. Since this started
there has been zero cases, zero, in the work camp that he is in. Zero.
His
question – I'm only asking this question. I'm not the doctor here. I'm not an
epidemiologist. God forbid if I was but I'm not. He's asking the question, and
it's a logical one to me. He's saying, we've had zero cases since this started;
how am I any more dangerous than the guy that's coming from Alberta? What makes
me any more dangerous? I'm leaving the camp, I'm getting on a plane and I'm
coming home. I have to stop in the airport. Yes, so does the guy from Calgary.
We have
people inside the Atlantic bubble now that they're in New Brunswick; they were
supposed to go to New Brunswick, Halifax, home. Now the flights are changed: New
Brunswick, Montreal then home, but that's okay. They're in Montreal. It's
outside the bubble. They can come because it's considered in transit in the
airport. What's the difference between them in transit in the airport and the
guy who's working in the oil industry from outside the country being in transit
in a couple of airports to come home?
This is
very upsetting and frustrating. We have a lot of people in that boat. I
understand that he is covered by federal jurisdiction. I know that. It's not
provincial; it's federal. They have a different set of rules. All that man is
asking for – and he speaks for a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the
same boat – is can this be discussed and addressed.
He said
to me, can you please go to the House of Assembly, raise the issue and ask the
Minister of Health and Community Services. He's having meetings with the other
health ministers across the country, with Dr. Tam. I guess Dr. Fitzgerald is
doing the same thing. All he's asking, he's saying, can you bring this up? If
it's not happening, can you please bring this up, the federal rule? Find out
what makes me any more dangerous than a guy coming from Alberta, given the fact
that there are zero cases where I am. I'm not someone who's travelling here. I'm
not a tourist. I'm a Newfoundlander. I live here. I haven't seen my family in
six months, he said, other than a couple of days here and there – haven't seen
them.
Maybe
there's a very good reason for all this. I'm sure there is. I'm sure that the
rationale is we want to keep us as safe as possible. We all want that. I
understand that. We all want that. The workers do. They have mothers. Like he
said, I have an 80-year-old mother. I don't want to come here and give her
something. I don't want that to happen. Why would he? Or to give it to anybody
else? He's coming from a place where there are zero cases, yet he's treated
differently than the guy that's coming from Alberta, even though there are no
cases.
Again, I
know it's federal, Minister, I understand that, but he's just asking and I'm
asking on his behalf. I'm not the expert. I know nothing about this, only what I
read and I hear Dr. Fitzgerald say. I trust Dr. Fitzgerald, but on his behalf,
he wants this issue raised with your other provincial counterparts, with the
federal government on this federal rule to see if there is anything that can be
done to – we're not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater and just have a
free-for-all, but to work together to find someway to, hopefully, ease the
restrictions a little bit so that this man and other Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians can spend a little bit of quality time with their families the same
as you and I do.
He has
no choice; he has to work. He has to go there to pay the bills. If not, he's
going to have to pick up and leave. He's considering that and others are too.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Member's time has expired.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm only going to speak just two minutes. I said I was going to speak once, but
I will speak just for two minutes.
I ask
the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, because it's kind of personal
when you know these people personally. If you want to come out, I'll arrange a
meeting with some of the workers in the area that's affected by people coming
in, I would have no issue with that whatsoever.
If you
notice, Madam Chair – and I don't mean because the minister is only new in the
position – that first there was 97 per cent, and then it was 95; now it's down
to 92. It is creeping down, the percentage of local workers. I think it's at 92
now at the Corner Brook hospital. First it was about 98, 99.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
You can show it to me but it says 92, the Corner Brook hospital. That's what you
read. I'm not here to argue; I'm here to save the jobs. I know the minister is,
so if you have time and you want to come out and meet with some of those workers
and just show that what they're saying is correct, I'll gladly arrange it
because it is the families that we're dealing with here.
I say to
the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, if you go back and look at
where it first started, the Corner Brook hospital, it was up to about 98 per
cent. Then it went down to 95. I remember one time it was 95 per cent. I know
the former minister – now it's down to 92. So what you're seeing is as the
construction is picking up, so is the number of outside workers picking up also.
The last couple were from Ontario and Quebec.
If you
look at the trend, when you see that the amount of work is picking up, it's
starting to bring in more people from outside. I guess they have contacts and
they deal with suppliers and contractors from Quebec and Ontario because they do
a lot of work across Canada – Marco – I'm asking the minister to keep an eye on
that and come out.
I know
it would be a worthwhile visit for you. I'll urge the minister, not just the
Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure but all the government Members, I
urge you to sit down with Marco and say, listen, what can we do here. Like I
said, there are two years of work left for labourers, drywall workers and other
people in Corner Brook. I'm just asking that we gradually – don't let it creep
up, but let's bring it down as close as we can to zero. That's the type of thing
that we need, because it's for the workers that we need it done.
Again, I
offer minister the option of coming out and sitting down with some of those
workers and having a chat with them. Please go back and look at the percentage
because it is getting higher and higher every time that it is presented here in
the House.
I'll
close there, Madam Chair. I was at that protest yesterday, so was my colleague,
the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands, and so were all the PC Members, the
Liberal Members and NDP Members; we were all together on it. So let's find some
way, see who has the courage to pick up the phone so we can stand in this House,
which we've done before, and we can stand up as a united front and say we want
action from Ottawa and there's no dissention in this House of Assembly. Let's do
it. It was done before, it worked before and we set up an all-party committee to
meet with the prime minister and say to the all-party we're all into this
together. We did it before, I was a part of it before and we got results.
Hopefully somebody is going to right now take the initiative to put everything
aside, get in a room, take off your Liberal hat, take off your orange hat, take
off your red hat, get in there and let's put on our Newfoundland and Labrador
flag so that we can say we're going to go up and meet with the prime minister
and, when we speak, there's not one dissenting voice in this House of Assembly,
because we did it before and we can do it again. I hope someone is going to take
this initiative and take this approach.
I'll
even speak on behalf of my colleague from Mount Pearl – Southlands. We're okay.
If the three main parties want to go, we're okay to just go as the three main
parties and we'll be just another Member. Please, please, please on behalf of
all the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador who depend on the offshore, someone
put a bit of water in the wine and realize this is bigger than everybody in this
House of Assembly. This is about families staying home; this is about people
keeping their homes. We heard the questions here, back and forth from everybody,
about families not keeping their homes, which is all true. We're all passionate
on it. Some people here went through it.
Here's
an opportunity for us to go as a united front, not as Liberal, PC or NDP, but a
united front. It would be a happy day for me to stand up and say that we're
going together and we all support it. We did it before in the fisheries; we did
it before on the FPI; we could do it again for the sake of the offshore workers,
so let's do it.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall we now vote on the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division is called.
Division
CHAIR:
Are the House Leaders ready
for the vote?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Yes? Okay.
All
those in favour?
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Mr.
Forsey, Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Lester, Ms. Evans, Mr. Petten, Mr. Kevin
Parsons, Mr. Parrott, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Paul Dinn, Ms. Conway Ottenheimer, Mr.
Tibbs, Mr. O'Driscoll, Ms. Coffin, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown, Mr. Joyce, Mr.
Lane.
CHAIR:
All those against?
CLERK:
Ms. Coady, Mr. Crocker, Mr.
Haggie, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Davis, Mr. Osborne, Mr.
Loveless, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Warr, Mr. Trimper, Ms. Haley, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Ms. Gambin-Walsh.
CLERK:
Madam Chair, the ayes: 20;
the nays: 16.
CHAIR:
The amendment is carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Now we'll vote on clause 2,
as amended.
Seeing
no speakers, clause 2 as amended.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 3 and 4.
CHAIR:
Clauses 3 and 4.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 3 and 4 carried.
CLERK:
The Schedule.
CHAIR:
The Schedule.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
The
Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
With the
consent of the House, I want to propose a rearranged schedule to replace the one
that was in. Nothing changes on the amount of monies being requested of
$1,040,216,400 just the amounts in the headings to reflect exactly what the
Department of Finance headings amounts would be. I ask consent that we present
this, replace the old Schedule with this one.
CHAIR:
Does the Member have consent?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Granted.
We'll
take a short recess.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Are the
House Leaders ready?
The
amendment is in order, so now we are debating the amended Schedule.
Seeing
no further speaker, the Chair recognizes the hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
When we
started this debate, I will say to the people who are listening in today, that
Interim Supply provides funding for government to continue to operate while the
budget process is ongoing. This is what we're discussing here today and
yesterday. It is a normal part of the process to have a three-month Supply to be
responsible, to ensure that Interim Supply is provided while the budget is
ongoing. As I've said in this hon. House many times, it's a normal 50-day
calendar cycle. That's normal. I think in 2018 it was 57. The year before it was
little less than that.
The
House of Commons Procedure and Practice
does allow for a three-month Interim Supply. I have to understand the logic of
going from the three months to the two months, but I have to assume that Members
opposite will ensure that the budget is processed and concluded before Interim
Supply ends, which will be in two months. At the end of the day, we have to have
money to ensure the operations of government, to ensure that teachers are paid,
to ensure that schools can open, to ensure that health care is provides and to
ensure that seniors have medical supplies.
It's the
will of the House to go to two months, and we'll just have to live within that.
I do implore everyone in this House to understand that in two months we might
have to be back here, if the budget is not passed, to do another Interim Supply.
I hope that is not the case. I implore you that that would not be the case.
Everyone has to realize that Interim Supply rests as soon as the budget comes.
So as
quickly as we can get that budget reviewed, analyzed and passed, that would
allow for the continued operations and smooth operations of government. At the
end of the day, we must have Interim Supply and that's what's important.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers.
Shall
the amendment carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Shall the Schedule, as
amended, carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Schedule, as amended, carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
WHEREAS it appears that the
sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of
Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2021 and for
other purposes relating to the public service.
CHAIR:
Shall the preamble carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, preamble carried.
CLERK:
An Act Granting To Her
Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public
Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2021 And For Other Purposes
Relating To The Public Service.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill and
resolution carried with amendments?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent
thereto, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Madam Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill
40 with amendments.
CHAIR:
The motion is that I now rise
and report Bill 40 carried with amendment.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
The Committee of Supply have
considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they
have adopted a certain resolution with amendment and recommended that a bill
with amendments be introduced to give effect to the same.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed her to report that the Committee have adopted a certain
resolution with amendments and recommends that a bill with amendments be
introduced to give effect to the same.
When
shall this report be received?
MR. CROCKER:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Premier, that the amendments be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the amendments 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.
CLERK:
First reading of the
amendments.
On
motion, amendments read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the amendments be now read a second
time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendments now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
Second reading of the
amendments.
On
motion, amendments read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Premier, that the resolution, as amended, now be read the first
time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the resolution, as amended, 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.
CLERK:
“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it
is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty
for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year
ending March 31, 2021 the sum of $1,040,216,400.”
On
motion, resolution read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution,
as amended, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the resolution, as amended, be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
“That it is expedient to
introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying
certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31,
2021 the sum of $1,040,216,400.”
On
motion, resolution read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce the
Interim Supply Bill, Bill 40, as amended, and I further move that the said bill
be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 40, as
amended, and that the said bill now be 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,
that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, “An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For
Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending
March 31, 2021 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service,” carried.
(Bill 40)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Granting To
Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public
Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2021 And For Other Purposes
Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 40)
On
motion, Bill 40 read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Premier, that Bill 40 now be read a second time, as amended.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Granting To
Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public
Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2021 And For Other Purposes
Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 40)
On
motion, Bill 40 read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Premier, that Bill 40, as amended, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill now be read a third time, as amended.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Granting To
Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public
Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2021 And For Other Purposes
Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 40.)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill is now 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 Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For
Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Year Ending March 31,
2021 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Premier, that this House do now adjourn until budget day,
September 30, 2020 at 2 p.m.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
A matter has just come up and
I'm going to take a short recess to consider it. It won't be too long, a Member
wants to check something before he makes some comments in the House. I'm going
to give him a few minutes to do that if we can.
The
House is now in recess.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the House Leaders ready
to reopen?
Are the
Government House Leaders ready?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
The
Opposition House Leader, Third Party House Leader ready and the independent
ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, okay.
We're
received some sad news. I'm going to call on the longest serving Member of the
House to make a few comments.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
sad news. A former Speaker of the Legislature, Harvey Hodder, has passed away. I
knew Harvey and Pearl personally, so it is sad news.
For
those listening, Harvey was first elected on May 3 of 1993. He was re-elected
three subsequent times: February 22 of 1996, February 9 of 1999 and October 21
of 2003. Incidentally, he was the first Speaker selected under the elected
Speaker provisions of the Standing Orders
of the House of Assembly.
I had
the pleasure of serving 11 years with Harvey. I knew him prior to that when he
was mayor of the City of Mount Pearl. Harvey served us four years, from 2003 to
2007, as Speaker of the Legislature. I think I'm the only Member in the
Legislature who had actually had the pleasure of serving with Harvey. Everybody
else here is post-2007.
From our
side of the Legislature, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of all Members in
wishing condolences to the Hodder family, to Pearl and all of Harvey's family.
He served his district well, the District of Waterford Valley, which
incidentally is the name of the district that I serve. He did serve his district
well. He was a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian and, I know, fiercely proud
of the City of Mount Pearl.
On
behalf of myself and my colleagues, we wish condolences to the family. A very
sad day, indeed.
AN HON. MEMBER:
A moment of silence?
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, we will stand for a moment of silence.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
I
understand there are a few other Members who would like to make some comments as
well in relation to this.
I'll
look to the Member for Mount Pearl North now.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
my relationship with – I'll call him Mr. Hodder, because that's how I referred
to him when I first met him. He was my principal in junior high. That was back
in the mid-'80s. I can remember I was going through the transition from boy to a
teenager, and Harvey called me into his office. I remember him looking down over
his desk – at that time he was a good bit taller than me – and he said: Now,
young Lester, you're going to become a man and, he said, you better get on the
right side of the track. So I took that advice.
Regardless of the situations at home or the demographics, Harvey treated every
one of his students – as I said in my Member statement this past week, he
treated every one of his students with the utmost respect and really helped
identify the potential within every one of his students. I always remember him
as a very fair man. He always looked at every side of every situation.
It's
truly a loss to the community that such a great man has gone. Expressing
condolences to his family, especially his daughter Marilyn, who is in Tennessee,
and of course she's unable to get back on account of this pandemic that we find
ourselves in.
I'm sure
everybody will agree that Harvey may be gone but the positive influence on
everyone within our province and community that he has worked towards will live
on forever.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll now recognize the Member
for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I too
want to echo the remarks that this is certainly a sad day for us all here. It's
certainly a sad day for the people of Mount Pearl, for Harvey's family and a sad
day for me personally as well.
I moved
to Mount Pearl approximately 26 years ago now. I didn't know a soul. I was
employed with the provincial government at the time and was actually an activist
and very much involved. I was local president of NAPE 7104, actually, the
largest local representing everybody here in the Confederation Building.
During
that time, we went through some turbulent times. We can remember former Premier
Wells at the time and all the things that happened with the civil servants at
the time. I was very much part of that. That's what actually got me involved in
politics, believe or not. I had just moved to Mount Pearl, an election was
coming and I was kind of angry about what had gone on and I said, well, who's
running for the PCs in this area?
It's
kind of funny, my parents were die-hard Liberals. They said: I can't believe
you're getting involved with a PC campaign. Anyway, I did at the time. I didn't
know the man. I said: Who's running? They said: It's Harvey Hodder, the former
mayor. I said: Well, I'm going to go find his headquarters. Which I did over on
Topsail Road, the old Paint Shop, and met him for the first time. I became, I
think, his fiercest campaigner during that election and we became really good
friends. He asked me then as some point would I be interested in being on his
District Association. I was president of the District Association for many, many
years while he was there. We had a lot of good times; had a great friendship.
One
thing I can say is that Harvey was fiercely loyal to Mount Pearl, to the
residents of Mount Pearl. That was something that we certainly shared. Besides
being the mayor and the MHA, he was also a great community volunteer. He did so
many things behind the scenes that nobody will ever know. I'm sure every Member
in this House knows what I mean, because, as a Member, there is lots of stuff
that we do for people behind the scenes and help them out. Nobody knows about
it, but it happens.
Harvey
was famous for that. He has so much compassion in his heart for people, for
families and children, I guess as an educator. He always gave 100 per cent to
his community, which he loved so dearly.
He will
be dearly missed by many. I'm sure I speak for all the citizens of the City of
Mount Pearl in offering our deepest condolences to his wife, Pearl; to his
daughter, Marilyn; and all the other members of his extended family.
Rest in
peace, Harvey.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As a representative of the
NDP, I'm going to call on the Member for Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
send out my condolences to the family of former Speaker Hodder. I know he was a
long-serving Member of this House. He sat here long before I did but, clearly,
his work is still remembered to this day in this building. Sitting as a Speaker
for those years, too, is a very important task and it's not taken up lightly. I
would like to thank him for the work that he did, previously, before we all sat
here.
I send
condolences to his family and his wife Pearl. We, here in the NDP caucus, all
send our condolences to them. It's a very sad day here in the House, most
definitely.
Thank
you. Take care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before we close, I want to
say a few words about Harvey as well. I didn't serve in the House at the same
time with him, but I was here in the building as a political staffer for a
number of years before being elected, so I was here while Harvey was here and
while Harvey was Speaker. I got to know him well. I also lived in Mount Pearl
for a number of years. I lived in the district that he represented and I know
how respected he was as a Member. He had a long history of involvement in the
community, distinguished career as an educator and as a mayor before entering
provincial politics.
I think
it's fair to say he was respected on all sides of the House as a Member and
particularly as a Speaker. Members, people who knew him talked about his
fairness. I think that was his distinguishing characteristic as Speaker. The
thing that made him a great Speaker was the fact that he listened to all sides
and he was fair.
Some of
his rulings – we're dealing with matters that arise in the House and we look
back at precedents and how things were done in the past and very often his
rulings come up and give us guidance. I think that's a real tribute to his
impact on his district and on this province.
I just
want to add my condolences to the family, to his friends and recognize his
contribution to this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I think we were in the
process of making the adjournment motion.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House do now adjourn
until 2 p.m., Budget Day, September 30, 2020.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House does now adjourn until Budget Day, September 30, 2020.
The House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, Budget Day, September 30, at 2 p.m.