October 28

October 28, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 29

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Welcome, everyone.

Today, I would like to welcome Ken Clements to our public gallery. Mr. Clements is joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the Members for the Districts of Mount Pearl - Southlands, Placentia West - Bellevue, Placentia - St. Mary's, Humber - Bay of Islands and Bonavista.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

On October 4, government hosted the annual Premier's Athletic Awards at the Holiday Inn, St. John's. This program recognizes athletic excellence and provides financial support to help offset the cost incurred by our top athletes relating to both training and competition.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of this year's award recipients, including the following athletes from the District of Mount Pearl - Southlands, which I am privileged to represent: Shae LeDevehat for athletics; Chase and Cole Tucker, baseball; Brooke LeDevehat and Matthew Pennell for basketball; Terrie Hefford, bocce; Kaitlyn Hawco and Cecilia Martino, rugby; Morgan Harris, soccer; Megan Holden, swimming; Sarah Dawe and Claire Whiffen, volleyball; and, Liam Noble, hockey.

These athletes have achieved so much in their chosen sport and, in doing so have made their families and community very proud. I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in acknowledging their accomplishments and wishing them all the very best in their future sporting endeavours.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

I sit in this hon. Chamber today to recognize October as Autism Awareness Month, Down Syndrome Awareness Month, ADHD Awareness Month, Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month.

Many families are affected by autism, Down syndrome, ADHD, breast cancer and pregnancy and infant loss in our beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue. Speaker, it is vital that we show our unwavering support to the individuals and their families affected by all these diseases, disabilities and traumas. Building supportive and welcoming communities in our province will ensure that these individuals have access to services that can improve their way of living and give them a chance to have a fulfilling life, regardless of their diagnosis or experiences.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing and supporting Autism Awareness Month, Down Syndrome Awareness Month, ADHD Awareness Month, Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month, not only in the District of Placentia West - Bellevue, but in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, Amelia Jane Evans, fondly known as Millie, was born on October 29, 1921, to Jim and Martha Evans in Winterton. At the age of seven, she moved with her family to Markland and they started a vegetable farm.

In 1942, she married Fredrick Jones. They later moved to Whitbourne and together raised six children. In 1964, they moved to Ontario and for 11 years Millie worked in a stationary-greeting card factory. In 1975, Millie and her husband moved back to Newfoundland, making Whitbourne their home once again.

Mille was very involved with the United Church. She volunteered as a Sunday school teacher and participated in many fundraisers, preparing meals, baking and knitting.

Millie's husband passed away in 1996. After that, she spent her winters in Nova Scotia with her daughter. She now resides at the Lions Manor in Placentia.

This past August, I had the pleasure of joining Millie, her family and friends for an early birthday celebration. When I asked her what her secret to looking young was, her family said Oil of Olay. Millie has 14 grandchildren, 27 great-grandchildren and 4 great-great-grandchildren.

Tomorrow Millie will be 100 years old. Please join me as I wish Mrs. Millie Jones a happy 100th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Speaker, I'm pleased today to recognize the boys softball team of Templeton Academy in Meadows who are the provincial champions of the 2021-2022 3A Boys Slo-Pitch tournament held last weekend in Botwood.

Eight teams from across the province participated with the Templeton Tigers winning the final game against Mobile, 17-16, the team they lost to in the round robin. Templeton's team is made up of 14 players from Grades 9 to 12; a dedicated team determined to do their very best and work hard to win while enjoying the game.

This team includes Jayden Park, Jordan Blanchard, Noah Park, Gavin Lovell, Marcus Wells, Ethan Janes, Wade Mullins, Evan Janes, Reginald Ruth, Carter Burton, Tyson Park, Joshua Hann, Colby Christopher, Ryan Newman and coaches Fabian Lovell and Barry Park.

Congratulations to Ryan Newman, team MVP and Colby Christopher, most sportsmanlike player. This is the first time since 1987 a Templeton softball team has won gold. Many of the players play in the summer program at the Gilliams ball field under the guidance of Scott Blanchard and the recreation members.

I ask all Members to join me in extending congratulations to the Templeton Tigers and wish them continued success in the future.

Great job guys.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

It is an honour to celebrate the exemplary community service of George Clements who has dedicated a significant portion of his life serving the community of Bonavista.

George was originally from Grand Bank and came to Bonavista in 1960 as a teacher at the Salvation Army school and eventually married his wife, Bernice Mouland, a teacher as well. George later accepted a position as instructor at the Bonavista District Vocational School, followed by principal at the Eastern Community College until retiring in 1991.

George volunteered on many committees and groups in the area, such as the Peninsulas Health Care Board. George chaired the VISTA '97 committee and arranged proceedings and celebrations for the 500th anniversary of the historic trans-Atlantic voyage of John Cabot. George greeted and received Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip and coordinated external visits and events.

On September 1, 2020, the Sovereign's Medal was awarded to George by Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, the hon. Judy Foote. The book Bonavista, written by Bruce Whiffen in 2021, dedicates the prologue to George and Bernice Clements.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the outstanding lifetime of service from Mr. George Clements of Bonavista.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like to take the opportunity today to provide an update on the five-year Adult Literacy Action Plan, first announced in October 2019. The plan contains 30 actions designed to strengthen literacy skills within the province and build a more empowered and skilled population.

As part of the provincial government's ongoing commitment to improving adult literacy in Newfoundland and Labrador, last December we announced a $195,000 investment to support the introduction of a foundational Adult Literacy Pilot Program at The Gathering Place, delivered in partnership with the Murphy Centre.

Speaker, I'm pleased to inform the House that the program has already seen significant uptake, with 27 guests of The Gathering Place enrolled. Participants are receiving individualized training that can range from building and enhancing basic literacy and numeracy skills to technology, time management and organizational skills.

Speaker, I'm also pleased to further update that our government has recently provided more than $480,000 in total funding for three more important initiatives that will support adult learners with learning disabilities.

These include: an investment in The Learning Disabilities Association of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a one-year pilot project for adults with learning disabilities, allowing them to receive individualized tutoring as well as training and support in assistive technology; support for Brilliant Labs to implement a one-year pilot project to provide hands-on experiential learning for adults to increase digital literacy skills; and support for Newfoundland and Labrador Public Libraries to implement a one-year pilot project to expand adult and family literacy initiatives at libraries across the province.

Through the Adult Literacy Action Plan, we continue to support our community partners as they provide adult learners with meaningful literacy tools and resources.

Everyone in our province deserves the opportunity to experience the empowering effect of learning and improved literacy skills.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy of his statement. Speaker, first of all, I'm delighted the five-year Adult Literacy Action Plan did not fall by the wayside like the five-year roads program. Speaker, anything we can do in this province to increase literacy skills are to be applauded –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

B. PETTEN: I couldn't resist.

So many years Newfoundland and Labrador languished behind other provinces in adult literacy; however, in so many ways, literacy is a life skill that empowers individuals, allowing them make critical decisions about their lives. Individuals need to be empowered, Speaker, to build self-esteem.

I'm delighted to see government partner with Newfoundland and Labrador Public Libraries which offer multiple literacy tools and resources and should be partnered to improve literacy in the province.

In closing, I again congratulate these organizations for leading the effort to improve adult literacy in the province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and compliment his department on its investment in the Adult Literacy Action Plan.

However, I call on government to continue investing in these programs and expand them across regions of the province that lack supports found in the St. John's metro area. Also, we need to address the social determinants of health and education. This begins by ending overcrowding in classrooms, carrying out an independent review on teacher allocation, along with investing in families and making life more affordable for everyone.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

I want to thank the good people of Trades NL for allowing me to speak earlier today and experience first-hand how the highly skilled, dedicated members of Trades NL build this province every single day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: On February 8, 2021, Premier Furey wrote: “… our Government will require contractors bidding on … infrastructure projects to prioritize the hiring of qualified workers based in Newfoundland and Labrador.” Yet the Liberal government still has not implemented a policy that all public infrastructure projects will require a community benefits agreement.

I ask the Premier: Yes or no, can the Premier promise that from this point forward all public infrastructure projects will be subject to a Newfoundland and Labrador benefits agreement?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd also like to thank Trades NL for offering me the opportunity to speak this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: It's an incredible, important organization that represents, indeed, the hard-working women and men in our province, Mr. Speaker. They are helping to build infrastructure, they're helping to reform infrastructure, they're helping to sustain infrastructure and, most importantly, they're building a bridge towards a sustainable future for our province and we'll all support them.

We continue to work with Mr. King and their organization to ensure that we're developing a policy that meets the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to ensure and continue to ensure that the priority goes to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As I said to them this morning, over 90 per cent on the job right now on most projects throughout the province are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; some up to 97 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

Since 2019 Trades NL have been asking that the taxpayers' money that is spent on infrastructure projects in Newfoundland and Labrador should go back to be benefits to the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. So why are we not doing that?

Here's another quote from the Liberal red book: “Contractors will also be required to demonstrate a commitment to hiring women, Indigenous Peoples, and other workers underrepresented in the labour force.” When will the Liberal government make the necessary requirements so that all public infrastructure spending requires Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be put first for jobs?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm happy to speak to this.

I think everybody was down speaking at Trades NL today because I was as well. But I do think it shows you the importance of that industry and those individuals to the future of our province. I had a great opportunity to speak about the opportunities and the potential that we have here and, in fact, I had a question from the membership about benefits agreements and opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

What I can say is that we have had a task force recommendation about transparency and we have a working group that speaks to Trades NL regularly about benefits agreements and opportunities for employment. When we negotiate benefit agreements with proponents of mining or oil and gas, historically we've always only worried about the construction phase. But I can tell you now, any benefits agreements we do expands for the lifetime of that agreement, and after being out to West White Rose yesterday, it was great to see men and women working back on that project.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Speaker, so we've all come to the realization that all speakers agree that a community benefits agreement would be to the benefit of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. So why don't we just do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Speaker, when asked yesterday if physicians moving to work with collaborative care teams will result in orphaned patients, the Premier said: “This is not about taking one doctor to replace another one within the system ….”

Today we have heard of a family physician that was explicitly told by Eastern Health that they would not be able to take their patients with them if they accepted a position with the collaborative care team.

I ask the Premier: Why was the information given to the hon. House yesterday not accurate?

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

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

I don't have any inside knowledge into that conversation. The aim of collaborative teams is to provide a home for health for the individual. They will go through one door, have one telephone number, and access the right care from the right person in their own community, ideally.

This will be a mix of nurse practitioners. It will be a mix of pharmacists, optometrists, wound-care nurses, social workers – if need be – Income Support people to address social determinants of health, as well as family physicians, who are the ones who are best positioned to arbitrate, to decide between competing treatment plans. This will work for the benefit of those working, as well as those receiving care, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

Something doesn't add up here. Yesterday the Premier said this wasn't about taking one doctor to replace another, yet today we hear that is exactly what will happen.

I ask the Premier: How can his statement from yesterday be a benefit to helping patients in Newfoundland and Labrador access primary care?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

To develop my previous comment a little further, the advantage of these medical or these health homes is that everyone works to the skills they were trained to provide. No one who is in an advanced health care role needs to be filling in forms or filling in paper. That alone will increase efficiency and allow at least 25 per cent more of the time they're in the building to be focused on delivering care.

We are using additional health care providers to magnify, to amplify the range of services. So no one individual has to do everything for everybody, which has been the traditional model of family medicine, Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

Our understanding here is we're just swapping one in and one out and we're not improving access by any way, shape or form to people when it comes to health care.

Speaker, survey results recently published by The Telegram, spearheaded by Dr. Andrew O'Keefe and Dr. Monica Kidd, revealed some troubling results. Out of approximately 300 MUN medical graduates over the last 15-year period only 55 per cent were working here in Newfoundland and Labrador. What is troubling is that another 68 physicians wanted to work exclusively here in the province but were unable.

I ask the Premier: How will you address this retention issue, as highlighted by the physicians in this province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Speaker.

Certainly we recognize that retention is an issue here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I've experienced it first-hand; I have seen it in colleagues, family members and friends. It is encouraging that we have a medical school here that produces high-quality physicians who want to stay here.

We recognize that this is a problem and that is why we want to change the system to allow a real robust health human resource plan that will involve the NLMA, the Nurses' Union, everybody to make sure that we a re delivering the right amount of GPs for the province, Mr. Speaker. Beyond GPs, even the right amount of specialists to ensure that we're planning for the future to ensure that we have this system in place that is required.

MUN has been very co-operative and we will continue to be co-operative and we'll have ongoing conversations to ensure we have the right recruitment and retention plan for the future of this province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

Perhaps the first step should be to sit down with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and come up with a contract that works for all doctors in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Yesterday Dr. Mari-Lynne Sinnott commented to CBC in reference to the Premier's Minister of Health by saying, “His response has been overwhelmingly lacklustre with a concerted effort to not address the lack of primary care physicians ….”

I ask the Premier: How can you continue to have confidence in your minister when this is the overwhelming opinion throughout the medical community?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we said here before, we are developing a robust plan to ensure that we are increasing the number of family physicians in the province. We recognize that it is a gap in the system; COVID has exposed it even further. We also recognize the significant paradigm shift in people entering the practice of medicine. They are not going to practise the way they used to practise 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago. We know that is a gap. We know we have to address it, not just in medicine, but in nursing and other medical professionals in the province, Mr. Speaker.

This is a shift that is occurring all across the country; it is a gap in employment that we know that we need to meet. We are lucky to have a medical school here, a nursing school here; all of which we're devoted to. I am confident that we can use those resources to fill those gaps, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Speaker, new long-term care homes in Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor have not opened because, first, a staffing shortage and now building deficiencies, which we're estimating could be in the thousands. Mr. Speaker, hospital beds are blocked with seniors waiting for a bed.

I ask the minister: Why are you being reactive to these issues after they arise rather than proactive to prevent this unacceptable delay for our province's seniors?

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

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Speaker.

An important question and I think it was the same question that was asked last week and my answer will be the same. We are not happy that those buildings are not open, but there are deficiencies and we're working diligently with a contractor to address these deficiencies.

But, as I said before, I would rather that for those deficiencies to be taken care of right now before those residents are in those long-term care homes. I am looking forward to that happening sooner rather than later.

Thank you, Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Under an ATIPP, we received over 100 pages of deficiencies ranging from fire- and life-safety issues to structural defects and building code violations. These are very serious issues.

I ask the minister: How do you explain this situation to the families waiting for long-term care beds in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Speaker.

The question, again, is important because it goes to the needs – I have them in my own district in terms of seniors, as well. But the answer around the deficiencies is no different in terms of we are dealing with it diligently and in correspondence with Central Health to deal with it. Again, we're not pleased with the situation but we're holding the contractor's feet to the fire in terms of dealing with those deficiencies that hopefully will get addressed sooner rather than later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Speaker, these two homes were announced with great fanfare under the public-private partnership, or better known as P3s, as part of The Way Forward. Now we see delays and hundreds of pages of deficiencies that were apparently missed during construction.

I ask the minister: In light of these revelations, what are you doing to ensure the same deficiencies don't cause delays and don't happen with the new adult mental health and addictions facility here in the city?

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

E. LOVELESS: Again, Speaker, the answer is, I guess, similar. We're working with the contractor and the contractor has an obligation, as well, to meet those and correct those deficiencies. We are working diligently and, like any project and any progress or anything, we reflect on how we can do things better and there's always room for improvement. I'm sure this situation won't be any different.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to be accurate, so that everyone can see for their own eyes, these are the deficiencies.

SPEAKER: No props, please.

B. PETTEN: It's not props, Mr. Speaker. These are documents I'm planning on tabling, not a prop. This is an actual document I'm tabling to the House, which is part of my duties.

Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: It's not a prop, Mr. Government House Leader.

SPEAKER: Move on with your question, please.

B. PETTEN: I have the right to correct the misinformation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Move on to your question.

B. PETTEN: It's Question Period for me, not you. You get the answers.

Speaker, through information obtained in the Newfoundland English School District, our office learned fully –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Our office learned fully two-thirds of schools in the province have only partial and no mechanical ventilation at all. This includes the majority of schools in the Marystown region, which is currently dealing with a COVID-19 outbreak.

Speaker, proper air ventilation is an important tool to combatting the virus. Will the minister admit government has failed to properly address air quality in our schools?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the cases on the Burin Peninsula are children that are unvaccinated and, obviously, it's a concern for everybody.

We had put air purifier systems in every classroom and several other rooms in schools throughout the province, Mr. Speaker, in an effort to address the air quality and so on within the schools. Mechanical ventilation is another issue. I know that the cost of mechanical ventilation for all schools is well into the hundreds of millions of dollars. It cannot be done in July and August; you'd literally have to shut a school down with nowhere to send those students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

It has to be done sometime. We're going to have to find a way, I think.

Air purifiers are one thing – we'll have to see what the Auditor General has to say about that – but schools need fresh air, Mr. Speaker, and it's ridiculous to suggest you open one classroom window in the middle of winter. The situation in Marystown has shone a light on government's failure in this area, as two schools have absolutely no mechanical ventilation at all.

Again, when is the minister going to finally deal with the air quality in our schools?

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, knowing the difficulty in addressing the mechanical ventilation issue, as I said, you simply don't do this during July and August and expect to have students back in school in September. That's not the way it works. It takes considerably longer than this.

There's only so much bricks and mortar on the Burin Peninsula to house students, Mr. Speaker. We did put air purifier systems in schools throughout the province to help address this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Mental health and addictions supports are absolutely critical for people of the province. One of the measurements that the Canadian Institute for Health Information uses to evaluate the effectiveness of supports are readmission rates; in other words, someone receives treatment once and needs to seek help again.

Labrador-Grenfell Health has the highest readmission rate in the country. This clearly shows that government is failing this region with mental health and addictions supports.

I ask the minister: Do you believe being ranked worst in the country is acceptable?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

We recognized in 2016 that mental health and addictions was a challenge across the province, and certainly we recognized that Labrador has its unique challenges too. Towards Recovery laid out some very specific recommendations, and there is indeed a specific team focused on Indigenous requirements, needs for mental health. That meets regularly.

There is also a regional services committee which looks at the organization of health there. We've put Doorways into Goose Bay, into Labrador City. There is a six-bed acute mental health unit currently on time and on budget being constructed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That is part of our commitment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

A recent report that was just completed, commissioned by the Canadian Mental Health Association Newfoundland and Labrador, looked at lived experiences of people dealing with mental health. I'm taking their words right now –

SPEAKER: Remember no props, unless you're going to table it.

P. DINN: I can table it, sure.

Their words is this mental health that they're offering here in this province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. DINN: – their words: You have to have the right kind of crazy to get help here. The right kind of crazy, that's their words.

Speaker, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the median wait time for community health counselling in Newfoundland and Labrador is almost double the national average.

I ask the minister: Are you fine with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians waiting double the time for mental health supports than the rest of the country?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Certainly wait times for mental health and addictions services have been a challenge in the past. We have put in Doorways, a one-stop single-session counselling in between 60 and 70 locations. They move to match the needs of the community. We know that of the people who attend that, 50 per cent of them have their needs managed satisfactorily with one visit. Those who do not are referred on for counselling.

We have seen since the inception, since the start of Doorways, a radical drop in both the numbers of people waiting and the wait times that people have had to wait. We continue to work to get to zero. We're not quite there yet but we have made great strides, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

This same report will tell you that it is failing those who are looking for long-term help. It's failing them and those who have gotten help consider themselves just lucky. That's their report, people with lived experiences, which the Premier and the Minister of Health have said they're going to look into and listen to – people with lived experiences.

Speaker, specifically for children and youth, the median wait time for community mental health counselling in Newfoundland and Labrador is over double the national average.

I ask the minister: Why do you allow this failure of our province's youth to continue?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Back in 2017, I was the second Minister of Health in this country to institute a Recovery Council. This is a group of people with lived experience who report directly to me unfiltered.

I have had several meetings with them. This has been suspended owing to COVID and concerns that the members have had about their well-being. They will resume shortly.

From the point of view of counselling, as I have said, we are working to reduce both the number and the length of time people have to wait. Our goal is zero. I would argue, however, that we have made significant progress. We're not there yet, but we're a lot better than we were five years ago.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, the Health Accord has written that “funding consistent with our priorities are important resources in reorienting and rebalancing our health system.” In other words they will be asking government for more funding; yet Greene has recommended in her report cutting health care funding by 25 per cent.

I ask the minister: Can you outline whose advice you will take?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say this: It's unfortunate that we had Muskrat Falls or we'd have a whole lot more funding to put into many different areas of this province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: I will say that we are awaiting the report of the Health Accord; we look forward to having that. I think it's very visionary of the Premier to have implemented that full review of the health –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A full review of the health system. We need to address some of the concerns within the health system. We'll be listening and we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I heard the question and I want to hear the response, too, please.

S. COADY: Sorry, Speaker. I'm getting interrupted constantly and I thank you for your protection.

I will say that we look forward to receiving the final report of the Health Accord so that we can make some of the changes that are needed in order to address the concerns that we are seeing in our health system.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, the question is whether the minister considers health care a cost or a service. The Health Accord team certainly considers health care a service.

Speaker, the Premier appointed two sets of hand-picked experts: the Health Accord team and the Premier's Economic Recovery Team. Their recommendations about health spending do not agree. Now the Minister of Finance has to make decisions about how the money will be spent.

I ask her to be honest with the people of the province. Whose advice will she follow regarding health care spending?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's too bad the former administration didn't take the advice on Muskrat Falls. Now we're left with that legacy here in this province, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: I will say this: On this side of the House we listen to the advice of experts. As the Member pointed out, we have engaged a number of people. I think it's –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker, for your protection again in this House.

I will say that we are prepared to listen to the advice of those that are providing it to us. It will be up to this administration, to this government to accept and listen and consult and review and determine the best path forward. We look forward to receiving the Health Accord's advice very soon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, again, I simply ask the minister: Will you take the advice of the Health Accord team or are you looking at the advice of the Premier's Economic Recovery Team? Two different approaches: one focused on cost, one focused on service.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I guess they don't like the answer that I am giving to them. It is a challenge and I know that they are chirping quite a bit about Muskrat Falls, but it is the balance of a lot of the problems that we are having here in this province, Speaker.

I will say that we are informing ourselves on all sides of the debate and the discussion, but it will be up to our administration to consider the advice, the information that we're getting. Unlike former administrations, who just did what they wanted – and I am, again, referring to Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, the Opposition office ATIPPed the Department of Justice asking for the number of RCMP officers in the province, and we were told the department did not have the information and to contact the RCMP headquarters.

I ask the minister: Do you know how many RCMP officers are in our province?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you for the question.

As the Member Opposite knows, we do provide funding to the RCMP and the RNC in this province and we leave it to them to make operational decisions about who to hire and where the officers should go. So they are the ones that know that number and if it was suggested that she contact the RCMP for that answer, I suggest you do that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, that is shocking that the minister cannot provide that number to the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Provincial funding for RCMP has been frozen for 10 years; there is a $14-million shortfall. The RCMP is continually being asked to do more, with less. We've already seen the RCMP detachment in Grand Bank head toward closure. Detachments in the Port aux Basques are going from nine to just six.

I ask the minister: Why are you allowing RCMP numbers to dwindle in our province?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Muskrat Falls – oh, sorry, sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. HOGAN: Again, we do fund the RCMP and we take great pride in the work they do in this province. As I said yesterday to the very identical question, we are under physical constraints in this province and we work with the RCMP on a weekly, monthly basis to make sure that they have the funding that's necessary. We thank them for making efforts to modernize the policing in this province so we can move forward under the fiscal restraints and ensure that the people in this province are safe.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, yesterday the provincial government congratulated itself for its magnanimous gesture of welcoming some 116 Afghan refugees.

I ask the Minister of Education: What extra ESL supports and resources will be provided to schools where the children of these families and other refugee families attend?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been in discussions with the NLESD regarding the arrival of these newly welcomed citizens to Newfoundland and Labrador. The NLESD will determine where the individuals are living, working with the Association for New Canadians, and determine what schools the students will be going to.

We will provide the necessary resources, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the students are integrated into the school system in St. John's or any other area that they are living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Is the Minister of Education satisfied that the current level of ESL services and allocation of ESL itinerant teachers in our primary and elementary schools is effectively meeting the needs of our refugee students and their families?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member knows, we have gone out to the IAC and have received recommendations back for a teacher allocation review, which would include this particular set of skills, Mr. Speaker. The teacher allocation will ensure that the proper allocation models are being put in place. We currently operate under the existing teacher allocation model, and those numbers are decided based on that model.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Not the question I asked.

But I'll ask the minister: What is the current ratio of ESL itinerant teachers to the schools they service? Is it one ESL itinerant teacher for every school with immigrant refugee students? Is it 1-2, 1-3, 1-6? Does he know?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that in terms of the immigrant students, the question that the Member asked, but I will certainly get that and provide it to the Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

A lot of communities in this province need primary care. We have the ability to use nurse practitioners to fill the gaps left by doctors.

I ask the minister: Will he make the changes to allow nurse practitioners to bill MCP in the interim and give necessary funding to the health authorities to get nurse practitioners in the right place until we hear from the Health Accord?

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

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

The nurse practitioners we have are a crucial and very valued part of our health care system. I think we actually employ, through the regional health authorities, 95 per cent or thereabouts of the graduates.

The problem with fee for service is that those people who are currently receiving fee for service don't want to for primary care. So we have discussions ongoing through ourselves and Treasury Board about alternate payment plans, compensation schemes for primary care physicians.

We have a very good salary model and I think we should wait until we get a good model for remunerating primary care before jumping into that particular problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

We are in a crisis. In Labrador West alone, we have gone from nine doctors to three doctors in 18 months. They are burning out, working overtime hours with no rest and it's a revolving door of patients in need. Many are concerned that if we continue down at this rate, we'll have no doctors in Labrador West by Christmas. Our community is not alone in this province.

What is the plan for when our overworked doctors and health care professionals say enough is enough and leave the province?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Last week I announced a package of just over $30 million, of which $22 million is new, annualized funding. A key piece of that is in actual fact a recruitment and retention strategy. We will start by finding out what it is that new graduates want to make them work in family medicine in this province and particularly in rural or isolated areas.

Those have always been a challenge. Labrador is a great place to live and work, but it is also not a place that suits everybody. We will, through Labrador-Grenfell Health, however, work to ensure that primary care is available for those people in their communities when they need it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I table the deficiency list for Muskrat – no, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, I table the Marble Mountain Development Corporation annual report.

SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

In accordance with section 60 of the Financial Administration Act, I'm happy to table the 2020-2021 Public Accounts, and I'm proud to say we again have an unqualified audit opinion from the Auditor General.

SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Mr. Speaker, they're heavy to lift, but I'm going to table these deficiencies in the two long-term care facilities in Gander and Grand Falls. They're not a prop; it's the real deal. Take a couple of days and read it over the weekend and report back to me next week.

SPEAKER: Sorry, you need consent of the House to table the documents.

Does the Member have consent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: You're too good me.

But anyway, I'll repeat: These are the deficiencies in the long-term care facilities in Grand Falls and Gander. If the minister wants to do some reading over the weekend, it's going to take a couple of days. We never counted them all, but I'd like to see the actual number.

Anyway, so tabled.

SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table for the House, as the answer to many of the questions that were answered, a copy of the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: – entitled Muskrat Falls: A Misguided Project, compiled by the hon. Richard D. LeBlanc at a cost of about $15 million. I'd like to table this for everybody on the other side to read.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any other tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I give notice that on tomorrow I will move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Monday, November 1, 2021.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

WHEREAS individual residents in the Harbour Main District have expressed serious concerns over the service that they are receiving or lack thereof from motor vehicle registration; and

WHEREAS many people are frustrated with the long and unnecessary wait times for appointments and the switch to online services versus in-person counter service;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately take the necessary steps to review the current process in place for Motor Vehicle, develop and implement a plan which will best suit all people in the Harbour Main District and throughout the entire province.

Speaker, I am hearing, like other MHAs, other Members, from many constituents about the problems they are experiencing with motor vehicle registration. Specifically in the Harbour Grace area, but I'm aware that it's throughout the entire province.

I had one constituent from Clarke's Beach contact me. She said that she called motor vehicle registration in Harbour Grace looking to book an appointment. That was on October 20 for her to update her expired ID card. After a long period of waiting, she finally got through to them and they advised her that it would take several weeks to get an appointment because they are so backed up. This is just October 20, Speaker. That same day, another constituent from the Harbour Main District tried to book an appointment for an ID card online; the first available was November 29 for Mount Pearl and November 26 for Harbour Grace. This is unacceptable, Speaker.

Another constituent wrote and said while she herself witnessed seniors lined up outside in the cold and rain waiting to get into motor vehicle registration, they'd only allow 10 people in the building at a time and then, once inside, they take a number and wait again. She could not believe – and she wrote: Having these elderly people susceptible to these rainy and cold and wet conditions during the flu season of all times, there must be somewhere inside the building where they can wait.

Speaker, we need to look at changing this system. It is not working. The long lineups, the long delays, the long waits to get through – the minister says the doors are open, but they're not open. It's very difficult for the people who are trying to access this service and we have to do something better here. It's not just about, as the minister says, working on tweaking. This is hardly a case of a tweak or two; it's just not working. It has to be changed. Let's go back to the way it was before if you're not able to accommodate people properly.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

The long-term care facility in Bay St. George and Stephenville Crossing is 45 years old. It is one of the oldest long-term care facilities in our province. It was not designed for the level of care it is now providing residents. The building has substandard bathrooms which cannot accommodate lifts, and rooms are small in size in terms of length and width and do not meet the standard. There is a need for a new long-term care facility for the people of the Bay St. George region and its current residents.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to replace the Bay St. George long-term care facility so our seniors can receive the care they deserve.

Speaker, this petition has been signed by thousands of people in the region. As I said before, it's not just about my district; it's about the region. It's about the Member's opposite district, and it's more importantly about the people who live there – the dignity they deserve, the comfort they deserve. These are seniors who worked in our province and now need our help. They live in a government-owned facility that is substandard to their needs. It was built for level 1 and 2 care and it now provides level 3 and level 4.

So I urge the government to start the planning process and let's get this long-term care facility replaced.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

At this time of crisis in health care, the government took four years to prepare to negotiate a new contract with physicians and then came to the table with no proposals to address the long-standing physician recruitment and retention problem and zero investment in the Physician Services budget.

WHEREAS most specialties have fallen below the Atlantic average and Newfoundland and Labrador's family doctors are the lowest paid in the country; and

WHEREAS the per capita spending on physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador is among the lowest in the country; and

WHEREAS 99,000 people of the province do not have a family doctor;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to show leadership in the negotiations with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, resolve the impasse and work to build a spirit of co-operation with physicians to resolve long-standing physician recruitment and retention problems for the people of this province.

Speaker, this petition actually was read yesterday in the House by my fellow independent MHA from Lake Melville. The reason why we are concerned is because this relates to impacting doctors. We know we have a shortage of doctors in the province. It impacts overall health. When you can't access a doctor your overall quality of health will deteriorate. That is something that's going to cost a lot more money in the long run, so looking at the shortage.

This petition also highlights that it's taken four years to prepare to negotiate, yet they come to the table with nothing. Who should be offended by that statement? Should it be the government? Should it be the people? Because, at the end of the day, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association is there, they want to be a part of the process and to help find solutions.

We just have to look around our beautiful province, Speaker, it's filled with hard-working people who deserve quality of health; they deserve better. But, right now, out there, shortage of doctors is a huge void that a lot of people are falling into.

In my previous life, we always looked at problems as something that has to be prevented – prevention. I ask: Where is the commitment to prevention when it comes to health issues? What about the commitment to being proactive? Right now, this province, we don't even have the ability to be reactive, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the unaffiliated Member raising this issue in the House of Assembly. As I have said, I think repeatedly, we recognize and acknowledge that there's an issue with pay. We absolutely want to give them a raise and that's why I've said repeatedly that we want to have constructive and important dialogue with the NLMA.

I look forward to working with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, to continue our dialogue on recruitment and retention. As the Minister of Health and Community Services has said, repeatedly, I'm prepared to speak with them at any time, Speaker, on these important issues. I believe that there are solutions that can be found to ensure a full agreement with the NLMA.

SPEAKER: Seeing no other petitions, Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, October 28, 2021.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Bear with me one quick second. I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013.

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

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, thank you.

I move, seconded by the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013.” (Bill 39)

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

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act, 2013, in this House today. As a government, we recognize the importance of permanency planning and ensuring loving and stable homes for children who cannot be safely reunited with their families. It is the adoption legislation that governs the adoption process in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When the current Adoption Act, 2013, was proclaimed on June 30, 2014, there were a number of updates made to strengthen the adoption legislation in the province at that time. The intent and design then was to streamline the adoption process while remaining responsible and vigilant in ensuring the safety and well-being of children involved in the adoption process; ensuring the adoption program is progressive; clarifying and modernizing the law respecting adoptions, as the previous legislation was proclaimed back in 2003; and aligning the principles of the adoptions legislation with the child protection legislation where that was appropriate.

Of course, the purpose of today's bill is to further build on and strengthen the 2013 legislation by introducing amendments to the current Adoption Act. Section 77(1) of the Adoption Act, 2013, requires that: “The minister shall, every 5 years, conduct a review of this Act and the regulations and consider the areas which may be improved.” And “(2) A review conducted under subsection (1) shall include public consultations.”

In consultation with the government's Public Engagement and Planning Division, my department launched an engagement process to help inform this statutory five-year review of the provincial adoption legislation. My department looked at the adoption legislation and processes in other Canadian provinces and territories and reviewed best practices in this area. We found that, generally, the current act is consistent with others. We did, however, note areas for enhancement, particularly in recognition of the unique rights of Indigenous children.

The engagement process focused on such areas as highlighting experiences and/or challenges with the adoption legislation, improving the legislation in the province to better support individuals and families and, third, recognizing the unique needs of Indigenous children, youth and their families.

We had a very positive response through this process and gathered input from a variety of key stakeholders, such as birth and adoptive families, foster parents, the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, all Indigenous governments and organizations and the general public.

In fact, we received written submissions and had telephone and virtual discussions with 36 individuals, 26 departmental staff, five external stakeholder including the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association, the Innu Round Table Secretariat, the Nunatsiavut Government, the NunatuKavut Community Council, the Miawpukek First Nation and the Qalipu First Nation.

The adoption legislation has been found to be effective in providing a framework for adoptions in the province; however, based on feedback from the engagement process, we have identified several key areas where the legislation can be strengthened and those amendments have been proposed in this bill.

The proposed amendments also will align with the Child, Youth and Families Act, that law became effective in June 2019, along with recent amendments approved by this House during this session. Also, these proposed amendments will align along with this governments and my department's commitment to ensure the unique needs of Indigenous children and youth are considered in everything we do.

I would now like to take this opportunity to outline the proposed amendments for all hon. Members. Based on engagement with Indigenous governments and organizations and review of best practices, the statutory review is recommending that the Adoption Act, 2013, be amended to include legislated provisions similar to those included in the Children, Youth and Families Act.

The first amendment area is defining who is an Indigenous child and youth. This amendment adds the definition of Indigenous child to the legislation, which is not there now, which will clarify to whom the legislative amendments for Indigenous children and youth apply. Further, definitions to support these new provisions include indigenous youth, Indigenous government or organization, Indigenous representative and cultural connection plan. With the addition of these definitions, the adoption legislation would be consistent with those in the Children, Youth and Families Act.

The next amendment area is expanding best interest principles. My department and the courts make adoption decisions based on what is in the best interest of a child and factors to be considered are outlined in the adoption legislation. The proposed amendments will include the importance of preserving an Indigenous child or youth's unique cultural identity as well as the importance of the relationship between siblings when determining the best interests of a child. Making these updates would ensure consistency with current policy and best practice.

The next amendment area focuses on the needs of Indigenous children and youth. The adoption legislation does not currently recognize the unique needs of Indigenous children and youth. My department has consulted with all Indigenous governments and organizations in the province, and their feedback regarding the need for clarity around notification and collaboration is now reflected in the proposed amendments in this bill.

The following changes are proposed: the addition of a Schedule of Indigenous governments and organizations be added to the adoption legislation, similar to the Children, Youth and Families Act, to list Indigenous governments and organizations who may appoint an Indigenous representative to receive notice and be involved in adoption planning. The Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, the Mushuau Innu First Nation, the Nunatsiavut Government, the Miawpukek First Nation, and the NunatuKavut Community Council will be included in the Schedule.

Following discussions with the Qalipu First Nation, they have advised that they will reach out to my department when they wish to be included in the Schedule. Upon request, my department will seek approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make such an amendment to the Schedule at that time.

Regulations will also be developed to outline the process for Indigenous governments and organizations to appoint an Indigenous representative to act on its behalf in matters pertaining to the adoption of an Indigenous child or youth. As well, following an adoption, my department will notify the Indigenous representative that an adoption order has been granted by the court.

Furthermore, cultural connection plans, which outline the arrangements made to foster an Indigenous child post-adoption, will now be required by the court prior to finalizing an adoption.

The next amendment area is related to openness orders. Post-adoption openness is the process through which adopted persons and their birth families or others significant to them maintain contact after an adoption has been finalized. Under the Children, Youth and Families Act, a judge may place conditions such as continuation of parental access on an order of continuous custody, and these conditions may continue to have force once an adoption is finalized.

There are times, however, when continuation of access is not always in the best interests of the child and may unnecessarily delay permanency for children. At other times, continuation of access is in the best interests of the child and a court order would ensure this continues.

Throughout the engagement process, clarity regarding the openness was highlighted by the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate and Indigenous governments. Particularly the need to ensure that adoptive families maintain any openness that was agreed to prior to the finalization of an adoption. For Indigenous children, this was primarily related to ensuring openness with the Indigenous organization as it relates to cultural connection and access to benefits.

My department is addressing this matter by incorporating legislative provisions to remit openness orders that may be issued by the court in cases where a person with access with a manager with custody wish to continue access beyond the adoption. This decision would be made based on what is in the best interests of the child. As well, this would clarify the matter in advance of an adoption taking place and would provide legal clarity regarding the rights and obligations of all parties.

Speaker, the legislative provisions which outline the manner in which parties may voluntarily enter into openness agreements in relation to an adopted child will continue because this is most appropriate in some instances

The next amendment area is regarding youth. We have identified a legislative gap that exists between the Children, Youth and Families Act and the current Adoption Act, 2013 whereby a youth in care who has not been adopted by their 18th birthday must wait to be adopted as an adult at age 19.

The issue lies within section 50 of the current legislation that indicates a youth, after their 18th birthday, nor the manager is able to consent to the adoption. Therefore, we are proposing to address this gap by adding a legislative provision that will allow the manager's consent, signed before the 18th birthday, to remain in effect even though the 18th birthday has intervened, thereby allowing adoption plans to be finalized.

The final amendment area focuses on confidentiality and disclosure. Amendments are required to clarify the current legislative provisions in the Adoption Act regarding confidentiality and to ensure that the intended protection of sensitive information about adoptions is achieved while, at the same time, effecting maximum transparency for adoptive families.

The current act already provides direction regarding confidentiality and disclosure of information related to finalized adoptions; however, amendments are required to provide a direction on who may obtain information prior to its finalization.

The proposed amendments would also include a provision for internal review and appeal to the court for persons who are refused access to information under section 64.1. Currently, the provincial director may disclose information to an authority responsible for adoptions or adoption records in another province. The reference to “province” is limiting, as there are times in practice when it's necessary to contact and disclose information to adoption agencies in the United States or elsewhere.

My department's post-adoption program is frequently contacted by individuals born in Newfoundland and Labrador but adopted by American families, for instance, most likely in the 1950s or '60s, who are seeking information about their family. It is important that the post-adoption program have authority to communicate with adoption agencies in the United States and elsewhere to ensure adopted persons have access to information they are entitled to receive.

We are proposing that the word “province” in section 68(2) of the Adoption Act be replaced with the word “jurisdiction” to address this matter.

As well, in accordance with section 65(1)(a): The provincial director may disclose identifying or non-identifying information to a person where the disclosure is necessary for the health or safety of an adopted person, as currently written. We are proposing to amend this section to allow the provincial director to disclose information where it is determined to be in the best interests of an adopted child or adopted person. This change would be consistent with the approach of the Children, Youth and Families Act and allows for a more nuanced and clinical assessment of best interest rather than meeting solely the threshold necessary for health or safety.

Speaker, in closing, the amendments I'm introducing today will further strengthen the adoption process in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as recognize the unique needs of Indigenous children and families. Again, as a government, we are pleased with the feedback received during the engagement process that has helped to inform the proposed amendments of the province's adoption legislation.

I ask my hon. colleagues to support the bill which focuses on strengthening the adoption process throughout the province. I look forward to seeing this legislation passed. Further, as we debate these amendments, I would ask Members to focus on what we believe is and should be the focus of the Adoption Act and our amendments today, which reflects on the best interests of the child. This extends to ensuring Indigenous children being considered for adoption have their cultural background protected and ensured through the adoption process.

Speaker, thank you.

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

J. DWYER: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 39, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act, 2013.

As the minister has stated, the purpose of this bill is to expand some sections of the act to ensure the best interests of Indigenous children are taken into account when they are adopted.

These changes reflect extensive consultations with every Indigenous group in the province. They reflect consultations with the Child and Youth Advocate as well as the Foster Families Association and the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

These changes also reflect the Children, Youth and Families Act. The changes are important. They are driven by Indigenous communities themselves, they have been studied intensively and they have our support.

The minister has already gone through the bill. I intend to take the same approach and make some observations along the way.

Under some new definitions, the first clause of the bill amends section 2 of the act where various terms are defined. A couple of those new definitions stand out. One is the definition of a cultural connection plan. Clause 4 of the bill is going to add a new requirement in section 28 of the act that when an Indigenous child is adopted a cultural connection plan must be put in place to ensure the child maintains that important connection. This plan is one of the things that must be placed before the court as part of the application to adopt a child when that child is Indigenous.

The bill says a “'cultural connection plan' means a description of the arrangements made to foster and Indigenous child's connection with the Indigenous child's culture, heritage, traditions, community, language and spiritually to preserve the Indigenous child's cultural identity after an adoption order is granted.”

Indigenous child: Another definition added to the act is the definition of Indigenous child. It will mean “(i) an Inuit child, (ii) a Métis child, (iii) an Innu, Mi'kmaq or other First Nations child, (iv) a child who has a parent who considers the child to be Indigenous, or (v) a person who is at least 12 years of age but under 19 years of age and who considers himself or herself to be Indigenous.” In other words, a child 12 or older may identify as Indigenous or the parent of a child may consider that child to be Indigenous and that will be sufficient for the child to be treated under this act as an Indigenous child.

Openness: Another couple of definitions have to do with openness. The act already has a definition of openness agreement. This comes into play under Part IX of the act in sections 51 to 53. Openness is about maintaining a link and the prospect of future interactions or information exchanges of one sort or another.

The bill will change the definition of openness agreement and add a new definition of openness order. Openness agreement will now mean, “an agreement made under section 51 or 52 for the purposes of facilitating communication or maintaining personal relationships or cultural connections after an adoption order is granted.” Openness order will mean that “an order made by a court under Part IX for the purposes of facilitating communication or maintaining personal relationships or cultural connections after an adoption order is granted.”

As we can see, the definitions are expended to make provisions for the maintenance of cultural connections. The bill recognizes that these cultural connections are extremely important to Indigenous children and we have an obligation to ensure the child can maintain those connections and benefit from them.

Other definitions: Another couple of amendments will add definitions for Indigenous government or organization, as well as Indigenous representative.

Best interests principle: Clause 2 of the bill adds two things to section 4 of the act where the best interests principle is defined. Right now, the act says, “(1) The purpose of this Act is to create new and permanent family ties through adoption. (2) This Act shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle that the overriding consideration in a decision to be made under this Act shall be the best interests of the child. (3) In determining a child's best interests all relevant factors shall be considered …” and then it lists some of those relevant factors. Those include such things as: the child's safety, health and well-being; the child's physical, emotional and developmental needs; the importance of stability and permanency in the context of the child's care; the quality of the relationship the child has with a birth parent or other person significant to the child and the effect of maintaining that relationship; and so forth.

The bill will add two other relevant factors: “the importance of the relationship between siblings” and “the importance of preserving an Indigenous child's unique cultural identity.”

Youth 18 to 19: Section 19(1) of the current act says: “A child shall only be adopted in the province where the following persons have consented.” Then it lists those persons.

Clause 3 of the bill fills a gap by allowing people between the ages of 18 and 19 to be adopted. Currently, a person in their 18th year must wait until their 19th birthday. So filling that gap is a sensible change.

A cultural connection plan: Clause 4 of the bill has to do with the cultural connection plan that was defined in clause 1. This change simply requires that a cultural connection plan be a part of documentation submitted to court for finalization of adoption on an Indigenous child.

Service of documents: Clause 5 of the bill adds a new section 31.1 regarding the service of documents. It allows copies of documents to be provided to an Indigenous representative in certain instances.

Notification: Clause 6 of the bill adds a new section 36.1 to the act. That new section will state: “A manager shall notify, in writing, an Indigenous representative of the appropriate Indigenous government or organization of the adoption of an Indigenous child as soon as practicable after the manager receives a certified copy of the adoption order under” the appropriate section.

Access order or agreement: Clause 7 of the bill makes a significant change to a section of the act regarding access orders or agreements. This is how the current section 40 reads: “Where an adoption order is granted, an order or an agreement that is enforceable under Part III of the Children's Law Act or Part IV of the Family Law Act for access to the adopted child ceases unless the court orders otherwise under subsection (2).

“(2) Where it is in the child's best interests the court may continue or vary an access order or an access provision of an agreement that is enforceable under Part III of the Children's Law Act or Part IV of the Family Law Act.”

And this is how the new section 40 will read: “Where an adoption order is granted in respect of a child, the following orders and agreements cease to have effect: (a) any order that grants a person access to the adopted children, other than an openness order granted under this Act; and (b) any agreement that is enforceable under Part III of the Children's Law Act or Part IV of the Family Law Act that grants a person access to the adopted child.” In other words, any access to an adopted child allowed under the Children's Law Act or the Family Law Act will no longer be in effect, only the rights provided under openness orders will have effect.

Openness: As noted earlier, clause 8 of the bill has to do with the part of the act on openness agreements, Part IX. The bill adds seven new sections in that part. The purpose of these new sections is to protect the best interests of the child. Currently, there may be continuation of access after adoption if a judge so decides. Under these amendments, the best interests of the child, as determined under the process laid out in this act, will prevail.

Protection of privacy: Clauses 9 to 14 of the bill amend Part XII of the act regarding confidentiality and disclosure. Clause 9 rewrites section 64 in order to enhance the protection of sensitive information. Clause 10 adds two new sections defining who may obtain sensitive information and what shall not be disclosed. Clause 11 rewrites section 65 regarding disclosure when it is deemed to be in the interest of an adopted child or person. The change will make the act consistent with the Children, Youth and Families Act. Without the change, a provincial director may disclose information to a person for health or safety reasons or to allow the child to obtain a benefit. The amendment allows for disclosure based on the best interests of the child.

Clause 12 rewrites section 66 regarding contact by a provincial director. Clause 13 simply changes province to jurisdiction. Clause 14 adds a new section, 68.1, to allow for internal reviews and appeal. This, too, is consistent with the Children, Youth and Families Act.

Other changes: Clauses 15 to 20 make other changes, one of which adds a new Schedule to the act, Schedule B, which lists Indigenous governments or organizations. The Schedule can be amended by regulation. The bill lists five such Indigenous governments or organizations: The Miawpukek First Nation, Mushuau Innu First Nation, Nunatsiavut Government, NunatuKavut Community Council and the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation. I apologize for my enunciations on those. The Qalipu First Nation has chosen not to be included in the Schedule.

In conclusion, Speaker, this is an overview of what the bill does. As I stated at the outset, the bill reflects the aspirations of the Indigenous communities themselves. It is the product of extensive consultation that I personally was part of myself. It has been extensively reviewed. Children's interests and privacy protection concerns have been addressed.

It's a bill we support in principle. We look forward to further debate at the Committee stage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I would like to thank my fellow MHA for Placentia West - Bellevue. He did apologize for some of his pronunciations, but I really respect when somebody is there and tries to the best of their ability to pronounce the Indigenous words, because that's inclusion. So I thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: This bill is very, very important because it impacts Indigenous children. Indigenous children grow up to be Indigenous adults – the Mi'kmaq Nations, the Innu Nations, the Inuit Nations and Inuit organizations.

Much work must be done to keep our Innu, Inuit and Mi'kmaq children close to their home communities. A lot of times it's impossible, if a child is being fostered or being adopted, for them to be in their home communities, but we must be doing everything that we can to ensure that our Indigenous children have ties to the land and to the culture.

That not only helps the Innu, the Inuit and the Mi'kmaq child, but also it helps their family and it helps their communities. Without that, we will never have healthy Indigenous communities. That's why this act is so important. It's about protection of the child but also ensuring culture and land connection and culture connection is being maintained. That's what was missing, I think.

Just looking at that also, maintaining true cultural connection should not be substituted for Ski-Doo rides and walks in the woods to have a boil up. That's not ties to the Indigenous land use, the Indigenous culture. So we must really make sure the connection is true to the intent.

We know the importance of land and culture to the overall health of the child. We also know it's important to the people. If we protect our children and our people, we will actually be able to make bridges where we can actually end intergenerational trauma.

I want to commend the minister and this government for all the work that's been done to improve this act. I really applaud your efforts and the efforts of the former minister, as well. Thank you, Minister.

I commend, also, the energy that's gone into this and the way the consultations were done with the Indigenous groups: the Nunatsiavut, the Inuit community governments, the different organizations, from different levels of the Innu governments and also with the Mi'kmaq. I did hear some feedback from the Innu and the Inuit that they were consulted with. I think that this act will bring about change, but it's a first step.

What I want to say now to the minister is that we also need to do more for the families of the children. Whether we're fostering children or having our Indigenous children adopted, we have to make sure that there's work going in to help the families so that they can keep their children, so we don't have to deal with the issue of adoption, so we don't have to deal with the issue of fostering.

You may say, well, this is an Act to Amend the Adoption Act, Lela, but in actual fact, we have to look at all the services that apply when we come to dealing with the protection of children. A lot of times, we need to make sure that when we are protecting the child, we're making sure that child has a warm home to be raised in, the child has food on the table so that they're not hungry and the child can actually be with their family in a house. So we need affordable housing.

The Indigenous world revolves around the children because Indigenous people know that child is going to grow up to be an adult, to have more children and then, later, to be an elder, to actually educate the youth and the new children that comes after them. So, with us, it's all about everything working together.

Mr. Speaker, I'm actually going to end there, but I really want to say that these amendments go a long way to ensuring that the children are protected in a way that they don't lose connection to their culture and to the land.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE: Speaker, I'm quite pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 39, an act respecting the Adoption Act, 2013.

As required in the Adoption Act, 2013 section 77, a statutory review has to be completed and the regulations are to be examined and areas to be improved. I think this is a good thing. I think any plans or policies we put out there should have a review timeline and a review process in place, Speaker, to allow for that. This also includes public consultations, which are very important when considering such important and sensitive legislation. I understand that consultations were given a priority when it comes to this bill. I understand that they were quite effective and well attended.

A bill that provides improved adoption services, such as this bill, is the result of experiences and concerns and is based on best practices. The expansion of the best-interests-of-the-child principle include the “importance of preserving an Indigenous child's unique cultural identity” and the importance of the relationship between siblings.

This amendment being added to the act is so important, Speaker. I am pleased to see these principles added to section 4 of the act and to know they are consistent with current policies and best practices already. The significance and importance of sibling relationships is, again, a very important consideration and I'm elated to see this as a part of the act.

The Indigenous children and Indigenous representative section in the amendments clearly outlines that the best interests of Indigenous children are best addressed through their involvement of their Indigenous community. The premise around this principle allows for a definition of Indigenous child which will allow for various provisions when an adoption is being reviewed.

A cultural connection plan would be required by the courts prior to getting an order. Indigenous governments and organizations would be identified and notified and involved in the cultural connection planning.

Openness orders for post-adoption content: These amendments provide guidelines and procedures to facilitate communities where it is in the best interests of a child. The adoption of between 18 to 19 birthdays has been addressed. It clarifies the gap that was there existing in the current legislation and in the current bill. The act also addresses proper amendments to ensure the sensitive adoptive information is protected, but it still says that they're going to ensure transparency in the process.

I fully support this bill. I congratulate the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development for bringing this forward and doing this great work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

When I think of adoption or the birth of a child I always think of that Christmas hymn, When a Child is Born. It's a wonderful time, the birth of a child. It's happy; it's a miraculous time. It's no different when you adopt a child. We're going to support this legislation, no doubt about it.

When you say it's in the best interests of the child, that's core. That is the core to this legislation: In the best interests of the child. One would expect that. One may argue that our legislation in the past probably wasn't in the best interests of a child, but the concept, the purpose of this legislation is core with the best interests of a child.

When you think of a child, when they're young it's their wonder years. It's the time when they really develop in how they're going to proceed in life. Those early years are extremely, extremely important. I've always said in this House our greatest resource is our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: I take that a step further: Our greatest resource is our youth and our babies that are being born. That's our future. Literally, that's our future. They're our best resource. They're our greatest resource.

But every family, every situation is unique when you look at adopting a child. My experience, when I worked with a number of social workers who had to deal in adoptions, there are two sides to it: There's the adoption where a family is taking on a child and starting their family; and there's the flip side to it, when you're removing a child from a situation. So there are good and bad. But the adoption is – regardless of the age of the child, it's the birth of your child, basically, bringing into the family.

I'm really pleased when we're talking to the engagement process here. I think when we talk about Indigenous communities – I mean I've visited them and that's the best I can say. I really and honestly don't have a grasp of the lifestyle and the culture. I'm embarrassed to say so, because we really all should have a good understanding of our province, which includes Labrador.

So I'm glad to hear that the changes are being driven by the Indigenous communities. It's there – and I read it here, “to foster an Indigenous child's connection with the Indigenous child's culture, heritage, traditions, community, language and spirituality to preserve the Indigenous child's cultural identity after an adoption is granted.” That is so important. I mean, get past the word “legislation,” but picture that child, an innocent child coming into a new home.

The Member for Torngat Mountains mentioned about going into a warm home, talked about housing, talked about food, talked about other supports, but we all hear that saying: You have to make the house a home. So I agree with the Member in terms of the basics but when we consider the cultural activities that you have to bring along with that child, that's making that house, that's making that structure a home for those children, and that is so important.

The Member for Torngat Mountains mentioned the other day as well, talking about Red Indian Lake just for a little side here, and talked about how that could increase more racism or more vindictiveness towards Indigenous peoples. Well, I hope people see this piece of legislation here that we're dealing with. This should not, nor should any legislation, be going down that road. This is looking at babies, youth. This is what it is looking at: Giving them a better start when they have no home. You can't argue against this legislation. Like any child, Indigenous or not, you want to provide an environment where that child can flourish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: You want it there so that child can be everything and anything they want to be. To do that, you have to have that base; you have to know where you came from. Making sure that they remain in touch with their culture, their customs and their traditions is a huge part of that.

Again, that's not going out for a Ski-Doo ride; there's more to it than that. There is the spirituality of it. There is always room to improve on anything we put forward. I think this is a very, very good start at this. I'm sure, down the road, you'll find others instances where we should have changed this, should have changed that. We talked about it is the protection of the child and that's what it's aimed at. It's to make sure every child, and in this particular case Indigenous children, have the best start they can have if they can't have it in their home, if for whatever reason they have to be adopted.

Adoption is not always because of some bad thing. It might be any kind of situation that leads to an adoption. But you're giving that child a start. Just think about the child going to a strange home to start with. So everything you can do to create a familiarity for that child, to create a setting that is not so foreign to them, can only reap benefits. It can only reap benefits.

So when we look at this, this engagement process, and look at the unique needs – and I would argue every child comes with unique needs. But when you're looking at Indigenous groups, Indigenous children, there are some very obvious needs in terms of culture that we need to deal with. The best interests' principle, I like that. That's something we need to abide by.

You've added in a couple of relevant factors to that. The importance of the relationship between siblings, that is crucial – crucial. The importance of preserving an Indigenous child's unique cultural identity, those are crucial to this legislation.

When I look at the bill, there's many bullets here and explanatory notes. But the ones I highlight are the best interests of a child, the best interests of an Indigenous child, preserving an Indigenous child's unique cultural identity and ensuring to include a cultural connection plan. These are all great to ensuring these children have the best start, the best opportunity to be all that they can be.

I'm not going to say anything more other than this is a long time coming and we really start to address the true issues and the true challenges and come up with solutions that ensure our Indigenous children have the best start they can and they do not lose their culture, their identity and their traditions.

Thank you for this and I look forward to the Q & A on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Warr): I'm recognizing the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

As others have indicated, this is a very well-received piece of legislation in this House of Assembly here today. I must say, representing the District of Lake Melville, it's a piece of legislation that reflects so many of the issues that we deal with.

As you're going through the clauses and the technical briefing we had from staff and then listening to the comments on the floor, it's quite revealing. Usually in a constituency office, you're working with an individual family or individual and they're coming to you with a problem such as around adoption, maybe it's fostering, other issues around children and youth in care.

As they often say, you have to step back sometimes to see the woods through the trees. If I think of all these individual files and I start to look down at the different changes being proposed in Bill 39 that the minister identified, you start to see common themes running through those, underlining issues. It's very refreshing to see just how effective the consultation was, led by the minister and the department, to really get at the heart of what I believe are the vast majority of so many of the issues we've been tackling, myself over the last six years, and many others for perhaps many more years. Nothing but a compliment, Minister, to what you have here.

I wanted to talk, just a couple more points. One that I'm often speaking to or having people ask me about is: What is wrong with having youth from Labrador fostered or adopted in very loving families outside of Labrador, outside of that culture? I feel that, as my colleague just spoke about a few minutes ago, from Torngat Mountains, there's a real realization of the long-term consequences of being separated from your identify, from your culture when it's so steeped in history and so rich, and then to be separated from that. I think that the department and officials over the years have absolutely moved in a direction which is to essentially move a child out of harm's way.

Under the Child Protection Act you're really, first and foremost, trying to protect that child from whatever immediate situation which just isn't going to help for the future of that child or children. But, as we're coming to understand through intergenerational trauma, you're certainly starting to see consequences, you're seeing issues manifesting in other ways, through mental health issues, maybe medical health issues and so on, that it's good to see legislation coming now, because I feel that it's reflecting a realization that some moves, despite maybe the best of intentions, are paying and challenging society and governments to respond adequately. So, again, I compliment the minister.

One further point I wanted to put in here – two more points. One is we've had a good discussion in this area of the Legislature here this last hour and it's our understanding – and I look forward to seeing exactly what this all might entail; we have some ideas – that the Indigenous organizations, through their membership already – and, by the way, I wanted to say that we are already seeing elements of this rolling out as the represents have been identified, have been hired, they're in place now starting to represent that Indigenous culture and the context of the adoptions, I feel that's going to be very helpful, and I'm understanding that there will be good guidance for those future families. If they're not connected to the culture, per se, there'll be important guidance provided. I've heard some examples here as to what one might interpret as appropriate cultural education, versus the real understanding and thorough ability to be able to provide very much of a nurturing, culturally enriching environment.

My final thought I wanted to put out there was – and it's only because it's fresh and top of mind – helping a family this week, these last couple of days, and it's a family we've been working with for many years. It may or may not necessarily fit inside this act, but I did want to mention it.

Many of the situations our office deals with are through adoptions by other family members of those children. I can list off right now a handful of families I'm aware of where the grandparents are now raising young children. So there's a generation gap there. Some of these grandparents, frankly, have stepped up. They really need to be commended. And while they enjoy the support, I'm sure there's always so much more that can be done there. Especially as you get on in your years and now you're tasked with this immense responsibility of providing a good, safe, culturally relevant home for these children now that are perhaps related to your son or daughter and now you're fully in charge.

I thank, again, the minister; I thank the House, again, for bringing this legislation forward. It will be well received in Lake Melville, across Labrador and across the province. I look forward to seeing it in action.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill 39, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act. I will be supporting this bill, I will say that for the record. I think it's a good piece of legislation.

Obviously, we know the Adoptions Act in general, that the overwhelming principle has always been that the needs of the child come first – as it should. Certainly there is nothing being done to, in anyway, take away from that principle; we're only adding to that principle today.

Speaker, I can't speak with any great knowledge or insight as it relates to the needs or know a whole lot about the culture of a lot of our Indigenous people. You know, certainly in the district that I represent, I don't think that I can –I've dealt with a lot of people in my district, know an awful lot of people, I can't say I know anybody, to be honest with you, that comes to mind at the moment that would be an Indigenous person in my area. I'm sure there are people perhaps that may have status, you know, from Qalipu and so on, which I may not be aware of. But, certainly, when I think of Inuit and so on and the groups up in Labrador, I can't think of anybody, to be honest with you, in my district.

I haven't had that exposure, like my colleagues behind me would obviously would in their district. They would be very familiar with the culture, with the language, with the traditions and so on. I come at this, I guess, with a very, very basic knowledge – admittedly. I'm certainly no one to judge, in any detailed way, as to a lot of the aspects of this bill in terms of the details of the culture and so on.

But from a general point of view, and I speak from a general point of view, Speaker, as I said, it's all suppose to be about the best interests of the child. I think when we look at anybody, whether you're a child or an adult – and we've seen in more recent years I think a greater realization of it – that if people are truly to be happy and truly to succeed and so on, I think the first thing that needs to happen is that there has to be a recognition of themselves, who they are, where they come from and what they stand for.

We've seen a lot of people now, not just from a cultural point of view but even from how they identify, and that wasn't always the case. Many years back people were living their lives and really living the life of someone who they weren't, they weren't being true to themselves. It's great to see these days that more and more people are choosing to be very open.

SPEAKER: I remind the Member to stay relevant to the bill.

P. LANE: Yes, thank you, Speaker.

My point, Speaker, is the importance for people to identify with who they are. That's my point. In this case, it's important that if children, Indigenous children, specifically, as is being dealt with here in this piece of legislation, they will have the best opportunity, I believe, I think we all would believe, to success, to be happy as themselves and who they were born to be, keeping those ties to their culture is very, very important.

From a general sense, that's really what this bill is all about, it's recognizing the importance of protecting children, particularly children who are in unhealthy environments, who could be in an environment where they've sadly been harmed or there's a high potential that harm could be done to them for any number of reasons. That's what the child protection is all about, is to protect those vulnerable children in those situations.

But, as my colleague from Lake Melville said, it's also important that instead of – while it's obviously critical that a child be removed from a harmful situation, I think there's a realization that we can also do, I would say, unintended harm by removing children from their culture and ties to who they are as an individual.

So, preferably, we would want any child in that situation who, whether they're going to be adopted or whether they're going to be fostered and so on – ultimately, I would assume the goal would be that they could stay in their own community. That they could be, wherever possible, maintaining that link with family members, siblings, friends as much as possible.

Ultimately, if there were family members that could adopt them or foster them – that would be assuming there's no issue with the person or persons that they're being separated from – it's not doing any harm there. Ultimately, if they could be adopted or fostered by family members in their own community, that would be great.

Barring that, I think being adopted and/or fostered by other Indigenous people who understand the culture and are living that culture, that would ultimately be great. But there are also going to be situations, perhaps, where that may not be possible and the child may end up having to be fostered or adopted by somebody not in that community who may not be of that culture. Those situations may occur as well.

That's why I think it's talking about here, in those cases, the need to ensure that whoever the adoptive family is, that they are going to commit – and, obviously, there are going to have to be a mechanism in place to ensure those commitments are kept – to maintain those ties for that child with that child's culture and so on.

I'm not sure of the mechanics of exactly how that would happen. I did have a little sidebar discussion with my colleague just sort of asking about how that would work. I just look at myself as the individual. If I were ever to decide that I was going to adopt or foster an Indigenous child, I wouldn't know where to start in terms of the cultural piece. As a couple of Members talked about, there's more to it than going for a ride on a Ski-Doo and having a boil up.

That would be about the extent of the things that I would know about, because I just don't know the culture and understand all the traditions; I don't know the language and so on. Obviously, somebody who was to undertake this, who was not of that culture, there would obviously have to be a huge learning curve. Those adoptive families would have to commit to and undertake a huge learning curve if they truly wanted to adopt an Indigenous child.

I'm assuming with the Indigenous organizations that are involved in this process within the department, that there would obviously have to be significant – I'm going to use the term “orientation”; it may not be the right term. It's one thing for me to be committed to learn but then, obviously, there has to be someone to teach me a lot of these traditions if I were to go down that road as a potential foster parent or to adopt a child.

I'm sure all these things would be covered off in the regulations. I'm sure that these things would be covered off with the department, with the other Indigenous organizations that are involved. If somebody not of that culture were to decide they wanted to be an adoptive parent or even a foster parent, it would obviously have to be a fair – along with a willingness of that person to learn, there would obviously have to be somebody to teach. I'm sure that those resources would have to be put in place and would in that particular case.

With that said, Speaker, I think the intent here is great. It makes a whole lot of sense to me. It's certainly something that I will support. I'm sure that all of the mechanisms will be put in place by the department through regulation, through policy and through consultation with the Indigenous organizations to ensure that all the resources that would be required to make such adoptions, fostering, a seamless exercise, if you will – I'm sure that those resources would be available to make that happen. Obviously, if we're going to do these things, it's so important to every child and it has to be done right and proper.

From the general perspective of what we're trying to do here, I think it's a good thing. I'm very glad to see that apparently it seems like there's been a lot of consultation with our Indigenous people. That's key to make this successful.

With that said, Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. I just reiterate the point that I think it is a good piece of legislation and I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I, too, will start of by saying I do support this. It's a good start towards making sure that Indigenous children, no matter if they're in an Indigenous community or they're going to another community or something like that, that their culture goes with them. That is really important.

We talk about it, the importance of retaining one's culture and the important connections they have to their homeland and things like that. Make sure that we do the best we can for children that are in such situations, that they're not with their people and their direct connection to the land. We have to make sure that it goes with them, have to make sure that it is a part of their identity and who they are and their spiritual being.

I look at my own children in the sense that my wife does everything in her power to make sure that they understand where they came from and who their family is. They have a connection with their community and all their relatives when it comes to their Indigenous identity. We have to make sure that even though a child may be going into a different home, an adoptive home, it still continues on through the rest of their life. That's a connection that is very spiritual, it is very in depth and I almost would say it is genetic. It is something that's a part of their being and who they are. No matter where they are in the world they will have that connection to it.

My wife always says she'll never leave Labrador because she's afraid that she'll lose that little bit so she'll always stay in Labrador. But I still believe even if she goes anywhere in the world, she will always have that spiritual connection to the land and to their people. That's very important to Indigenous cultures and most other cultures as well. That is important to their well-being, their health and everything. Spiritual health is a very important thing too.

I do applaud this move and I'm glad that they're in consultations with all the Indigenous governments. We make sure that we address this. It's a part of the act, it's a part of everything that is that we continue along those lines to make sure that this well-being of Indigenous children are important, it's upheld and to have the ability to do this. Also, it is great, too, that we have it here but we have to make sure that the correct resources and everything is too, to make sure that it's facilitated.

I did listen in when the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands asked this question to my two colleagues from Labrador about how would this work out. It's important. He raised some good points about making sure that there are resources and education and everything there to help people do this. We should help people do this and give them all the opportunities to make sure, because like we said the other day when we were discussing another act, it's about a learning process and all of us learning together about Indigenous cultures in this province. We have to learn together.

That's the thing, too; the Member was honest and said that he doesn't have many Indigenous people calling his office but he wants to learn. That brings a lot of hope to me that he's sitting behind me saying he wants to learn, and that's the important part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. BROWN: I recognize that we're all here as a learning experience and we should all learn together. Things like this helps other people in our community learn the importance of the cultures that are around us and our well-being.

I, too, will support this. I think it's a great first step. I hope that the department continues to look at all these things to improve Indigenous people and improve the lives of Indigenous children in this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers if the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development speaks now, this will close debate.

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

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, thank you very much.

To my colleagues in the House, I thank you for your comments. I just wanted to respond to a couple, if I may. The Member for Torngat Mountains talked about supporting families, among other comments. Certainly, I believe that is essential if we are to succeed in making sure our Indigenous children and families remain together. That's certainly something we are doing and we will build on going forward. We have seen, I say, a significant reduction of the number of children coming into care in Labrador because of that initiative by my department. We will build on that because we know we have more to do.

I appreciate those who recognize that the best interest of the child is fundamental and the driving force behind the legislation and certainly these amendments.

The Member for Lake Melville, one of the things he commented on was in terms of within a family where children may be raised by their grandparents or other family members, their aunties or others. One of the things that we are working on with the Department of Justice and Public Safety and the Indigenous communities and governments is how we actually look at strengthening our legislation to support those cultural adoptions within the Indigenous families and communities. That, we know, needs to be addressed and we recognize it wouldn't fit within the context of these amendments. That's a piece we're working on, as we speak. So we will have more on that in the future.

To the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands in terms of how we make this happen, in terms of protecting the Indigenous culture for children who are being adopted, we will have and it's in the legislation and it will be put in front of a judge in approving an adoption order would be a cultural connection plan. So that would be developed by our social workers in conjunction with the Indigenous representatives and the families involved to make sure that that is in fact in place. We also have openness arrangements so that the connection with the family, if it's agreed by all parties, will continue in a post-adoption period, and for life, ideally.

So, Speaker, that's it for now. I do appreciate, and if you look across our community, the number of children that have been adopted, the number of children yet to be adopted, we're working hard to make sure that the children in our care that are identified for adoption are placed in a loving and caring family as quickly as possible, recognizing there is a fair bit of work that has to be done involving both our social workers, the families involved and the courts.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 39 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes): A bill, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013. (Bill 39)

SPEAKER: This bill has been read a second time.

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

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, be leave. (Bill 39)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 39.

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 the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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 (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013.” (Bill 39)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, you mentioned in your address – before I get started, I guess, I would first like to say thanks to my colleague. I appreciate the forgiveness on my enunciations of the very important Indigenous nations that deserve these very important changes to this bill, so thank you very much for that.

Minister, the Qalipu First Nation has chosen not to be included in the Schedule. Did they give you any reason why?

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

J. ABBOTT: Chair, the only thing I can respond right now is, in terms of the issues that they're dealing with within their community, this wasn't, I'll say, high on their priority in terms of dealing with children's issues. But they want to stay apprised of the developments and if and when they're ready to participate then we will add them to the Schedule.

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

J. DWYER: So while they're not a part of the Schedule, is the Qalipu First Nation covered by this legislation?

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

J. ABBOTT: Yes, they are, to the extent that we can accommodate the Indigenous issues that may arise. The only missing piece, right now, if this was passed today, is that we wouldn't have an Indigenous representative from the Qalipu that we would engage with. But we certainly would be engaging with the community at large.

CHAIR: The Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Minister, in your address, when we talked about the openness and openness orders, you said just vaguely, I guess, in some instances that it wouldn't apply. Are you able to provide an example in that case?

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

J. ABBOTT: I'm wondering if you could just repeat that last part of your question.

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

J. DWYER: Thank you. I appreciate the conversation back and forth.

When we talked about openness in your address to introduce the bill, you mentioned that sometimes an openness order or an openness agreement won't work in some instances. Is there something that you can share with us to let us know what kind of instances we're talking about?

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

J. ABBOTT: Thank you, Chair.

If you think of a case of a child in protection right now, they may have an openness agreement with a family member and others. We would then bring that to the court to determine on a go-forward basis, in an adoption scenario, if that relationship is still in the best interest of the child, and that would be a determination that the judge would make and then either the openness agreement or order that's in place now would continue or be amended. So that would be the type of, I think, example that we could see having to be adjudicated by a judge.

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

J. DWYER: The Indigenous representative, how are they appointed or put in place?

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

J. ABBOTT: Chair, they would be identified by the Indigenous government or organization and the name presented to me.

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair, and I apologize that I never recognized you on the last one.

Does the child have a say in who represents them?

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

J. ABBOTT: It would depend.

Now, I'll go back – two things. The child – and, again, depending on the age, and the legislation is clear on those age limits as to their participation and their role in determining the adoption or not. But, in that case, the Indigenous representative would be by the government or organization itself.

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

My final question is: Is the PRIDE program now as robust in Labrador as it is on the Island part of our province?

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

J. ABBOTT: Chair, right now, we have the program online, and it applies and is accessible by all. We're continuing to upgrade the program and to make it available to as many people as possible.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

A question on adoption staff: Will adoption staff be required to do cultural training?

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

J. ABBOTT: Well, all our social workers, particularly those that are working with Indigenous children or are in the communities, have training and that will obviously continue. Our director of adoptions would be certainly trained in the cultural issues. But we will also be reliant, obviously, on the Indigenous governments, organizations and those representatives to really work with our social workers and the families to finalize any adoption plan.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I had another question here around the definition of Indigenous people or Indigenous child, and rather than look for an answer, I would like to propose an amendment.

Chair, I move that clause 1(5) of the bill be amended in the proposed subparagraph (k.1)(v) by deleting the words “considers himself or herself to be Indigenous” and substituting the words “identifies as Indigenous.”

The purpose for this amendment is it does not take into consideration those who identify as non-binary. So that's my proposed amendment.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Committee will recess and we'll have a look at the amendment to see if it's in order.

Recess

CHAIR: Are the House Leaders ready? Okay.

Order, please!

The amendment is said to be in order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I'm pleased that it's in order. I think it's – I'm going to call it common sense, but common sense is not always so common. But I think it's a change that recognizes everybody and I appreciate it being in order.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any further speakers to the amendment?

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

Just a question for the minister. I'm just wondering, Minister, as it relates to – I think it's covered in section 28 here, it talks about a cultural connection plan be in place prior to adoption, and that's something that would obviously be approved by the court, I think, in terms of adoption and so on.

But I'm just wondering: Will there be resources or whatever? What kind of resources would be available, if I was a parent and I was going to adopt an Indigenous child and I need to have a plan, but I don't know a whole lot about the culture? Are there going to be some resources where I could learn about the culture and that? You know, it's hard to commit to a plan if you don't really know what it is you're committing to.

I'm just wondering: Would there be resources for those parents or prospective parents to understand exactly what's involved in this cultural plan, what would be required of them, what knowledge they would need and if they were able to commit to it before going down that road?

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

J. ABBOTT: Chair, again, depending on how you look at the Member's question, first and foremost, we want to make sure that our Indigenous children stay with their families and in their communities.

In that circumstance where a child is fostered or adopted out of the community, our social workers will work with the Indigenous communities, their social workers, for those that have them, and we would include the Indigenous representative in that because that would be essential in developing of that plan.

It would be a collaborative effort. It wouldn't be that prospective adoptive parent having to present a plan. It would be done involving the adoptive parent or family, the social workers, the Indigenous representatives and any others that people feel are appropriate in that circumstance.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Further questions?

Shall clause 1, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 20 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 20 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 20 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 Adoption Act, 2013.

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 with amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 39.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 39.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 39 with amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report having carried Bill 39 with amendment.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

S. CROCKER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader for reading of the amendment.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the amendment be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the amendment now be read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: First reading of the amendment.

On motion, amendment read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the amendment be now read a second time.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendment.

On motion, amendment read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 12.

SPEAKER: Any further speakers to Bill 12?

Seeing none, if the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation speaks now, they will close debate.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: You almost said Digital Government. I don't want her job, Speaker. She has a lot of legislation.

Thank you, Speaker. I'll just be very brief.

I'd like to thank the speakers – I think it was yesterday; seems like it's further back than that – for their comments on Bill 12, An Act to Rename Red Indian Lake. I want to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition. I wish him well in his new critic roles. I thought he did a great job. He set the tone, acknowledging that it was well intentioned. As we said a number of times, we may not have got off on the right tracks, Speaker.

I want to thank the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans for his comment. There are a number of things there I decided after reflection that I'm going to leave and not respond to.

I thank the Member for Exploits. He spoke passionately about the Beothuk. There's a lot of Beothuk history in his district and I'm hoping to get out there very soon, Speaker.

The Member for Lab West spoke very passionately yesterday and I was reflecting on his words. It's a journey that we all have to take together and his sharing about his learning since he's married an Indigenous lady, Speaker.

Also, I just wanted to share with this House as a side note as we talk about inclusion, diversity, he referenced the Filipino population in the district that he represents. I know there's a large number in Lake Melville – wonderful, wonderful people.

I would ask folks in this if they are looking for something to watch on a Friday or Saturday night to watch the film Becoming Labrador, because it's quite a moving film. I don't think you'll ever see a Filipino without thanking them ever again about how they came – it's like a world away. They came to Labrador, left what they know to make a living.

I'll not name each one, I believe the Member for Lake Melville, Torngat Mountains, Humber - Bay of Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands all spoke to the bill. With that, I'll just clue up debate. I will thank them and I will answer any questions that folks might have in Committee.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House now ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 12 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake. (Bill 12)

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

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

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 12)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I 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 the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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 (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake.

A bill, “An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake.” (Bill 12)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Chair.

I just have a couple questions for the minister. EngageNL had a consultation website set up. Is the report released? Is it available to the public? Where can they find it?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

That is a good question. I have a draft copy here. I'm happy to share that. But I believe if it's not up – it may be online and, if not, it's going online very soon. I'm just checking with my officials here for a response to that, but what we heard will all be posted publicly, yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Chair.

When will the remains be returned to the Millertown area? What type of infrastructure will be built to ensure their safety and protection? Will this building support any other artifacts or documents belonging to the Beothuk? What are the plans for the remains, when they come back, specifically?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

So what I can say to the Member is that we continue to have those discussions. It is a priority, it's a commitment that we've made and so there's dialogue happening, ongoing with the Indigenous leadership. There is a consensus that the remains will not stay at The Rooms. That's not anybody's desire. We also know that, presently, there is no structure that could appropriately and securely accommodate the remains at the lake in a manner that is respectful and honourable to the legacy of the Beothuk.

You and I had some discussion on this some time ago. The Premier has made a commitment that we're looking at something that will secure the remains, but as for if more would be housed than the remains of the last two known Beothuk, that decision hasn't been made yet. I haven't been a part of any discussions on any more than the remains of those two being repatriated back to Central.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Chair.

I know we talked yesterday about the process and it was flawed. But I do want to say, Minister, for myself – and I speak for the Opposition as well – we do appreciate all the efforts for reconciliation from the government. We hope to be joining you in those processes moving forward.

Just one last question, Minister. There are many people and businesses that were attached to Red Indian Lake, as it was. What supports and funding will government be providing to the constituents and the businesses impacted by the name change now – branding, trails, tourism.

Fred Thorne owned Red Indian Lake Outfitting. Fred and his wife, Shirley, would travel all through America for up to eight weeks every single year posting that brand for their business. They've been doing that now for about 12 years, so that's been out there.

We're just wondering: What supports and what funding will be available to these businesses and constituents upon this request?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I thank the Member for the acknowledgement of the work that's already been done. We fully acknowledge that while well intentioned, the process and the start was not right. Even aside from my whole team in government, I'm very much a personality that once I make a decision, I won't stick to it for the sake of sticking to it. As soon as we knew that there was unrest and folks felt they hadn't been heard, I did push and we held the first face to face since pre-COVID to do that, to get out and to meet with the people.

Regarding supports for businesses, I would definitely refer any business with a direct ask, if it's tourism to TCAR, or if it's under Industry, Energy and Technology –what I will say is while government is making the move to change the name of Red Indian Lake to Beothuk Lake, businesses are not compelled to change a name. We're not dictating to private businesses to change the name, but I do appreciate your question and where it's coming from. If there is a business that feel they want to do that and there is a cost and they're wondering what supports is available, I would ask them to reach out to the relevant department for business supports.

CHAIR: Any further speakers to this?

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Just a quick question: What's the process now for renaming of other areas, other places such as Indian Arm Pond, Indian River and Indian Bay as we move forward? I'm assuming we're not stopping with Red Indian Lake.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

So it is my understanding that any further name changes will go through the process of the Geographical Names Board, which I know you're familiar with. I think in our efforts to elevate reconciliation, as we work with groups in our efforts to not – the Geographical Names Board can be long. It can be a bit of a slow process. Because we have those remains sitting at The Rooms and we wanted to move that process along a little quicker, we went the legislative route with this name because it was important to us. But anybody, as you know, can come forward and request a name change through the Geographical Names Board.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: So am I to understand, then, that any future name changes will be driven by people putting their requests in, and if no one puts the request in for the name change there will not be a reconsideration of the name?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

That is my understanding. I say to the hon. Member that right now there are no other name changes that's on our radar, beyond Red Indian Lake, and that any future names will go through the Geographical Names Board.

To the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, it's not posted online yet, but it's being prepared to be posted online now.

CHAIR: That's it?

Any further speakers to the bill?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

Just wondering, Minister, based on the commentary from my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans about that point of land that's at risk of being destroyed by Mother Nature and so on, I understand it's not contained in this bill but I guess in the spirit of openness and co-operation, can you give us some commentary so to what plans, if any, if you're going to at least look at trying to preserve that piece of important historical property?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair, and I thank the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands for the question.

It is important that that be preserved. I had an opportunity to visit that area in May. It is absolutely beautiful out on that point. I think the word I used at the time was it sort of felt spiritual. It was so peaceful there.

There is some erosion that's happening. It's my understanding that when they had applied for the funding, the people applying didn't own the land where they were asking for the funding to be fixed. I know don't if it was Crown lands, but it was outside, maybe, community boundaries.

But my colleague for Municipal and Provincial Affairs may have some details that she can speak to specifically on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL: I've been informed that the request for special assistance was received from the Town of Millertown, but because the road was outside the town boundaries it didn't belong to the town and the project was outside the eligibility criteria for that particular application.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

K. HOWELL: However, there are other programs that it could be referred to. The department, at the time, referred the town to the Canada Community-Building Fund and I understand that the town hasn't yet applied for that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any further speakers?

Seeing no further speakers, 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 Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake.

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 hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Chair, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the Committee rise and report Bill 12.

CHAIR: It is moved and seconded that I do rise the Committee and report the bill.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.

P. TRIMPER: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 12 carried without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have carried Bill 12 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

S. CROCKER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call second reading of Bill 22.

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaking on this bill, like I say, I always say it's good to speak on any legislation. This one here, Bill 22, it affects my district but I think it actually affects the majority of districts in the province one way or the other. I guess if you live in the greater St. John's area it's not so much an issue from your home, it's more of an issue when you go up in the country or what have you. As you move further from St. John's, obviously, it's an issue that people can leave their backyards and go, whether it's wintertime on snowmobiles and summertime and probably all seasons on ATVs, quads, Side By Sides, what have you.

I guess each Member in here is after hearing or has concerns or has some input on this piece of legislation. It's ironic, I know the debate our caucus had over this bill and it was kind of interesting because I wonder sometimes, my God, if we really got into some real heavy, heavy stuff, how would we ever agree? But it just went to show that this type of legislation, to so many people in our province, this is their pastime and this is what they did; me included.

It's who we are. We're not Ontario; we're not the big city. We're not as big as we may think. We're still rural, no matter even the City of St. John's, there's still a rural aspect to us and we should never forget that. That's what makes this so special of a place to live.

Speaker, this legislation, there are aspects of it that – there are a lot of good things in it: the education piece and mandatory helmets on the snow machines. I guess the mandatory helmet piece in general, which has commonly been the issue we've mostly heard about and I'm assuming a lot of Members have heard about, it's the blanket helmet requirement.

Now, first and foremost, I'm a fan safety. I've always been that way. I have a shelf in my garage that's lined off with helmets all dates, winter, summer, quads, Ski-Doos, whatever, and we believe it's something that – that won't change.

I'm not the owner of a Side By Side, personally. I guess the question comes up, too, the issue we've heard a lot about, and our caucus have heard probably more so than me in general, is the helmet piece when it comes to these enclosed, factory-sealed Side By Sides.

In some aspects they're as safe as a vehicle. A small vehicle you're enclosed in the factory, hard plastic, whatever, metal; you have the roll bars, which a lot of vehicles, a lot of cars don't have roll bars; you're strapped in with a three-point harness seat belt. It's pretty safe; it's a pretty safe rig. So then most people feel the helmet is an overkill. Someone actually likened it to killing the fly with the sledgehammer.

Fully understanding – and I understand and actually I know Rick Noseworthy well. Rick is someone that I've spoken to many times and will again. Rick's a big proponent of helmets and I respect that. But I really think that sometimes when you are trying to err on the side of caution – which I think that's what some of this stuff is, so I respect the viewpoints – sometimes you can go too far. Again, I'm speaking from people that know this stuff more than I.

I've gotten to know more of it since the legislation came in because I don't own a Side By Side, I got a quad. I enjoy that type of ride, too, but I've always had to wear helmets so it's never been an issue. They make some good points. They make a lot of valid points. We'll have some other Members, some of my colleagues will probably speak to that more than me, but that issue is a very important issue and the big issue, again, I think, the further you move away from the St. John's metro area, you'll hear more complaints.

Another concern we're hearing is the height restriction, you know, your feet can't touch the ground. I mean, again, I get that. I get that piece, but in today's world and what are very sensitive issues out there on many other social issues out there, there are a lot of dos and don'ts you can do. I question that thought process for that to even be put in there because that, to me, it's discriminatory. It don't apply to me, but I know a lot of people it do and they feel it's very discriminatory. My colleague from Exploits is pointing himself out as being one, so he's self-disclosing.

But it is discriminatory, Speaker, and I think that's something that I would hope that the department would take another look at that because I think that issue is – whether it's an oversight, I don't know. I can't call it oversights; I know that officials put a lot of time and work into these legislations.

With this sort of thing, I guess, coming to that point with the legislation, I guess by reading, and we all see the stuff on a lot of these Facebook sites around and these rider's groups – I got them in CBS, CBS Recreational Riders and there are the Newfoundland Trail Riders. There are all these groups.

It's the consultation process. We say it here in the House, we say it and we repeat ourselves over and again – I don't really know, sometimes, if we really get it right. I'm not saying – that's not meant to be a barb. That's meant to be just an honest view, you know, assessment, I guess, when you look around and you see some of the stuff that comes through.

It incumbent on government, but I mean, take it back a step. When this stuff is being derived and developed, I wonder how much feedback is really given, how much input is sought from those groups because some of this stuff – I noticed, actually, before it got in the House, whatever happened, this was out on a Facebook – some of this legislation, first time I had seen it.

Why not consult with those people? Why not consult with their spokesperson – not every one of them, but someone that speaks for that group; someone that speaks for the industry. I know you probably would say you spoke to some of these people but sometimes the consultation will get you to the answer you want, get you to a place you want to be. Sometimes you do that and you don't realize, sometimes you don't hear the other side and some people are going to have just as strong a view on the other side.

The Rick Noseworthys and the safety councils and these people have one viewpoint, and I respect that: we need them. Let's get the opposing view and find somewhere – a happy place to land in the middle.

When you look at the helmets in those factory-sealed Side By Sides and when you hear the debate and you read some of the owner's manuals and how they can protect you, and I hear from these groups what their opinions are, that's there things and that's what they know. I question then when we're bringing in this legislation should we not have went further?

I guess a bill like this would have been an ideal bill to go to Committee because we done the real estate act last sitting maybe – I can't remember, I was part of it, one of our Committees. It was an interesting concept because we brought in people from the real estate industry, we brought in people from – the pros and cons; they sat face to face with us. It was an interesting exercise and when the bill came to the House, most of the conversation was done on it: the debate was done. I thought it was a really valuable process and it is getting that better piece of legislation because, at the end of the day, you don't want to be going home and saying you're rubber-stamping stuff.

Government has the majority, they're going to go through the process; we're going to have a second reading, like we're doing here now on this bill. At the end of the day, are we getting to the end point? So even if we oppose it, it will still pass with the numbers. But is that really what the public expect of us? Is that really what the people out there that vote for you expect? Most people don't expect that. They don't like that. They don't want that. Most people don't even realize sometimes that's what happens, but, unfortunately, it does.

I say to this bill, all of our legislation, not only Bill 22, it needs to be seriously considered to put into Committees of the House. I think that has been said here when you look at democratic reform. These sorts of things I think will be a lot better off and we don't have to go through the elongated process of debating in the House and trying to get amendments in place and what have you. It will all be done before it got to the House and done in a very mutually agreeable manner.

You have you differences and you come to an agreement of some sort. Maybe you'll be off sides with it by the end of the day, but you went through a process, whether you get your way or not, that's not about – as long as it has been a fulsome process you'll come back and say you had your debate, you win some and you lose some, but at least your concerns were out there and they were given the proper consideration.

When we get to this bill, you go through it and the education, the training and the age limit, there are a lot of things. Because I know we were going through it and we were: Yeah, we're good with that. I got a sheet here with checkmarks on it. We were like, this is good and this is good, and the fines and what have you. But, ultimately, to get the real voice of the people, to get the real concerns that people really have and if you're not going to do a proper consultation, a full-on consultation process – I believe that there are a lot of people out there are avid about this and adamant, too, that would've most definitely took up a public consultation process on this. I think that's the missing point.

It's fine and dandy, you know, Off-Road Vehicles Act, Bill 22, and we're bringing in these changes – and, again, I listened; a lot of them are good. But it was precipitated – and rightfully or wrongfully, but I think rightly, and maybe it should've been done long before now – by the deaths we had. It's really tragic. Your heart goes out to every family. I mean, it's imaginable.

I don't know if most of those deaths would've been prevented by these regulations. I'm not saying they wouldn't have been. I don't know. I'm not fully convinced that a lot of them would've been. Some of them were just accidents. It could be a motor vehicle, it could be a pedal bike, it could be a speedboat or it could be a Sea-Doo. It doesn't necessarily have to be an off-road vehicle like we're talking here now.

When you come in with this, most of them – I'd have to look down through the 60-some-odd deaths that I've heard announced in the province as a result of them. I don't know what percentage these regulations would've prevented, how many deaths those regulations would've prevented. Again, that's about research, that's about consultation and that's about bringing the facts out. I don't know. I haven't seen it anywhere and I've read a bit and I'm after talking to a lot of people and had a lot debate about it, but I don't see those numbers. Maybe it is higher than I think, but I don't it is. Because I think sometimes, no matter what you got in place, there is that time that you're going to tip over, someone's going to hit their head on a rock or something is going to happen, and that will happen.

We're not in favour – I don't believe in having a Side By Side with no helmet – absolutely not. It's only the factory-sealed ones. There's a big divider on that. I know a lot of people and I got a good friend of mine who drives a Side By Side. There's no way, shape or form should they not be wearing a helmet. I wouldn't get in it myself without a helmet on because it's not safe. I mean, I know a lot of rigs like that. We all know and if anyone's familiar with some of these Can-Ams they're in, it's angled in, you're driving them along, the guard is outside the roll bar driving along.

It's not to do with that. That's where I think the missing point is. The factory-sealed units and people that are in the know will tell you they're safe, probably safer than a small car. With the proper consultation, those user groups, those people that are in the know and have a strongly adamant opposing view of what's been proposed in this legislation, they would have most definitely presented those facts. Again, we probably would have had something more measured or more exempt – I know a lot of these helmets and stuff is in the regulations, but it would have been something that would have been more tolerable or palatable to people.

We agree with the majority of the bill but those three issues – another one is with the ccs, 1.25 ccs or 125 ccs. I'm not that up on this, as you can tell, but I do know that some of these machines are too small for the age groups. They're powerful machines. That needed to be fleshed out more, too. Again, I have some people and in our own caucus that are better experts on this than me, but we've talked enough now and talked to people in the know. That's why the consultation process – it's no good of coming to me to talk about it. There are people out there that know a lot more than me and probably all of us in this House that should have been consulted and fleshed this out. Obviously, had you done that, you would never have brought in this one with the ccs, a prime example.

That's where it takes sometimes this consultation. Is it rushed legislation? I don't know. I mean I could say that. As the saying goes – I have a good friend that uses the word my dirty mind, but I'm not going to use that one here today because I mean what else – that's an obvious glare from what I've gathered. That's an obvious flaw with the legislation.

The height restriction is another obvious flaw. If you had someone in here that were in the know to sit down and maybe some of my colleagues might be able to do so and explain to you about the helmet situation in a factory-sealed unit, it would be pretty convincing as well. But that's not an issue that I'm bombarded with in my own district.

In my final few minutes, the issue I think that needs to be considered – whether you put this in legislation or not, but I think it's the right place to bring it. It's never a bad place in the House to bring this up. It has to be a part of the community. ATVs are part of our culture. Communities and municipalities need to make them a part of – that's the core of the problem. You look at enforcement. I don't now if we can legislate enforcement. We have fines there, but enforcement will always be an issue. These ATVs are operating in our communities; they operate in my town. Three o'clock in the morning, there are bikes coming by my front door. But they're coming on byroads through CBS and I'm sure every municipality in the province at high speeds because they don't want to get caught.

There has to be more acceptance and tolerance of these machines by the individuals using them. A lot of young people use them and that's a problem. The Minister of Justice, both of us were copied on an email a while back on ATVs. They were in favour of not being too harsh on them and whatnot. I know he responded as well as myself. That was my feeling. I feel that municipalities – and I've talked to our municipality in CBS about it, that heavy-handed approach. We have to find a way; we can't legislate everything. There has to be agreement.

Now again, you probably can't put that in the bill, but that's probably one of the biggest pieces missing from this bill because that won't change. You're going to give them a one kilometre on a road – the town has to decide which road that is but to get to that road, you might have to do another road. If there was some level of understanding, I think people would respect that and know that if the cop or municipal enforcement officer sees them, they're not going to lose their bike or they're not going to be fined. They are finding their way to get there. Now if they're going up and down the road, yes, it's a different beast.

I think that's a big piece that's missing, again, the consultation process. You go up and you talk to most municipalities – I know my municipality I spoke to our new mayor, Bent, as recently as last week and he knew this was coming and we had a discussion about it. That's a huge, huge issue in the town. I spoke to Inspector Brennan with the RNC detachment in my district; it is huge issue. I have regular back and forth with them all the time. They don't know; they're trying to figure out ways to combat ATV use.

This all has to come together. We're not going to be able to put all of it in legislation, but I really think the bigger discussion – and it could be done through committees; it could have been done through good consultation. That is the discussion. With the legislation and you bring in all those other municipalities and law enforcement and do this together, that's where you're going to solve the problem. You're going to bring in all these rules and crack down, but if you don't get buy-in from the municipal enforcement, from the towns to be more accepting – we don't crack down on people walking on trails because they do no harm, they're walking. There are some nice trails throughout my community alone. But we'll crack down on someone that takes enjoyment at going in on their bike, like me, and I'm sure a lot of others, for trouting, for a boil-up, for a nice pleasurably run. You may have to hit a road that's not included in this, you're not permitted on or whatever. I'll do it myself to get to a safe zone. That's a natural reaction. We do it; that's the instinctive.

Again, it's about bringing everything together. I think that's why this legislation – committee would have been great, more fleshed out, more input from municipalities, which I don't know what municipalities had any input, if any. That's how we get good legislation. It's not about us and them. We all agree we need to do something. We all agree there are deaths in this province. One death is too many. We all agree these machines are not safe. We all agree they are an annoyance to a lot of us in our communities.

I mean, 4 in the morning I've seen them going by my front doors on two wheels – a four-wheeler up on the back two wheels, not safe. But there has to be a combination: there has to be enforcement; there has to be community buy-in. That's not going to be in this legislation. We have to find a way because this will not solve our problems. This problem will still exist when this legislation goes through, regardless of what amendments come in. If you bring out all those things that I have concerns with and we all have concerns with, until we get to that point we're going to have a problem.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we'll have more conversation in Committee. I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It is an absolute pleasure to talk about this legislation today because it truly does impact my district – well, all of Newfoundland and Labrador – but especially the Central district of course. ATVing and snowmobiling has been a part of Newfoundland and Labrador and people's lives for a number of years. It is within the family dynamic, it is individuals; it's for work, it's for pleasure. Safety should be the top priority, number one. Without any other debate, safety needs to be number one.

But number two is the recreational part of it and how it helps people's mental health and helps them get around and stuff. Looking over the current legislation – or the proposed legislation I should say – we look at the training aspect of it for individuals under 16 years of age. Absolutely. What a great piece of legislation to ensure that our young people get the right training under these conditions right now. I have a couple of friends of mine that actually do teach this training, so they're very excited about it as well. It's a step in the right direction.

Before we get any kid or youth on any of these machines, I think that they should have to take a training course first. There are some questions about it of who is going to pay for it, how much it's going to be, how long it's going to be and where it is going to take place. I mean these are questions that we are going to have later on. There are going to be some people that can't afford it, that have been doing this for years and probably can't afford the training. We're going to find a way to get them trained up. I think it is a great piece of legislation when it comes to the training.

The second part of it, there is training for individuals who have never registered a vehicle before. Again, it's great but if you're going to look at a 65- or 70-year-old person who has been driving these for 40 and 50 years without any incident because they are a responsible driver, to put them inside a classroom now when they should probably be even teaching it, that is something we have to look at as well. I'm not saying that they can't learn a little more or pick up different things, but they need to be taken into consideration because they have been doing this for quite some time now.

Anyone convicted under an offence for training – absolutely. If you're going to be convicted under an offence – people make mistakes, but let's be honest, there are some people out there who repeat it over and over again these offences. It's a disruption to the community; it's a safety hazard on our trails that responsible adults and youth are trying to take in the evenings or the mornings. I think that it's a great idea to have these people who are convicted under the offence to take the training over again. That way if the training is a hundred bucks and a weekend, then guess what? Hopefully they're going to think the second time before they commit one of these offences, whether it be speeding or no helmet or where they shouldn't be and whatnot.

There's a piece in this legislation that talks about riding a dirt bike or a trail bike having two feet on the ground while astride on the seat itself. I don't disagree with it by no means, but there are many times I've pulled up to red lights here in the city and I see people on motorcycles that can't have their two feet on the ground. It happens quite often, actually. You see them lift over to one side sort of thing and that's where they're going to stay. I see it quite often. If it's a good law in the woods, I suggest it's a good law on the roads as well. So it's something that should be taken into consideration.

We talk about the age limits of how old a person can be and whatnot. These age limits are kind of arbitrary because some kids a lot bigger than others. I see the value in the age limit, but my son, when he turned 13 he was five foot 10 and he towered over me. So if you're going to talk about two feet on the floor, there are some kids that are much bigger than adults nowadays. It must be something they're putting in the milk or something. Kids out there nowadays are sometimes bigger than the adults. Yeah, the age, of course, has to be there, but I think that we should take a look at the weight restrictions or height restrictions as well, especially when it comes to some of these ATVs.

We'll come on to the biggest part, the most important part, as I can see; I guess we could call it the most controversial part. I agree with my colleague from CBS as he talked about the legislation itself and how we need to ensure that we get it right. We have to ask these questions.

We step into this House of Assembly for debate. This is a democracy. To me, the whole point of this debate – and some of us are still pretty green or fairly green – would be raising those questions about, well, is this the right thing to do now? Can it be changed or can we sit on it for a little bit, do some more research, come back to the table and then make the right decision? I think that it's incumbent on all of us to ensure that's the decision that we make. Like I say, we are in a democracy here. It's not about the numbers on one side or the other; it's about the good ideas. More than anything it's about us bringing our constituent's opinions and their concerns forward.

Now we all – I'm sure 40 MHAs in this House, especially the rural ones – have been getting emails about the helmets in the Side By Sides. We can look at different provinces and whatnot, but I think that we need to dive in really deep and check our own investigative work and see what's happened here. You know what, if somebody can look at me and say, okay, it's this, this and this has happened therefore we need helmets in Side By Sides. Well, that's something then that we can definitely look and say you're right. The evidence does support it. I haven't seen it yet. That's not to say it's not out there but I just haven't seen it yet.

People out my way in Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans District right through Central Newfoundland and Labrador, I can leave my front yard on my Side By Side or on any Side By Side, snowmobile or ATV and I can pretty much get to Port aux Basques. We have some of the most beautiful trails out there which brings me to my next point.

When we're talking about safety, the safety of different trails to different trails definitely should be taken into consideration. I know we have the track bed in Grand Falls-Windsor that goes right through the Exploits District there, and then the other way out Green Bay area it's a groomed trail. It's absolutely beautiful. It's better than some of the roads here in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you're on these trails you can tell that it's a lot harder to have a rollover. Of course, anything can happen at any time, but when you're on one of these trails compared to absolutely off-road in the bogs somewhere, these trails are much better equipped to ensure someone's safety whether they're on Ski-Doo or ATV or Side By Side.

I've gotten so many emails, I'm sure we all have, but people have asked, we've been doing this for a long time now, we haven't seen any evidence that it does help. You could say just about anything for anything. If you wear a helmet all day long, of course, you're going to have less accidents if you push the numbers and extrapolate them that way. But we need to find that sweet spot where we say this is not mandated, for responsible drivers it shouldn't be mandated.

I truly believe, Speaker, that what we're doing here is targeting some of the more responsible drivers who have done everything right in the past. They are just looking to continue doing exactly what they're doing.

Now, do we look at it and say, do you know what? Blanket statement, we don't need any helmets on Side By Sides. Absolutely not. Each Side By Side is different than another. The older Side By Sides, of course, are in worse shape, whatever, or have less one-point harnesses instead of the three-point or the roll cage. We need to ensure that we compare these two different Side By Sides when we're looking at this bill, as well.

I've been in some Side By Sides that are much safer than some of the vehicles that are on the roads going 110, 120 kilometres an hour. That needs to be taken into consideration as well.

I remember – quick story, and it's relevant – driving to Badger one day. I was clipping along at 80 kilometres, 90 kilometres an hour, the speed limit. A quad passed me going this way and, I'm not kidding, he was going as fast as I was on the highway, no helmet on, no shirt on. Unreal, actually.

But these are the people that make it so much worse for everybody else and it's unfortunate. I'm going to say 99 per cent of ATV – if not more – users in Newfoundland and Labrador are responsible. I want to applaud everybody in my district, well everywhere around Newfoundland and Labrador, for being as responsible as you are and making sure that your children are responsible as well and ensuring that your children are as safe as they are.

I just want to make sure that they're not being targeted or punished. It's not the intention, of course. But that's how they're feeling – and I'm quoting that. That's how they're feeling, is that the responsible drivers are being punished or targeted. I don't want anybody to feel that way, no matter which way this bill goes.

But in the collaboration of debate in the House of Assembly, I truly believe that we all need to just take a breath; take a look at this again. We can sideline it. I don't know if there's going to be an amendment, but we can definitely sideline it, take a look at the evidence that we have, either way, and then we can come back and make that decision about the helmets on Side By Sides because it is a big deal. It's a big deal to the constituents that we represent. I've been getting emails from all over the Island, so I know that to be true.

The enforcement part of this, Speaker, the reality is this: There are going to be people out there that will not follow the rules. That's unfortunate because, again, it ruins everybody else's experience. It compiles to the negative data that we're trying to keep away as we run our ATVs, Side By Sides and snowmobiles safely.

I would ask everybody to try to follow the rules. Bring in stiffer fines, if we can. I'd like to see stiffer fines for those who do not follow the rules, but the enforcement itself, it's hard to enforce, it truly is. In my opinion, the RCMP have too much to do and they are spread too thin as it is. They do a wonderful job throughout our communities but chasing after a 40-year-old fellow coming out the woods with wood is not something that they should be tasked to do. They have much bigger fish to fry within the province. If we had more police, it would be great.

Now, in Grand Falls-Windsor we have municipal police and it's great to have. The municipal police, I'm sure they can – they're looking at this and they take whatever action necessary. The forestry officers, whatnot, are the same thing, but if the enforcement isn't there, it doesn't matter what rules we make, there are always going to be people out there that are going to break these rules and get away with it, but if the enforcement isn't there, unfortunately, they're not going to get caught. That is very unfortunate.

I looked at the other piece of legislation where it states that you don't have to wear helmets – if the legislation is brought in – you don't have to wear helmets if you're hunting. I sort of struggle with it because one side of me is saying do you know what? I truly believe that in the right Side By Side responsible people shouldn't have to wear helmets. That's the evidence that we're looking at. If it's done responsibly, of course, and in the right Side By Side. Of course, we need to see more evidence, but how can we say that and at the same time turn around and say, well, if you're hunting there's an exception. I get it. I see why it's there but it's kind of contradictory. Is it safe or is it not safe?

I know there's a speed limit there as well, I think it's 20 kilometres an hour or something like that. Having said that, if I'm not hunting and I'm only going 20 kilometres an hour, can I leave my helmet off then? That's the question that is going to be raised and we really need to hash out before we finalize this into legislation.

Again, the emails that I've gotten from across the province and especially in my own district, I said today that I would speak on their behalf. So speaking on their behalf, I want to thank all those responsible adults, responsible youth within my district within Newfoundland and Labrador for doing the right thing and ensuring that your ride is safe and enjoyable. Speaking for them, Speaker, I would suggest that we take a look at the condition of the Side By Side, the factory roll bars on the Side By Side and the side panels.

I just talked to a gentleman in Grand Falls-Windsor who spent $42,000 on a Side By Side and then when he was told do you know what? You may have to wear a helmet in this. He's not too happy. Again, it's not about not wanting to be safe, it's about wanting to enjoy the ride to the maximum experience.

In Central Newfoundland and Labrador, it's not just recreation. People use them for work quite a bit, too, and they are usually responsible users. My brother has a small RZR Side By Side, one of the ones that are a little bit older. When he goes out with himself or with his little girl, they always wear a helmet – always. Always, always, always wear a helmet. Anybody can wear a helmet at any given time.

Now, the snowmobiles, I think there's legislation there to bring helmets in for snowmobiles, too. People would be very surprised that to know that it wasn't legislation before. Snowmobiles, in my opinion, my God, they almost need a helmet just as much if not more than ATVs. Those snowmobiles can go a lot faster than a quad, a lot faster, and an accident on those snowmobiles can be absolutely tragic, and we've seen too many.

Either way, when you hear about a tragic accident throughout the province it certainly hits you deep to your core, whether it be a young person or an adult, whether it be a collision, a rollover or whatnot. The first thing we look for is: Were they being safe? Were they wearing a helmet? Was alcohol involved? Were they wearing a seat belt in their Side By Side? These are the questions. We have to compile the evidence to move forward on future legislation to ensure that we keep the public as safe as possible, and I get that and I truly agree with that. I mean, you'd have to be a fool not to agree with safety within this House or across Newfoundland and Labrador.

There's a lot in this legislation that I completely agree with. I'm glad that it's brought to the floor. I know we hounded the minister for a long time, a very long time, to bring legislation to the floor. I know she worked very hard to get it done and we really appreciate that, and the people across Newfoundland and Labrador appreciate that as well.

Having said that, Speaker, I just want to say, speaking on behalf of my constituents, on the record, for those responsible, safe drivers out there that just wish to take their factory-invented Side By Side on a good Sunday drive, abiding by all the rules and continue to do so, I want to thank you for doing that. I'm speaking on their behalf and I think that they should be given the opportunity to continue what they do, enjoy their ride, enjoy their recreation and, again, just continue what they do until the evidence suggests otherwise. Just a reminder to everybody out there, please, do not drink and drive on the Side By Side, it's just as bad if not worse than it is in a vehicle.

Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move we adjourn debate on Bill 22.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move we recess until 6 p.m.

SPEAKER: This House do recess until 6 p.m.

October 28, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 29A

The House resumed at 6 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 18.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

It is truly an honour to speak on this very important piece of legislation today. I know I have 20 minutes and there is a lot to highlight in this legislation. Let me first of all just point out the Minister of Finance, in terms of her introducing this bill, there were a couple of points that were highlighted and I'll just start off by giving a general overview of the fact that this legislation prohibits class action suits against the ALC, Atlantic Lottery Corporation.

Just by way of background, three other provinces that are partners in the Atlantic Lottery Corporation – New Brunswick, PEI and Nova Scotia – all have this type of legislation that is being proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This legislation is retroactive. It provides retroactive immunity to civil law class action suits. But, as the minister has pointed out, it does permit an individual to bring individual cases, and I'll speak to that point a little later. This legislation, in essence, it provides immunity against class action suits against the Atlantic Lottery Corporation with respect to VLTs.

This legislation, Speaker, is being presented as being prudent and responsible legislation. It's being cited as that because of a class action case which was decided recently in the Supreme Court of Canada: the Babstock case. That case, Speaker, was of concern to the Atlantic Lottery Corporation partners because it basically involved class actions. It was a case that the Supreme Court of Canada decided and ruled against a class action lawsuit in relation to the VLTs.

This legislation is of grave concern to the Members of the Official Opposition. I'm going to start off with just highlighting some of the concerns that we have. First of all, from a legal perspective the legislation, the amendment, in essence, is an attempt to legislate away rights – rights of individuals to join in a class action lawsuit. In essence, it is restricting access to justice. That basically is a very, very concerning violation of one's fundamental right to have access to the courts.

One of the concerns with respect to this: When you legislate away individuals' rights, is that really and should that really be the responsibility of the Legislature, or should that be rather the responsibility of the judiciary? I think that's one of the initial concerns that I have and that the Members of the Official Opposition have.

It's an attempt to violate or to restrict, at least, the individuals' rights to file a class action lawsuit. It would be my suggestion that that is something that should be decided by the courts. We see that this is what happened in the Babstock case. The Supreme Court of Canada had this come before it and it ruled against this case in terms of it proceeding any further. But, at the time – and we need to understand this – when this case was before the courts, that's when we see the New Brunswick, PEI and Nova Scotia courts implement this legislation.

What I wonder about is we know the case has been ruled on. The Supreme Court of Canada is the Supreme Court of the land and it has ruled that this would not proceed. So why are we now joining in this legislation and trying to support this legislation by the other provinces?

That brings me to one of the questions by one of the Members, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, when we were in debate on this. One of the points that he correctly raised – and I think that's an important question to raise – is why are we bringing this now? As he correctly pointed out, this class action suit, he said it didn't get standing but it didn't go anywhere. It was blocked by the Supreme Court of Canada. So why are we bringing this legislation now?

Another concern for me with respect to the legislation is the retroactive piece. One of the most concerning parts of this bill and the other Atlantic bills is that it's retroactive for approximately three decades – 30 years. So whatever damage you might have caused to people over the last decades, whatever damage that it may appear that, for example, the Atlantic Lottery Corporation have caused over the last three decades, well, don't worry, you're immune. You're covered. That, Speaker, doesn't seem right. I think that piece is also something that we need to consider very carefully when we look at this legislation.

I'd like to also refer to the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port in his comments with respect to this legislation. He had, in assessing this, pointed out some of the concerns that he had with respect to this. He said as well that this legislation was very concerning because of the fact that it did interfere or it restricted people's rights. That is something that we need to be very, very concerned about. It is our job here as legislators and as people that are reviewing this legislation to offer a critical analysis of this legislation.

I am concerned also with respect to the issue of gambling itself. We all are aware, and I'm sure we've had family members and friends, perhaps, who have been impacted by a gambling addiction. We know that it's devastating. We know that people may be gambling with their rent money, their food money or the money their children, perhaps, need. They may be gambling away the little bit of room they have on their credit cards. We do know that it is an addiction that individuals dig themselves deeper into trouble the more desperate they become for a payout.

We do understand, and I'm sure that, as I say, we've all known people that walk away at the end of the night perhaps feeling miserable, yet still go back the next day. This, as has been pointed out, is akin to other addictions, like alcohol and drug abuse. The Member for Stephenville - Port au Port did acknowledge, as well, how this is akin to the tobacco legislation and the tobacco litigation that has taken place, yet we see that there are no restrictions on the tobacco companies from pursuing litigation, class action suits. As well, I refer to other Members who have talked about this. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, when he, in his debate, was speaking about this he acknowledged that gambling is an addiction, as is smoking. His question was: Why is this different for the addiction of gambling? He had indicated in his comments that he was in a quandary because this is a moral dilemma.

Of course we do have to be concerned about being responsible and not exposing the taxpayers of our province to any liability, but again we need to find out what liability is there. There was a risk when that class action suit was before the courts and that's why the three other Atlantic provinces implemented this legislation, but the case has now been decided before our Supreme Court of the land. So why are we here now worrying about that risk? That is something we need more information, perhaps from further legal experts in this area.

I also want to refer to the Member for Labrador West. As well, the Member for Labrador West compared this with smoking in his comments and he wondered why the difference between smoking and gambling and that it harmed so many people. He indicated it is a dangerous industry and that we need accountability. I think that's what the Member for Conception Bay South was talking about when he, in his debate, spoke about this important issue and the fact that we need to have accountability. The Member for Lake Melville, he also, in his comments and his debate, indicated that we need to do more homework, and that he had strong concerns about what we're doing here. He wanted to see the government pause in this matter and make sure that we have proper engagement, proper consultation and proper information so that we, as legislators, make informed decisions going forward on this very important legislation.

I think we also need to be mindful of – and this goes to what the Member for Conception Bay South was speaking about – gambling addictions and the harms and effects that are out there. We know it's devastating. The gambling addiction is devastating. VLT addiction is devastating for many people. Yes, for some it may not ruin their lives and some people can enjoy the sport, if you will, or the gaming. But there is, as has been pointed out, a moral quandary here. It brings us back to what is right now: Should our government and should our society be insulating or protecting itself from the consequences of lawsuits from those who say they were harmed by VLTs? Is that what we should be doing? Is it the role of us as legislators to do it?

We saw that the Supreme Court of Canada aptly made a decision on this matter when it went before the court. They decided. They are our judiciary. We are separate. The three branches to our government and the Legislature is one, the judiciary is another, as well as the Executive. But the Legislature: Should we be overstepping into the jurisdiction of the courts? That's a question we have to look at. Should it not be left to the courts to decide whether there was harm and whether or not, and to what extent, individuals should be compensated? So this is a moral dilemma.

We also know how much revenue that we, as a government, receive from VLTs. We need to look at that as well. Many have gambled just a little without harming themselves. But what we're concerned about here are the vulnerable people, and taking away and restricting that right to access the courts, to access the justice system. That is something we have to be very careful about. These are vulnerable people who really do not have the means to pursue an individual cause of action.

The Minister of Justice had stated, okay, we're going to restrict – the Minister of Finance had stated this is in regards to class action suits only, but that individuals have the right to sue. But you know what? They have the right to sue but they won't have the means to do it because most of these individuals are vulnerable. They are already destitute because they have been impacted seriously by their gambling addictions. They won't have the means to go before the courts and sue individual suits. In my submission, that's not really an option. When we're taking away that class action lawsuit ability, that ability to join with a group to sue together, collectively, if you have been harmed, to take away that right, I think it's a very, very serious restriction of one's rights. So, with respect to that, we have to look at all of that and really, really take care to make our points here.

This class action suit, the Babstock case, was about video lottery games. Basically the court, through a majority decision, said it could not go forward. The majority of the judges at the Supreme Court level said that none of the arguments that were put forth by the plaintiffs was able to be persuasive and so, therefore, they did not support this going further.

Speaker, this is about accountability. Shouldn't we find that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation can be held accountable for the damage that they may have caused? We need to look at that piece. That is important.

The right to sue: this bill seeks to stop that class action right to sue. Individuals would have to come forward on their own which is an onerous and expensive proposition.

So, finally, I'd like to speak in conclusion, the final point is with respect to a Committee. I believe that it is time that this House should have really done what we didn't do 30 years ago, back in 1991 when this legislation came forward. We need to send this bill to a Committee to closely examine and consult on what we are doing here.

I want to propose that we send this bill to a Committee. The type of Committee, I understand, there is support for there being an all-party Committee. Now, I'm not sure of how that will actually play out, if we will be able to make recommendations to then come back and change this legislation, but we have to allow the democratic process to do its due diligence so that we understand the impacts and any unintentional consequences and impacts of this legislation.

We need to hear input from others. We need to hear from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. We need to hear from an external auditor of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to assess exactly what that potential liability, which the government is trying to protect the taxpayers from – what is that risk? Is it a real risk? What kind of risk? Is that even a risk anymore now? And that's where we would get the legal experts in to tell us about – if the Babstock case has basically once and for all ended this issue for us.

We need to hear from other stakeholders who themselves have suffered from addiction and from the mental health professionals who assist people with addiction issues. I'd like to hear how they will be impacted from this and by this legislation.

We can study the issue of gambling addiction. It's about more education. It's about us being more informed when we have legislation. It's about working together, working together as legislators to really, once and for all, look at this important issue, to study the issue of gambling addiction is very important.

Speaker, I'm concerned that the bill legislates away a function of the judiciary. That concerns me because, as I've stated, there should be separation between the political area and the judiciary and the Legislature. So I believe that a Committee process, which is a democratically established process, can bring more rigour to our debate, open and transparent, bring in people, members of the public and that they can follow along and can provide input into this.

In summary, we need to send this bill to a legislative Committee to give us more of an opportunity to truly understand how this legislation will impact some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, if the minister speaks now, we close debate.

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, and thank you for the many and varied speakers on this piece of legislation.

Just by way of understanding, this amends the Lotteries Act to provide the people of the province with immunity from lottery related civil class action suits filed against the province in which the province is named as a defendant. So I just wanted to lay that there because it was multiple days between my remarks and tonight's closing remarks on second reading.

A couple of key points that I think were wrestled with over the number of speakers that have contributed to this debate, and I'm going to try in my closing remarks to really give some indication and some comfort, if I can use those terms, on some of what has been discussed.

The one thing I will say is whether you agree or disagree with lottery or gaming or how the province should be involved, that by having the province involved – and I guess this was the thinking 30 year ago – it does give a safer alternative for people who will gamble, who do gamble, and not everyone gambles irresponsibly. As a matter of fact, I would say, from what I understand in my readings, by far the majority of people – and I do have a study here I will table in a moment – gamble responsibly.

It does give that safer alternative, people will still gamble, but with illegal, less safe operations there may not be the responsible gaming lens that is placed on the gambling. So that is one of the reason why, I guess, the province 30-plus years ago entered into this realm. We have been cautious, I think, as a province, as some of the other provinces have opened this up much larger than we have. Most other provinces and jurisdictions have, for example, a casino; we don't in Newfoundland and Labrador. Most other jurisdictions offer different types of gaming that we don't in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So allow to me just advise the House on some of what the Atlantic Lottery Corporation has been doing. The Atlantic Lottery Corporation is the corporation owned by the four Atlantic provinces that provides responsible and safer gaming. They have achieved the level four recertification under the World Lottery Association for responsible gaming framework. That's the highest level, the very highest level available to a lottery under the framework.

They have made important strides, I think, and put in extra efforts. They've maintained that since 2010. I think it's incredibly important that we continue to maintain it and continue to recognize that not everyone, you know, can involve themselves in the lottery responsibly. Some people have addictions, some have mental health issues that were raise and some have other points that cause them to have a want to gamble irresponsibly.

But let me tell you some of their responsible gaming initiatives. They have done things like reduced the number of video lottery terminals down by about 20 per cent and they've restricted the numbers to only five per establishment. The hours of operation have been restricted. The pace of play was reduced. There's a stop-touch screen capability and that was removed from the terminals. The maximum bid is restricted to $2.50 with a maximum payout of $500. The time-played reminders are done in sequence and are initiated at, you know, so-many-minute intervals and they have a forced cash payout after 150 minutes.

Retailers are required to complete responsible gaming recertification training every two years. There are clocks located on video lottery terminals. There's responsible gaming messages and scrolls on the screen when they are left idle too long.

I will say that there has been a concerted effort around responsible gaming. Should more work be done? I truthfully believe that, yes, we should continue to always keep a lens and an oversight on Atlantic Lottery and the Lotteries Act, in particular, to make sure that we are doing absolutely everything to assist people who do have problems, but, again, Speaker, I will say that not everyone has a problem. In The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, for example, there's an article, “Gambling and Problem Gambling in Canada in 2018: Prevalence and Changes Since 2002.” The results show that there is a lessening impact.

So I will say that I think some of the responsible gaming activities certainly has helped in ensuring that those that have challenges and addictive personalities, or addiction problems, or mental health problems or can't kind of control their gambling requirements, then I think there's help available – more to be done.

I will say as well, Speaker, that I also heard a lot of discussion around the fact that we are limiting class actions. I will say that we are still preserving individual rights; that was spoken about. It still will allow those who wish to bring forward a lawsuit to bring it forward. I will say that if you wish to have a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of the equipment, that's certainly still permissible. This is really limited to the impacts and controls of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will say that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI have also implemented this. I will say the Supreme Court has weighed in on this area, as has been mentioned. They basically revoked the certification of class action, basically saying that there was no reasonable chance of succeeding – sorry, it's getting late and my tongue is getting tangled. Preserving the individual's rights is important. It allows for those to focus on those with an issue versus somebody with a casual occurrence. So it really does make specific, instead of this speculative case that could be brought forward.

I will say there's continued review of the Lotteries Act. There's continuous review of responsible gaming that I think is essential. I know that as one province of four provinces, we would be the final province to implement this type of amendment to the Lotteries Act.

I will speak to, I think, what I have heard from many in the House – and I'm being reminded there is an HSC, a gambling helpline, of course, as well. I will mention that if anyone needs it. There is a helpline as well for those that need it and need the supports.

I will say that I have heard a desire within this House from many, many people who have spoken here today, over the last number of days, to do a deeper dive into what we're doing around lotteries and the Lotteries Act. I do take the suggestion that we do an all-party Committee to review the Lotteries Act. I will present that, including a representative of the unaffiliated Members of the House of Assembly, as well as those in the Official Opposition and, of course, the Third Party. We can have a good all-party Committee to review the Lotteries Act, to discuss responsible gaming, which I know a lot of people spoke of in this House, to look at some of the mental health impacts to see how we can improve.

I will say, Speaker, before I conclude my remarks and go into Committee, this is really about ensuring that we're protective of the people and the Treasury of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, much like the other Atlantic provinces have done. Not trying to impede anyone's rights here. We are preserving individual rights. We are still ensuring that if you wanted to do a class action against manufacturers, if you find the manufacturer of a particular game causing undo harm, then we can proceed in those ways. This is more of ensuring that we focus our intent here.

So I've talked about the all-party Committee, I've talked about responsible gaming. I think on that, Speaker, I will rest and allow us to have a further discussion as we go through the clause by clause.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that this Bill 18 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes): A bill, An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act. (Bill 18)

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

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

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 18)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 18.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 18.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Lotteries Act.” (Bill 18)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Chair.

I would like to, first of all, thank the Government House Leader and my colleagues throughout the House, including on this side of the room of the Legislature.

I'd like to bring to the House's attention; I want to expand on it a little bit more. In my opening remarks in the second reading I spoke about the addictive nature of, particularly, video lottery terminals and the context that I'm receiving from constituents and other people that I know in this province, but constituents in Lake Melville in particular.

I just listened to the minister and I paid close attention. Her point about being receptive to the all-party Committee; I think that's a great start. I think the timing is going to be very important. I would like to see us propose to go in that direction before we proceed any further. In the meantime, I would like to propose and point out a few things.

If you just take your iPhone or your smart phone and you punch in “video lottery terminal,” the first thing that comes up is where is the nearest one? Where is the nearest terminal that you can go and you can spend your money on 10 games a minute? I also did some research and went to The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry and found that the issue around this kind of addiction is that the gamblers are often well educated, they're middle class – or at least they were middle class – incomes upward of $40,000 a year. Usually they have had no problems with drugs or alcohol.

I now have people who have lost everything: their relationship, their job, their home and, in fact, some of them have even had to move away just to try to get a fresh start. There is something very insidious about this particular strategy that has me very upset and what I'd like to do is propose an amendment that looks specifically at the aspect of the class action.

My amendment is as follows – and I'm going to have it seconded by my colleague from Torngat Mountains. I refer the House to clause 3 of the bill and I propose that it be amended in the proposed section 6.1(4) by adding immediately after the words “representative proceeding” a comma and the words “except with respect to persons medically diagnosed with a gambling addiction.”

I'm proposing to this House that there are people who either are inclined or have become so seriously addicted to this problem, as I mentioned in my remarks, they're now having to go to treatment. Our province, our government is now sending them for addictions treatment and I'm proposing these people have a medical right, as my colleague from Harbour Main was pointing out in her remarks, to justice.

I do not feel comfortable in allowing this bill proceed unless we really give people out there, who have suffered greatly, an opportunity to still pursue a class action suit if they so choose. That's my amendment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would remind the hon. Member that we dealing with clause 1 and, if I heard you right, your amendment is in clause 3. As it sits here now in clause 1, it's too early to make that amendment.

Further speakers to clause 1?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Chair.

Why are these amendments being proposed at this time?

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

S. COADY: Certainly the amendments that have come forward are the same as what has gone forward with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI, our partners in the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. I indicated in second reading that in 2019 and 2020 the other provinces have adopted this.

As the Member opposite has already alluded to, the immunity, there was a class action suit that was, I guess, revoked. The certification was revoked by the Supreme Court but it did point out, of course, that there is this challenge within the existing legislation that would allow for very large settlements, possibly in the midst of a billion dollars. This suit alleged some unfair gaming and lawsuits.

It's basically now for future action. There are no lawsuits currently there. It's a pre-emptive action and there are no lawsuits that we are aware of and the other three jurisdictions have moved forward on this already.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

What protections are in place for consumers?

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

S. COADY: I'm sorry. In which regard, what protections?

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: In terms of consumers of the gaming, the VLTs, what protections and supports.

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

S. COADY: I just reviewed some of the protections. The overall responsible gaming is critically important, I think, personally. I think it's critically important the continuation of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation's level four recertification under the World Lottery Association responsible gaming framework; the continuous retraining of retailers if they have lottery terminals in their premises, the recertification.

I talked about having the various components like the number of VLTs being limited; the hours of operations are limited and the pace of play was reduced; the maximum bid is $2.50, with a maximum payout of $500; the time-played reminders; the forced cash outs. All those are part of the protections. I am happy to – as we move forward and create this all-party Committee, I think that would be something that we possibly could add to it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Chair.

The bill notes that damages can only be recovered as a result of a negligent act or omission. Can the minister please provide some information on what would be, in your view, considered a negligent act or omission?

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

S. COADY: I don't think I can provide that, in my view, what a negligent action is. I would anticipate that would be to the courts if there was a negligent action. I would not step forward to give what that may be.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Minister, can you provide any information on examples of what types of damages can be awarded and what cannot? Because the bill notes that damages shall not included punitive or exemplary damages.

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

S. COADY: I'm just going to ask for what section of the act that you're referring to so I can refer to my notes as well and give you a more reasoned response.

It's not section 1; that's why I'm kind of pushing paper around trying to figure out where you are.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: That would be 6.1(3), I believe.

S. COADY: Okay.

So we haven't come to that as yet. I will certainly be happy to answer that, but once we get through clause 1, I can go to the limitation of damages. But I don't want to get us out of order, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Fair comment.

The last general question I have – the Supreme Court of Canada, as I referred to earlier, recently ruled against the class action against the ALC regarding VLTs. There were 30,000 residents of the province seeking damages.

Does the minister believe that 30,000 people included in a class action is an indication of a problem?

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

S. COADY: Well, certainly we have the ruling by the Supreme Court. They revoked the certification of class. As I said, we're still preserving the individual rights. People can move forward with a class action against any manufacturer.

It certainly, to me, indicates that we want to make sure that we have a responsible gaming forefront. That we continue down the path of ensuring that we have responsible gaming at the forefront of everything that we offer.

I still maintain that ensuring we have safer alternatives are there. I think that through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation it is providing some protections and ensuring as this province – and this government and, indeed, all four Atlantic provinces – that we continue to press upon Atlantic Lottery Corporation to maintain their memberships and their responsibilities, as I have indicated before, under the recertification of the World Lottery Association.

I will say as well that I think it's important for us to recognize that there may be those that are really sincerely and severely impacted and then there are those that might have a casual occurrence, and what we want to do is make sure that we are protecting those that really have true issues, too. I think a lot our colleagues in the House spoke to mental health issues and spoke to gambling issues and those are the ones that we really need to, in my opinion, focus on to get them the help that they so justly need. So I think, you know, just continuation and probably going further, that's something that we can discuss at the all-party Committee that we will be striking as an important part of how we can move forward.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Chair.

Those were all my questions.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Further questions?

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Out of curiosity, I guess, the minister has mentioned the various measures that are in place, such as level IV certification, retraining of retailers, the numbers of VLTs, pay to play, forced cash out and so on and so forth.

What are the measures, then, in place for those whose lives, let's say, are facing ruin or bankruptcy as a result of gambling? What are the measures in place? These are all measures to protect, but I'm just looking at: What are the measures in place for those who've actually gone that route and probably going to credit counselling as a result of it?

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

S. COADY: I think you started down the path of answering that question with credit counselling. There are mental health and addictions supports. Just for the record, as well, there is a helpline: 1-888-737-4668. I wanted to get that on the record, Chair. But I think you are indicating some of the supports that are available to the people that go beyond what they can and should be in gambling.

Again, I will say, I believe the Atlantic Lottery Corporation must continue to ensure that they are doing their utmost. The training, I think, for any organization –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. COADY: – God bless – for any retailers that do have these on premises, I think it's very important that they also have the training and try and stop someone from going beyond what they can. But there are other supports for those that do unfortunately do so.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I would suggest that by the time someone gets to credit counselling it's already too late.

Is there any indication of how many people we know of in this – or statistics of the number of people who are facing or who are in bankruptcy as a result of gambling addictions or gambling whether it's short term or long term?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

I don't have those statistics. I will endeavour to get them for you, but I don't have them at my fingertips.

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

J. DINN: I noticed the minister said that there's still a possibility – if I heard the minister correctly saying – there's still room for a class action against the manufacturer of the game, the VLTs. Is that correct? Did I hear that correctly?

S. COADY: Yes.

J. DINN: I have a question then: Why would that be acceptable and not – but give immunity to Atlantic Lottery Corporation and the government?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

I will say, as a protection – if I can use that – if the previous attempts at class action lawsuits had moved forward, then, as I said, about $1 billion would've been provided, which would've been dispersed to not just the legal counsel but then to the people who are a part of the class action lawsuit. It would've caused significant harm. It's probably as much money as we've ever collected, or more, from Atlantic Lottery. So this is to try and ensure that the government, the province and the people of the province are protected in those ways.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I still didn't get he answer. Why is it that there seems to be acknowledgement allowing for class action lawsuits against the manufacturer of these VLTs?

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

S. COADY: Well, to be quite honest, it's probably not in our purview or appropriate for us to immunize the private sector, you know, they would be a private sector.

I will, if I may, before you move, Chair, the gambling prevalence studies indicate that about 0.7 per cent of the population are problem gamblers. I wanted to give you that; that's what the studies indicate. I don't have anything before me today to tell you how many are in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I'll give you what the prevalence is.

I'll also say, this is giving the Crown, the province and the people of the province immunity from class action lawsuits and not necessarily from individual rights.

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

J. DINN: Then correct me if I'm wrong, but you are recognizing, in fact, that there is a problem with these machines and gambling.

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

S. COADY: That is not what I'm doing, Chair.

What I'm saying to the Member, in response to his question, is that we're not protecting the private sector and we're not immunizing the private sector, we're immunizing the public sector: the Crown and the people of the province.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Would you agree, then, that it's hypocritical to basically allow class action lawsuits against the manufacturer but, at the same time, provide immunity to the organization and the government that allows for their use?

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

S. COADY: I will say to the Member opposite that we are immunizing the people of the province. We're protecting, I guess, the people of the province. It's not our intent – it's not about machines. It's about protecting the people of the province from class action lawsuits that could be extremely large payouts if it ever got to that. We do know what the Supreme Court has already said, that there is a low probability of success. What we're putting in place is to ensure that this may or may not come forward at a future time against the Crown and the people of the province.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: I'll finish with this: The people of this province, I would suggest, then, Chair, that those people whose lives are ruined by gambling, those people who find they've lost their marriages and their jobs, they are the people of this province. By doing this you are actually consigning them – you're not offering them any protections at all and I think that's reprehensible.

Thank you.

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

S. COADY: I will say to the Member opposite that we should help those people prior to them getting to that point and that's why we had so many people in this Legislature rightly talk about responsible gambling and that if the Crown was removed from offering a choice in the lotteries, if we remove ourselves from those lotteries or from Atlantic Lottery, it does offer some security; it does ensure that we have some protections in place; it does make sure that we do our utmost on responsible gambling; it does make sure that we are constantly reviewing what we're doing here, and we should try our utmost to make sure that people don't go down the road of problem gambling.

Again, I will say to the Member opposite, we are not taking away their individual rights. If they have true issues, if they have true intent, they can still go to court if they were damaged on an individual basis.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I spoke to this, of course, in second reading. I said at the time that I felt it was a bit of a moral dilemma. I've had an opportunity to listen to debate and really think about it the last few days.

I have to say, Chair, when I consider the fact – and as my colleague here from St. John's Centre points out – that, as a Legislature, to support this would basically be to say, oh, it's okay. You can sue the manufacturer of these machines. Which tells me that, inherently, what we're saying is that we're recognizing, by default, there are issues with these machines. Because if not, why wouldn't we do the same for them? Private sector or not, why would we not say they're not doing anything wrong, so they should be protected like everybody else? Because why would someone sue them, they're doing nothing wrong?

Obviously, by leaving it open that people could sue those companies for those machines, in my view, what we're saying is we recognize there are issues here, that lives could be ruined and people could sue these private companies who make these machines.

I also look at, as I said last time, the fact that when we look at cigarettes – and cigarettes are an addiction as well; no different to gambling. I don't care what anybody says, there's no difference. It's the same thing. It's still an addiction. Here we are, as a province, part of a class action lawsuit ourselves, suing cigarette companies and ironically we are suing them for something that we are collecting taxes off. When you think about it, we're collecting all these taxes on cigarettes and on top of that now we're going to sue them for the damage being done by cigarettes. That's okay, that's fine because that's in our best interest.

But when it comes to gambling, which we're also reaping the benefits from that in terms of the money that we're taking in; we're going to be a bunch of hypocrites, that's what we're doing, myself included if I support this and that's my opinion, Chair. We're going to be hypocritical and we're going to say that we're going to protect ourselves. We'll protect ourselves, the heck with those peoples whose lives were ruined. We'll protect our best interest.

Cigarettes are bad: we're going to sue the cigarette companies. Gambling is bad: because it is us directly involved we're not going to let anybody sue us.

I know people are going to say: Well, look, people make their decisions; they have to live with the consequences. You make your bed. You lie in it. The reality of it is, is that we have these machines, we are benefiting on the backs of people with very, very serious addictions who had their lives ruined. I understand that not everybody is in that boat. I understand that perhaps the majority of people who play the lotto or who use the machines, they might casually throw in $20 here or there or whatever and no harm, no foul.

It is not about those people, which kind of ties into the amendment that my colleague from Lake Melville tried to put in, but he was a bit premature in doing so and he'll put it in when we're finished here. What about the people who were harmed? What about the people who a doctor or a psychiatrist or whatever could say those people actually were harmed? These are the people that were hurt by this.

I agree that everybody who said I threw $20 in a machine shouldn't be part of a class action lawsuit. If I threw in $20 once in my lifetime or once a year or even once a month, I don't think I should be part of a class action lawsuit, I really don't. But the people who can demonstrate that their lives have been ruined and they lost it all, those people I really believe should be able, in a class action fashion, to bring it to the court and let the court decide. I think that is fair and reasonable expectation.

I can't support this measure as is. I think I could support what my colleague from Lake Melville is suggesting. I could support that, but the way it is right now, to leave those people out in the cold, to throw them to the wolves and say too bad for you; I don't think it's right.

We are saying, as a government, it's not right for when it happens to people with cigarette addictions because we are suing the cigarette companies. But by the same token, on this one, that's a different story because now we're talking about us. Now we're talking about the public Treasury, so that's different. But it's not different. It's no different.

So I will not be supporting this particular measure and this particular bill the way it is written.

Should my colleague's amendment be successful and in order and so on, I will support that. I will support that. I think it's a reasonable balance. I think it eliminates the person who, like I say, just throws in $20 once every now and then but they don't have an addiction; it's done them no harm; takes them out of the class action, but it protects the people who have been seriously damaged and had their lives ruined by it. At least it gives them the opportunity to get together and sue.

My final comment will be – and I don't mean this as a personal shot at the minister – when we make the comment that people still have the right on their own to sue – and I'm not saying the minister means it that way, but to me that's such a disingenuous comment to make. It really is, because everybody knows that if you've got someone who's lost everything they had, how the heck are they going to sue the government? How are they going to do it?

Even if you're a person of means, not just someone who's destitute, just an average person, how can an average person take on Atlantic lotto, unless you're like a multi-millionaire or something? If you're Bill Gates or something maybe you can take on Atlantic lotto or something.

But an average person, even a person making a good income: How can they afford to take on Atlantic lotto and the team of lawyers they're going to have? They're not going to be able to do it.

So to say that the rights of individuals are protected – they're not. They're not protected at all and it's foolishness to even suggest that their rights are protected because their rights are not protected. They're not. If they cannot engage in a class action, their rights are not protected.

I'll just conclude there, Chair. But again, I'm just saying I will support the amendment when it comes forward, but will not be hypocritical and support this at the same time that we are suing cigarette companies. I just cannot do it. My conscience couldn't allow me to do it.

I understand protecting the public Treasury. I understand that piece; I really do. Then again, based on what we're being told, we have nothing to worry about anyway. Because, apparently, if the Supreme Court has looked at it and they said there was no cause for action, then I don't know what the big deal is. That's the other thing. I don't know what the big deal is. If there's no cause for action, why are we even doing this? Just because the other provinces did it; that's the reason. Because the other provinces did it, we'll just do it. That's good enough reason for me. Well, might be good reason for the government; it's not good enough reason for me.

Again, Chair, I will conclude with those remarks and, as the bill currently stands, there's no way in good conscience I can support it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

I'll try and take some of those points one by one. There was a lot in that 10-minute discourse and I don't want to take up too, too much time tonight.

You certainly could have a lawyer on contingency. For the Member opposite to say that preserving individual rights is not – that I'm being disingenuous. I would counter that by saying I am certainly not. Preserving individual rights is incredibly important. If there was a challenge with payment or getting a lawyer, lawyers often go on contingency, dependent on the case. So if there is a strong enough case, that could absolutely go forward and there's nothing to stop anyone from going forward on those. Especially if someone, a manufacturer or otherwise, acts in a negligent way.

I will say that he spoke of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador suing the manufacturer of tobacco and cigarettes. That is correct. The government is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I can't hear at all.

S. COADY: Nor can I.

CHAIR: I recognize the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

I will say that the government is suing the manufacturer and, as I said earlier, class action is still available against the manufacturer. So I will say that again.

We have seen a class action lawsuit – you are correct – go to the Supreme Court. They did revoke certification of that particular class action. That's not to say others may not come forward in the future. It is the belief in all of Atlantic Canada – and I know that the Members dismissed the rest of Atlantic Canada, but we are partners in Atlantic Lottery Corporation – that it is important that we bring this forward to ensure that there are protections of the Crown and the people of the province. That is not to take away anyone's rights to sue, especially for negligence, but it is to ensure that we have some immunity to class action lawsuits.

I said contingency, but I should have also said some lawyers may do it on a pro bono basis as well. We do have legal aid available for people as well but pro bono, contingency, there are all kinds of ways that a lawsuit can proceed, Chair.

I will say again – and I think it is very, very important – that we want a level playing field for the larger protection that is offered in other provinces. I think that we have done that in this legislation, as we are shareholders in the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. I have acknowledged that I think that responsible gaming is a very important topic. I have acknowledged that we should, as an all-party Committee, come together and look at the Lotteries Act. I think I've put before this House some really important points and I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to have a few more words on this. It is a bit of a dilemma for people with the rights of individuals, or protecting the government, it is a bit of a dilemma.

I heard a few comments from the minister. I can assure the minister for someone just to take this on a contingency, to take on a four-, five-, six- or seven-year lawsuit is just not realistic. Usually you do a contingency, if you had a car accident, where you know there is a positive outcome from the person. Also on pro bono, I don't know any lawyers – I think there are three here in the room. If there are three lawyers here, ask how many of them would take this on in in pro bono, I don't say either one of them would.

So when you get to that level where you could say they could do it on a contingency, knowing it is not going to happen, it almost brings the argument down a bit. Because we know that's not going to happen and we know lawyers aren't going take that and go to four or five or six years, maybe to the Supreme Court, which is more expensive just on a pro bono if we may win something against –

P. LANE: For one person.

E. JOYCE: For one person – it's just not realistic, so I'll say that.

The other point to the minister – and I know the minister is there protecting the province. There is a dilemma and I understand that totally. But the other thing is that now there's going to be an all-party Committee looking at the Lotteries Act. So the question that you would ask is: Why didn't you set up the all-party Committee so we could have this inclusive and the all-party Committee look at the whole Lotteries Act?

We're almost saying: Okay, let's get this done. Once this is done, we'll set up an all-party Committee now and we look at everything. I'm not being critical. Just sitting back and listening to all the arguments here in this House and when you hear her say that now we're going to look at the Lotteries Act and set up an all-party Committee but before we do that, here's what we're going to take out – it's almost like saying we're going to do all this stuff, then we'll sit down and have a discussion, see what you think about what we just did.

I urge the minister, if there's any way possible, that if there's any way that this bill could be withdrawn for a while, bring it back again in January, February when we're here, and by then it'd give the all-party Committee a chance to make a report to the House. And you could do more research on it. You could go across everywhere, across Canada, across the US, so they get more information on it and not just the four Atlantic provinces.

I just think that's a good suggestion on it so that we can ensure that when it comes back to the House that all parties and the independent – and maybe the Member for Lake Melville who is very passionate about it would represent the independents on it. He's very passionate and he's getting a lot of calls. He knows a lot people. With the Opposition and the Third Party, we could come back with a consensus here in this House that we all can support.

I just throw that out for a suggestion to the minister. Then when the report comes in from the all-party Committee, then we can stand up unified as the House of Assembly and decide on the results of the Committee. That's just thrown out to the minister as a suggestion. I don't know if it's a realistic one. I think it is. If it's realistic for the government or something that maybe she can't do it but she needs this piece of legislation now – the minister can answer that, but that's my suggestion on the all-party Committee to ensure that everybody got an equal opportunity to have a voice and get a lot more research than we got now.

The other thing is – and my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands was saying – here we are, we know that there's addiction to gambling. That's a proven fact in Newfoundland and Labrador: There's addiction to gambling. We are taking those profits – and I think the minister mentioned $130 million; I think it was $130 million or $125 million – and we're saying, no, no, if you feel you're getting addicted, because we're putting in extra lights or something, you can't sue us.

It's a moral dilemma. It really is. I understand the minister, that you have to protect the public purse, but then we're being a part of this here and we're saying, okay, we're going to take all your money. Some people may have an addiction that you may lose your house, you may lose your family, you may lose your job – too bad. It is a moral dilemma.

The other thing I say to the minister – and I picked this up in the discussion between the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands – is that we can sue the company. The difference I find with that is when you purchase something from the company you can almost specify what you want from the company. So you can almost put in, okay, let's keep the lights lower. Let's not have those ringing bells. Let's not have this reoccurrence coming up. So we can actually put that in the machines if we really feel that (inaudible) the addictive nature of the machines.

So when you turn around and say you can't touch us but you can go after the company – the company is the province, who are Atlantic lotto in this case. Will go to those companies and say, here's what we want in our machines, and we can sue you because here's what we wanted, but you can't touch us. It's a moral dilemma. It really is a moral dilemma. Because we know now that when we go out, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador goes out and looks for any project or any type of equipment, they can specify what they want on that equipment in the RFP. They actually specify it.

So Atlantic lotto, I'm assuming, can specify what they want on those machines. If they want to find some way and find out what addicts people to it – it's the lights, it's the ringing bells –

P. LANE: How many times you win.

E. JOYCE: – how many times you win, things like that. That's something I would ask the minister if – and I doubt if the minister has that in front of her. I'm not asking the minister for that, because that is information that whoever does the procurement for Atlantic lotto would have. Is it factual that we can order the machines – which I know we do in the province. Many times there's only one supplier that we can purchase from.

Maybe we can go shop around, maybe we can say here's the criteria that we want. If we can do that, if Atlantic lotto could do that – and then we're saying that once we can tell what we want in our machines, and there are people who get addicted because it's what we asked for in those machines, then you can't touch us but you can go get the company that we put out the RFP for. There's something morally wrong with that. I'm not saying that it's a way we can take the government out of it, but you can go after everybody else but us.

Those are some of the concerns that I have, Chair. I agree with the amendment from the Member for Lake Melville. That would help a lot with it because I think everybody here knows people who were affected by the gambling and the issues that are related.

I'll say to the minister, to be fair to the minister, this has been on the go a lot longer than this minister has been elected. This has been on the go a lot longer. A lot of these concerns I heard back in the '90s, back in the 2000s. This is just something that's in the minister's desk now, as the Minister of Finance. This is not something that the minister created. This is not something that the minister was a part of developing in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada, but it is something that's on her desk and I understand the position that she's in with this.

I have to sit back and think that individuals who we know are going to get addicted to it – we know there are going to be individuals who are going to get addicted to it, yet we're taking in this $125 million, $130 million a year and we're saying move off, see you later, go after the company and then all the best with the company.

I'll have to sit back and see how I'm going to vote for this. I know the minister may not have the questions on the type of machines that we can order because it is a technical thing from Atlantic lotto. I'll conclude there. As I said before, this is something that's been around; the moral dilemma has been around because we need the money in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We know some of the damaging effects that it's having on people, yet because of the money that's coming into our Treasury we're continuing it. Again, I'll just speak on – and I'm going back to the '90s and the 2000s. I'm sure that if the minister had another way to get $130 million, the lotto machines would be gone out of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm pretty confident of that.

I'll conclude there, Mr. Chair. I thank you for the opportunity. I'll just listen attentively to the rest of the debate.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me.

First of all, I will say I appreciate the comments. If there's any negligence, certainly a person can still sue. I will say that. There are several game manufacturers and I'll just speak to that for a moment.

It's a pretty competitive business and they design the games. There's some flexibility, I guess, to customize some of the features for responsible gaming, for example – for responsible gaming, making sure that is there, but it's not like you go out and manufacture the game yourself. That is not how it's done. Again, if a manufacturer is negligent, you can still pursue that. If the ALC is negligent, you can still pursue a case as well.

Chair, I will remind us that this piece of legislation was briefed, I guess, originally almost six months ago – five months ago in June. There was plenty of opportunity, if someone wanted to consult or needed to go out and kind of do a full review of this. I will say I recognize the responsible gaming requirements, I recognize the challenges around ensuring that those that are problem gamblers – of which it's a very small percentage. But those that are problem gamblers, let's do as much as we can to fix their addiction, to give them support, to give them help.

We want to make sure we're doing that because there are people. We all know – I know people that have had issues. So we do want to protect and support those people and give them all the strength and support that we possibly can. We want people who are responsibly gaming – and by far the lion's share are.

This legislation is only for class action lawsuits. I recognize that some feel that we should be able to have class action lawsuits. It is felt for the four partners of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation that the exposure is great for the Crown, and that we should do everything possible to ensure responsible gaming and to protect the people of the province from class action lawsuits.

That's not to say that lawsuits will not happen. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that this is about joining our partners in this, in the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, with those protections.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions, more along the lines of our relationship in Atlantic lotto. We are a partner, for lack of a better word, and Atlantic lotto, obviously, is a very successful business. It generates significant profits and it gives those profits back to its shareholders, of which you are one.

So my question is, most businesses that are very successful and generate lots of revenue carry liability insurance: Did the discussion ever come up in your discussions as a shareholder at Atlantic lotto to talk about the liability insurance?

All businesses carry liability insurance, depending on the type of business you're in it could be to protect a claim against a slip and fall in a parking lot or food poisoning or anything like that. I just wondered if, in the discussions with Atlantic lotto, where are they in terms of the whole concept of liability insurance? Because if you're going to make millions and millions of dollars, there is a risk to making those millions and millions of dollars. One of the risks, in this particular case, I think, is the fact that people get addicted and somehow or other there might be a class action lawsuit generated because of that.

There are class action settlement insurances that are out there available. So I'm not sure if there was any discussion with Atlantic Lottery Corporation on the need to bring in legislation to literally shutdown class action lawsuits or whether there were other options available through the insurance portion of it. I just wanted some feedback on that.

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much for an important question.

Of course, as a corporation, they would have liability insurance. As I've indicated, there would certainly be lawsuits moving forward as there would be – you named slip and falls or whatever. Again, I will say it, I know that people are not accepting this, but I will say that we are preserving individual rights to sue so there would be insurance there.

This, I understand, originated between the four Atlantic provinces as a way of protecting because of the potential large payout of a class action lawsuit, looking at and focussing on those with true impact versus those with some casual occurrences or some casual challenges. This is again protecting – anytime ALC is sued they don't retain their moneys, they give it to the four Atlantic provinces of course. This is a way of protecting the Crown, if I can use that term in the House of Assembly.

I will say that, yes, in a general sense, there is insurance – multitudes of different types of insurance, I would say, within Atlantic Lottery Corporation but not to this extent.

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

T. WAKEHAM: Again, that's why I bring it up because maybe some of those profits could be used to have a plan that would potentially cover an insurance plan against a class action suit.

But on another question: Do all other provinces have legislation brought in that prevents class action lawsuits?

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

S. COADY: Yes, I will say quite clearly that all of them have, I think, identical legislation as to what's before this House. If memory serves: Nova Scotia in 2019, the others followed in 2020 and we're the final one as a partner in Atlantic Lottery.

T. WAKEHAM: I wasn't thinking about –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Sorry, Chair.

I wasn't thinking about Atlantic lotto. I was thinking about Ontario. I was thinking about Manitoba. I was thinking about other provinces in Canada that operate lotto and gambling and whether or not they have, in other provinces, brought in similar legislation to this.

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

S. COADY: I'm sure I have that answer; allow me a moment to find it in my notes. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I'll certainly speak to that as soon as I find that.

I'll come back to it after the next question.

T. WAKEHAM: That's all I have.

CHAIR: Okay.

Further questions?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't actually going to speak or ask any questions, but just listening to some of the answers that the minister gave sort of provoked some response out of me.

She referred the majority of gamblers gamble responsibly and that only – I think the number she said is 0.7 are problem gamblers. Also, it was mentioned about the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, referring to responsible gambling and she says the highest level and also other things that they're doing reducing the number of machines, reducing the number of hours. I don't know if she actually heard it said under the breath, but that just increases the lineup of the people who are addicted to these machines and addicted to gambling.

Looking at the 0.7 per cent of the population that are problem gamblers, the minister also said that we have to ensure responsible gambling. I wonder how are we going to ensure responsible gambling when it comes to that 0.7 per cent. It's very, very difficult.

For me and most of the people here in the House of Assembly knows at least one person. My fellow MHA there from Mount Pearl - Southlands talked about the tragedy and the fact that lives are lost, lives are destroyed, marriages are destroyed. A lot of the times we see the people who actually are addicted and the lives that are ruined; a lot of these people are good, decent, upstanding citizens who contribute a lot to our society.

Do you know what's heartbreaking? It's to see on the news, you know, a woman with a family being charged for embezzling money. At the root of that crime is actually, basically, committing a crime to feed the habit, the addiction.

So that 0.7 seems like a very small number, but it is a part of our society that we need to protect.

I even dispute that number because the shame associated with gambling a lot of times is covered up. Families cover it up. I had a friend of mine, actually, who was living in another province and I found out that she was addicted to gambling. I was so worried about her; I told her I would help her. I would help her. I was actually feeding her addiction at one point, just until we could actually get something done about it.

Lives are at risk. Actually life ending to suicide, death, and also life ending through the quality of life, loss of family and loss of your reputation. So I don't know how we're going to ensure that this 0.7 per cent that's identified as problem gamblers, how we, as a government – because the Minister of Finance said we need to ensure responsible gambling.

So if I had a question to her, I would ask her has she considered how we're going to ensure responsible gambling for the hard-core addicts, the 0.7.

Thank you, Chair.

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

What I did indicate, that in general studies – so I don't have it for Newfoundland and Labrador – usually about 0.7, so not 7 per cent but 0.7 per cent, of the population are known or considered problem gamblers.

I will say that I think we want to help people before they become problem gamblers and that's why we take responsible gambling, I believe, as seriously as we should. If there are more things we should do, we should do more things, personally.

Saying that, I will say for those that do have serious addictions that the responsible gaming doesn't help, again, that is something that needs to be treated and we should ensure that we have the treatments available to those people. I have empathy and concern for the people that do have a gambling problem, but not everyone has a gambling problem. We should do everything we can to support those that do, but recognize, as well, that offering – what I'm going to call – secure lotteries with responsible gaming activities is something that I think we all want to make sure that what we're doing, everything that we're doing is under that responsible gaming lens and give the supports to those that need it.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I just want to pick up on what my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands, his suggestion, which I thought was a great suggestion, actually. Chair, given the fact that when we look at this piece of legislation, we haven't had it for – it's been on the go for a while. Other provinces in Atlantic Canada have adopted it two or three years ago or whatever; we didn't. It's only coming here now. Based upon what the minister, herself, has said with the court challenge, there was a class action court challenge and it went nowhere. So I would argue we're obviously not in any real danger at this point in time, unless there's something going on that this House doesn't know about.

So, given that fact, given the fact that the minister has also committed to a Select Committee to include representation from the parties and an independent representative, since how that commitment has been made anyway, I'd have to agree with my colleague: Why can't we just park this piece of legislation and strike the committee, talk about all these issues around gambling, addictions and responsible gaming and all that stuff? Include this with it. Perhaps, at the end of the day, once we go through that process and everybody has all the facts, figures and the legal opinions and everything in front of them, then you can look at the issue that my colleague from Lake Melville brought forward about amending this in a way that you're still maintaining the rights of that 0.7. But you're not allowing everybody to jump onboard of a class action lawsuit who haven't really been damaged, but they're simply saying I played the machines once. If that can be done, along with a number of other suggestions and perhaps amendments, why can't it wait?

I mean, we've had bills brought before this House lots of times that died on the Order Paper. We've debated bills in this House and in this session that were left on the Order Paper from the last session. Why can't this bill just be left on the Order Paper until the next session and go back to it at that point in time? What's the hurry? My question would be: What is the hurry? Other than the fact that the minister had it on the agenda, we're going to get this done and get it over with. Beyond that – which is no big deal to my mind – why can't we just leave it there until we go through the committee process, get all the information, and come back and revisit it at that time?

I wonder: Would the minister be open to doing that now? If not, I'd like to know why not?

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

S. COADY: Well, I thank the Member for his suggestion. I will say, so the people of the province know, this has been before the House on the Order Paper since June. I think actually there was a briefing done in June on this legislation. So it has been discussed since that time.

I will say what we want to make sure is that we put this in place before – or once an action begins, we don't want to have another action begin. We've already had one. We've talked about the Supreme Court revoked the certification of that class action. We don't know of any other ones at this point in time, but that's not to say another one would not come forward. It exposes Newfoundland and Labrador, whereas the other three partners in Atlantic Lottery Corporation are immune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. COADY: I concluded my remarks.

Thank you, Sir.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Further questions?

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to follow up on what the minister just said. Am I correct, am I understanding you said that the reason why we can't take this – and it's up since June. We have legislation here that's been reviewed for two, three or four years. The minister just mentioned the reason why we can't hold off for another – when does the House open? February, which is what, three months – because there may be another class action lawsuit so we want to try to head that off. Isn't it better – and we always brought this up in the House – to do it right than do it quick? We always said that. It's better to do it right than quick.

So I don't know if the idea that we may have a lawsuit coming up – and I know the minister don't know if there's one coming up – and we may have one to head off, so we can't have an all-party Committee. We may not have a lawsuit, also, and so the idea of the all-party Committee is that we can sit down and get more information. We can do a scan all across Canada, we can go in other jurisdictions, we can get a legal opinion to figure out why and how is there any other way to exclude us from any liability for it.

They're rushing this now because it was in June and we may have another class action suit. Just don't take away from the work that we should be doing as legislators to make sure that whatever we vote on in this House we all have the full information. So I just want to put that on the table for the – and I'm not saying the minister said there will be a class action lawsuit. She said there may be. I just want to make that point, is that there may not be one also.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I will say that this has been briefed in June. There has been plenty of opportunity for discussion. Other provinces have had this, you know, our partners in the Atlantic Lottery Corporation have had this since 2019 and 2020, and that this is an exposure for Newfoundland and Labrador and we need to proceed on it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Further questions?

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: To the point, Chair, in June I think we were busy trying to get through a budget. It was a very short session after a very long election. While it might be briefed, there was no rush to get it through at that time, if it was of high priority.

So you look at half the year or so, you know, the months that have intervened in that time, what's being asked is not unreasonable to say: Look, if there's a commitment to an all-party Committee, then let's put the horse before the cart and take a look at this before we get this legislation through. And, oh, now we'll strike a committee on what? So I don't see the rush.

Secondly, I can tell you I would assume that if I were putting up legislation, the first thing I would be doing is, hey, this is coming, let's do the consultation. While there is the accusation somehow that no one mentioned it, no one reached out from the other side as well.

We're here now in the middle of a discussion. There are some serious concerns on a profoundly ethical, moral judgment here. We're in this debate and there seems to be, all of a sudden – I don't know if it's the desire to get through as much legislation as we can so there is some record here we're keeping, or if there's some other reason, but I'm thinking here if this bill was not a priority in June to get through, then I don't understand all of a sudden, it must be gotten through right now to protect us. I would assume protection at that time, Chair, would have been equally important.

Secondly, I would assume, too, here – and I'm looking at the words “negligent act or omission” –in this case that if there's a threat of a class action lawsuit for negligence or omission, then it would be incumbent upon the Atlantic Lottery Corporation and government to make sure that they are not negligent or that they take all necessary steps. It's pointless to talk about how individuals can take this on – nonsense, nonsense.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Further questions?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I just want to echo what my colleague from St. John's Centre said there. Just one more time, just for the record, I do not understand, and the minister has yet to provide an answer, as to the urgency to get this done now.

As my colleague said, if this was on the Order Paper in June or whatever, it wasn't a priority for the government then because they left it on the Order Paper. I've heard no reason from the minister why this is a priority, why it has to be done now. It just feels as if it's just simply a case of, b'ys, we just have this list of legislation we're going to get through and we're getting it through. We are not going to give in and we're not going to allow the Opposition to win one, if that's what it's considered. This is not a winning and losing for me, it's about trying to do the right thing.

That's what it feels like. That's what feels like is going on and it doesn't make sense, unless there is some pending lawsuit, there's some pending class action that the minister is not disclosing to this House. If there is, I'd like to know. If I'm going to be voting on something, I'd like to understand if there is any issue there. But I haven't heard of any pending lawsuit or any pending class action that's going against Atlantic lotto. All the minister said was that it was attempted and it failed.

If it was attempted and it failed, unless there is something new in the pipe that we're not being told about, there is no reason why we cannot have the Committee and look at the Lotteries Act, look at responsible gaming and look at this piece as well. Perhaps at the end of the day, it may come back like this or it may come back with an amended version based on what my colleague from Lake Melville is saying.

I don't know if what he is saying from a legal point of view would stand up or not. That is the problem with this. That's why if it had gone through a Committee process and this issue was brought forward, then you could ask the question. You could actually have a legal opinion to say is there a way that we can craft this in such a way that the 0.7 per cent of the people who are seriously impacted by this can have their rights protected, but by the same token preventing the other 99.3 per cent of the people who are not problem gamblers but just simply want to jump on the bandwagon to get a few bucks off the government.

Maybe there is a way that can be done legally to protect that, but we'll never know because now we're left with the situation of either you support this or you don't. Again, Chair, morally I can't do it. Anyway, I'm done on this piece.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just looking at this now, usually a class action is a form of deterrent for large companies and businesses from causing harm. I remember back in the day, a long time ago, when I heard about an American car company. They knew that if a car got rear-ended in a certain way the car would catch on fire. They did nothing about it. In actual fact, it was class action lawsuits that I think contributed a lot to the safe standards now used in the manufacture of automobiles. I would have to wonder if taking off the option of a class action lawsuit is a way to erode that deterrent.

As my fellow MHA from St. John's Centre said, it's nonsense for an individual to be able to rely on an individual taking a lawsuit on, because you know if they're taking a lawsuit on about the harm caused through lotteries or through gambling, then, of course, they've already been harmed and they won't have the financial ability. The families won't have the financial ability.

I wonder what's there to protect the 0.7, the problem gamblers. That's what I'm concerned about. If we remove the class action, what will be there to actually protect them? We know there are studies out there – somebody said, I think it was the Member for St. John's Centre said something about the bells, those VLTs. There have been studies done where they've actually researched the colours that are used in those VLTs, even down to the background music of the bells and the little jingling and all that. It will actually create a sense that will cause people to be drawn to it. It's basically feeding their addictions.

I'm not going to support the bill that removes class actions, because to me the class action is a form of deterrent that will actually make sure that the most vulnerable – because when we look at it, a government is supposed to protect the most vulnerable and people with addictions are very vulnerable. There's no way I'm going to be able to support it if you take away the class action without some way to ensure that 0.7 is protected.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Passed.

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: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

I would like to put in an amendment for clause 3 there. It reads as follows:

Clause 3 of the bill is amended in proposed subsection 6(4) by adding immediately after the words “representative proceeding” a comma and the words “, except with respect to persons medically diagnosed with a gambling addiction.”

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Committee will recess and we'll take a look at the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Are the House Leaders ready?

S. CROCKER: Yes, Sir.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment put forward is not in order. It's beyond the scope and principle of the bill that's passed its second reading.

Shall clause 3 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: This is relevant to clause 3. As I understand it, clause 3 talks about the damages, the lottery schemes and the limit to compensatory damages.

So what I have here – and I'll read from this – is the thesis by Reade Davis, Gambling on the Future: Video Lottery Terminals and Social Change in Rural Newfoundland, in which he talks very much about the damages, about the VLT lottery schemes and their effect on the very thing we've been talking about here.

So, I'll carry on. “This thesis explores the roles played by VLTs in the lives of twenty-five heavy gamblers living in a string of coastal, cod-fishing communities in eastern Newfoundland. This sample is not intended to be representative of the entire VLT playing community, but rather aims to capture a sense of what motivated this set of people to devote so much of their time and money to playing gambling machines. Many players describe their attachment to VLTs in terms of the emotional satisfaction that playing gave them. Most of these people focused on the feelings of excitement, relaxation, or mental stimulation they experienced while playing. Beyond these individual-level” –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member that he cannot read from a text. You can summarize, but you cannot read from the text.

J. DINN: (Inaudible) read if I decide I'm going to present it and table it?

CHAIR: Pardon?

J. DINN: Can I table it then?

CHAIR: No.

J. DINN: Oh, I'll summarize and put in a few – but there's a lot to summarize here.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: In this thesis he does explore a number of things along the lines of how the newly arrived VLTs provided fertile ground for fostering a new sense of community, when the loss of the fishery left the previous affiliations in doubt.

He talks about how many expressed concern they were spending more money than they could afford. Now, a few were successful in reducing their spending, but others found that they were actually unable to keep their gambling in check. They came to embrace the concept of a gambling addiction.

In one study, the author said that they've come to believe that the worlds that reality gamblers inhabit are basically largely situational and they're not autonomous of individual psyches. So the structure, basically, it's not only themselves, but the milieu in which they exist.

Previous studies of VLT gambling emphasized that there are universal psychological principles and personality types. And they neglected or did not take into account such things as the context of the gambling machines, the environment, the number of schemes that are offered by an organization such as the Atlantic Lottery Corporation and the advertising that goes into this to promote it.

Interestingly enough, this thesis goes on to say that most of the prohibitions against gambling have their root in English statute law. The trend toward greater leniency began in 1969 when the Liberal government at that time, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, amended the Criminal Code to allow for it to raise money for – I think it was – the 1976 Olympic Games. And with that, lotteries quickly emerged as a very lucrative source for the governments. Basically, here's what it came down to: It offered an appealing alternative to raising taxes and deficit funding. In fact, government became addicted to gambling itself.

Then, under the PCs in 1985, the Lotteries Amendment Act – basically they amended the Criminal Code and granted the jurisdiction over gambling-related industries and schemes to the provincial governments in exchange for the annual payment of some $18 million.

Now if you look at it then, that meant that provincial governments and lottery corporations they operated, they basically enjoyed a legislated monopoly – essentially a monopoly. And now what we have here, Chair, is an attempt to protect that monopoly over the provision of betting games to municipalities under their jurisdiction. In that same year, the Criminal Code was further amended for provinces to manage video devices and slot machines. You can sort of see the history here, the evolution of how we ended up where we are now with this very lucrative form of income.

The significance of this didn't become really apparent until 1990, when the Government of New Brunswick introduced the first legal VLTs to Canada. Three years later, VLTs would be found in other provinces across the country, except for Ontario and British Columbia. And it basically allowed provincial governments then, Chair, to expand.

VLTs were first introduced into Newfoundland in 1990 by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and it was the second province in Canada to bring in the machines. Now, in Newfoundland again, as in most other provinces, most of the administration of gambling games falls under, as I understand, the Department of Finance; however, the one notable exception is the treatment of problem gambling which is delegated to the Department of Health and Community Services. So we collect money with one hand and, hopefully, we'll treat someone with the other hand – maybe.

What this thesis does say is that provincial government spokespersons have been quite candid about how attached they are to VLT revenues. Former Finance Minister Paul Dicks was quoted as saying the real truth is that once you get the revenues, you more or less become dependent on them.

So here we have governments who are now dependent on this lucrative source of income and, basically, right here now they're looking to protect that lucrative source of income by passing legislation, which is in effect going to negate or stop any chance of –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DINN: And that's it, Mr. Chair. This is about clause 3 because it refers to gambling schemes and it refers to basically denying people the right to engage in a class action. Yet what we're seeing here is a system that's evolved so that it will allow government to reap the greatest profit. At the same time, what they're about to do is to make sure that those who are victimized, those who are the heavy gamblers, those who are the addicts to gambling have no recourse but to try to – hopefully if they find a lawyer to work on some pro bono basis to sue individually.

It puts maximum power, Chair, in the hands of the Lottery Corporation and the government, because you can take on individual persons one by one. Not so hard when you have a level playing field of multiple people in a class action suit to take government on.

It does go on to talk about the brief history – if you look through this a rather interesting one from 2000 that this was published. He talks about the social significance of VLT gambling in a post-moratorium Newfoundland and Labrador and the demographic portrait of heavy VLT gamblers on the Barren Shore itself. So think about this. At the same time you had the cod moratorium and you had people who were in desperate straits who were facing financial ruin, who were watching their whole entire way of life slipping away, you had something here that gave them some sense of hope. Because in the end that is what gambling is about, the hope that in some way, shape or form, Chair, that you're going to get yourself out of this in that one lucky strike.

In many ways, this document speaks to the very issues that we've been raising here and why I do believe that basically absolving or protecting government and the Atlantic Lottery from a class action suit is in itself a negligent act. You protect all people, you protect the vulnerable, not the corporations.

I'll come back.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I have to say I am very intrigued with what my colleague has been saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: I know you find it funny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

P. LANE: I'm not sure what's so funny, Mr. Chair, but I'd like to hear –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the Blizzards.

P. LANE: My colleague said there was something in the Blizzards. It's Miracle Treat Day, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Yeah, my colleague said there was something in the Blizzards. It's Miracle Treat Day.

Anyways, Chair, as I said, it is very interesting. I'd like to hear more.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've just given my fellow MHA from St. John's Centre time to read and be able to paraphrase from his learned book.

This is interesting. I'm going to stay relevant; I'm going to speak to clause 3. As I said, when I was listening to what everyone was talking about when they were talking on this bill, there were a lot of concerns. Basically, most of what I'd wanted to say was said, so I didn't speak earlier, and now I'm continuing to speak totally, constantly and whenever I get the chance.

When I went in to the government website and I pulled up the progress of bills and I pulled out Bill 18, the Lotteries Act, really, my concerns were in clause 3. When you look at clause 3, it says, “The Act is amended by adding immediately after section 6 the following ….” What really took me by surprise was the word “immunity.” So our government is putting in this clause to actually get immunity. Usually when you have immunity, it gives you immunity against fault, it gives you immunity from damages, gives you immunity from harm. That's what you're asking for.

I don't need to read from a book or to paraphrase a book to realize that what this government is doing is wrong. Just because other governments across Canada have done it doesn't make it right, does it? It certainly does not. It's shameful. I don't want to say that too much. When I say shameful, I like it to be effective, so I don't want to dilute it. But when it comes to lotteries and harm, the reason why there would be a class action is because of the damage done to so many.

The Member for Harbour Main was talking about class action. I think she was saying in that class action was over 300 people. Was it 300 people had actually brought forward a class action? We already know the numbers are out there. I am concerned because if you go to a restaurant and you look out in the bar area, you see the VLTs. When you hear on the news about some decent human being charged with embezzlement, being charged with crimes. Who else do we hear about actually being charged with crimes to get money to feed their addictions? We hear from people who have alcohol addictions, drug addictions.

Technically, this is not a laughing matter and you're going to just basically use your majority to rail this through. At the end of the day, there's not going to be anything there to deter taking advantage of the vulnerable people who actually have addictions. There are a lot of us walking around out there now who may not even realize that we actually are susceptible to addictions.

I just have to look at my communities. In my communities there's a high susceptibility – I don't know if that's the appropriate word – to addictions for alcohol because the genetics of the people are not used to alcohol. Basically, we're at a disadvantage but who's to say we're not at a disadvantage for other addictions? I think it's very, very important for us to realize.

The Minister of Finance did say that this government is not taking away the right for individuals to sue, but if you're going to sue because you lost your home, you lost your family, you lost your wife or your husband or your partner, you've lost your career, you lost your freedom – because now you're incarcerated because you committed crimes to basically feed this addiction. It's just the same as putting a needle in your arm or shoving something up your nose, when you put those little coins in the machine.

Who has the ability, the individual, to sue? They don't. Like my fellow MHA there for Mount Pearl - Southlands, he said it's very, very difficult for individuals to sue. You're basically taking away the rights of the people. I'd like to be a deterrent. You know what deters people? Financial penalty. Companies never improve safety because they were just good-hearted citizens – corporations I should say – it's because the fear of deterrents.

That's why, like I said, the big push now on safety is to hold, not only the companies responsible but also the supervisors, the managers, right down to your fellow co-workers. That was my former life: financial penalty. That's something now that's being pushed for.

It's important for us to realize that you're taking away a huge deterrent. How can we prevent gambling addiction? We take away the number of machines. Well, if people are addicted, and especially in the 0.7 per cent, if you take away the machines, like my fellow MHA said under his breath, you're actually just increasing the lineups. If you reduce the hours that the machines are available, say, for example, you reduce them to three hours, there's going to be a lineup because everyone wants to get in their gambling. They've been thinking about it the whole day.

P. LANE: You can do it online now.

L. EVANS: You can do it online. I mean there are huge issues.

I think that we need to focus on making sure there's no harm done. I cannot support a bill that will actually take away something as big as the ability to have the freedom to bring forward a class action.

Well, should we be having a class action lawsuit against the cigarette manufacturers? The thing about it is I think it works. If we are not doing undue harm, then we shouldn't have to worry about class action.

Anyway, I'm just going to end there.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Chair.

Just to speak to the previous speaker for a moment. The immunity is only for class action lawsuits against the public corporation, Atlantic Lottery Corporation or to the Crown; that Atlantic Lottery Corporation having same ensures a regulated environment, ensures that we are focused on responsible gaming. I think we must continue to focus on responsible gaming. We really want to prevent problems before they begin. I think that is something that everyone in this House would like to have. Certainly, if there's a cause for negligence, individuals can pursue and I think should pursue if there's cause for negligence.

I will say, as well, this legislation is the same that we have in other Atlantic provinces that are partners in the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. So they've had a full review of this as well.

Atlantic Lottery Corporation does pay for services to help the vulnerable people as well in our province. For the 0.7 per cent of people that do have a gambling problem, we should do our utmost to treat them, to help them, to support them and to ensure that they do not have problems as they move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Excuse me, before we start, I'm going to ask that all Members speaking to clause 3 will stay relevant to the clause.

Thank you.

J. DINN: Sure thing.

I'm looking here, Chair, again, in terms of the lottery schemes, the damages and the negligent act. What I'm about to summarize here speaks to some of the built-in features of the machines and how that actually plays on their own psychological state, the situation around them.

I will point out, though, before I do speak to it, that it's great that the other Atlantic provinces are doing this. But as my parents were so fond of asking me when I was growing up: If your friends jumped off the end of the wharf, would you as well?

So sometimes it's not just because other provinces are doing it, I think we need to look at it – does this make sense? Is this a just law? Is this just legislation? I don't think it is.

But it's interesting here in this thesis from 2000, the Gambling on the Future: Video Lottery Terminals and Social Change in Rural Newfoundland, he makes that thesis of how gambling became such a problem here and basically the way they were designed, the lottery schemes themselves were designed to play on that.

So he talks about here a number of players indicated that they regularly use machines to calm themselves. It's not one individual but it's numbers of people here and why this is so wrong to remove the whole notion of class action.

A mother of three said that playing these machines never failed to take away her stress headaches. Another woman had said that it's basically like total relaxation. It was a high. It was like being in another world. So you see here that these machines already have that ability to transport people from their problems.

Though many players drank alcohol, smoke marijuana, so on and so forth, many payers said that they basically used the machines without any additional mind-altering agents whatsoever. There is an acknowledgement there that these machines, these lottery schemes, have that ability – and this is what we're talking about – have this ability – that's what this is about here, to make sure that government is not held accountable.

We notice here that in this VLTs three dimensions: the machines have constant motion; bright colours, lights and sounds; and they have a hypnotic quality. They provoke an intense sense of concentration and the machines offer the rare socially acceptable opportunity to withdraw from social interaction and take time itself.

Here is the other thing, notice that the appearances of these VLTs, these lottery schemes are intended to lure players into an intense relaxation: so they are designed to lure. Here is the thing: VLTs used by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, both sets of machines featured a bonanza of bright colours, sounds and nearly continuous motion.

When prompted some of the players said that the visual and auditory stimulation they derived from playing was a major part of the attraction, so you've got here VLTs being promoted by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation which are basically designed to stimulate and lure people in to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 12.

J. DINN: Page 12, we have 250 or so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. DINN: Lots of summarising here, but all joking aside, it speaks directly to why this is such a terrible piece of legislation and why in –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. DINN: Needless repetition?

Now, it does talk about here the whole notion of flow theory. This ties into exactly some of the issues around players and how these machines basically have been evolved to keep people where they are.

He talks about the theory of flow, basically it is meant to keep people focused and their attention directed at this and that they are going to stay at that task without leaving: it is meant to do that.

It allows them to switch off, it allows a deadening and it allows players to disengage from the problems they're facing. Basically, flow state is about focusing deeply on the game and it gives the player a brief sense of relief of the frustration they've been feeling that day.

Here's the connection to alcohol and why it's just as bad: “One man drew a parallel between the role that VLTs now play in his life, and the role that alcohol used to play for him in relieving his mind of tension.” He says that recently he had “gone through a divorce, and had been introduced to the machines … as a way of cheering him up.” So think about this –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

J. DINN: Think about this –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. Member for St. John's Centre to stay relevant to the bill.

J. DINN: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: I'm watching this very closely.

J. DINN: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: Thank you.

J. DINN: You have a person here who is using the VLTs to get away from his stress, but because of that he actually became addicted. I go back to this, again: Tell me how the limited compensatory damages will help this individual. It will not. It basically comes down to the fact is this person affected will not be able to sue the government and will not be able to sue Atlantic Lottery Corporation for his problems because of this legislation.

Other people have talked about how four players admitted to having been victims of sexual abuse and that the machines themselves actually helped calm them. Again, you're feeding on misery. This legislation, again, I think it's going to basically revictimize people who have already been victimized enough.

But here's the thing, one of the developments in the lottery machines, the VLTs, was that as the machines evolved players could only, as their lottery scheme, insert coins, which meant that they had to more frequently stop, get up and get the coins. In getting up so often it would actually break that flow state and make it easier for them to walk away from the machine. However, the new machines – and here's the thing, this is all under Atlantic Lottery Corporation: “The new machines allowed players to insert five, ten, twenty and fifty dollar bills into the machines.” That's a development. Is this the negligence we're talking about here? Because what it meant is that basically they had fewer interruptions, they could build up their bank of credits to a sufficiently high level and they wouldn't have to take breaks, they wouldn't have that break in the flow. To me, Chair, this is all about basically putting machines out there that are designed to extract as much money as possible from people and that will invariably prey on the vulnerable.

I'll stop there for now while I look for further things that are relevant to this debate.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

I will say to the Member opposite and the Members opposite that I know we're speaking a lot to that 0.7 per cent and those with problem gambling, and I think this is an important discussion about those that have problem gambling and the supports they need. I will say that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation does have leading addictions researchers and clinicians that work with Health and Community Services clinical staff to make sure that we are assisting with the challenges that arise from problem gambling. I will also say that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation has, I think, about a half-dozen workshops over the next number of months planned to proactively engage clinicians and communities on the topic of problem gambling to prevent it. I think that's what we're speaking about here.

I know the Member opposite is not pleased or does not support this legislation, but I will say it is protecting the Crown, it is protecting against class action lawsuits; however, lawsuits are still – we still preserve individual rights to move forward.

Thank you.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to speak to clause 3, and clause 3, of course, is really the (inaudible). Clause 3 is the clause that prevents individuals from engaging in a class action lawsuit. That's really what clause 3 is all about and so I will stay relevant to the fact that clause 3 is simply about that. It's preventing people from being a part of a class action lawsuit.

I would say, Chair, that perhaps instead of looking at ways to absolve ourselves from any responsibility for the harm done to individuals who have lost their homes, have lost their jobs, have had their marriages and relationships wrecked, have engaged in criminal activity, done time in jail and those who have committed suicide, sadly, over gambling addictions, instead of trying to remove their rights – as we're trying to do in clause 3; to be relevant – perhaps we should be engaged in more due diligence. Perhaps if there was more due diligence, if that was the angle that they were coming from, we might be saying: What is it that Atlantic lotto is doing that could potentially lead to a class action lawsuit? As is outlined in clause 3 of this piece of legislation: What is it that Atlantic lotto could do to prevent a class action lawsuit to begin with? Perhaps if they were to get together and have their legal minds involved, they could determine and say: Well, what is it that we're doing wrong? What is it that we could possibly be doing wrong that could cause a class action lawsuit? Let's stop doing it.

In other words, if you take away all of the mechanisms that are causing people harm, that are leading to these serious addictions and that are not preventing the addictions for people with these serious problems – if we were to put in appropriate warnings. I look at a pack of cigarettes, for example – and that's a class action lawsuit that we're a part of – the tobacco companies. If you buy a package of cigarettes it has a picture of a black lung on it and it says: This will cause cancer. This will cause heart disease and so on. How come there's nothing on the VLTs, Mr. Chair? Why is there nothing on the VLTs, when it comes to gambling, to offer those same warnings? Perhaps if there was more of these warnings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

P. LANE: Maybe if it was more prolific, if there was more advertising to warn people of these things, perhaps then we wouldn't have to worry about class action lawsuits, as is outlined in clause 3 of this bill of which I'm being relevant to. Perhaps then we wouldn't have to worry about class action lawsuits as is outlined in clause 3 of this bill of which I'm being relevant to. Perhaps then we wouldn't have to worry about removing people's rights to be part of a class action lawsuit. Perhaps then.

There was an amendment made. There was an amendment presented, I understand, to this particular clause, to clause 3. There was an amendment made and it was found not to be in order. I respect your ruling on that, Chair. I understand how things work. Just because it wasn't in order, based on the rules of the House, doesn't mean that the spirit of what was intended to change clause 3, which I am talking about and being relevant to – it doesn't mean that the spirit of this was not the right thing to do.

The spirit of this amendment was to say: Why can't we amend this clause in such a way to protect that 0.7 per cent that we keep hearing about. Protect that 0.7 per cent of people with serious addictions and preserve their right to engage in a class action if they could, if they desired, while at the same time removing the 99.3 per cent based on the minister's numbers – I'm not doubting her but those numbers don't seem to jibe in my mind around here. I'm not saying the number she's giving is false or that she's intentionally misleading. I know she's not. She's only giving the numbers as was given to her, but I challenge that 0.7 personally.

With that said, assuming it is 0.7 and that the information is up to date and so on, then I would say that I can understand why we wouldn't want the 99.3 per cent of the population, who have not had irreparable harm done to them, just sort of jumping on board a class action lawsuit, as I said earlier, to try to get a few bucks off the government. We wouldn't want that and I understand that. But there has to be a way to protect the rights of the 0.7 per cent of the people who legitimately have lost everything they've got, they've had their lives wrecked and ruined. There has to be a way to protect them.

If this was perhaps amended and written in a certain way, again, we can't do it here in the form of an amendment because of the rules of the House and the procedure. That's not to say that the government can't close down debate on this right now and come back with an amendment of their own to change the intent as the government.

CHAIR: Keep it relevant, please.

P. LANE: They could do that of this clause. They could come back, Mr. Chair, with clause 3. They could come back –

S. CROCKER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: I say to the Government House Leader, I didn't say it wasn't relevant. I said that the motion as presented to make the amendment was found not to be in order. But that doesn't mean that I can't talk about the motion which was directly on clause 3.

The amendment was for clause 3, the intent to remove people from class action lawsuits. I'm simply saying that the government, if they so desired, could adjourn debate and they could bring forward an amended clause 3 that would do what's intended, that would remove the 99.3 from the class action, but would still protect the 0.7 of the gamblers who are in serious trouble because of their gambling addictions. They could do that. I think it's important to note that. They have the power and the ability to do it if they wanted to do it. Obviously, they don't want to do it. That's the point there; obviously they don't want to do it.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand why you would not want to do it. Other than the fact to say that we're following suit with the other Atlantic provinces. Interestingly my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port asked a question about other provinces and the minister was going to look through her notes. I never did hear the answer. Maybe I missed it about what other provinces are doing.

She keeps going back to the other three Atlantic provinces. We know, we've heard now numerous times that the other three Atlantic provinces have done it and this just seems to be a case of, well, they did, we're going to do it too. That's what it feels like. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's what I seem to be hearing. I'd like to know what other provinces are doing, what rules they have in place and how they protect people who are affected by serious gambling addictions. It would be nice to know what's there because we haven't heard that answer.

Again, Chair, this is the clause that is causing a lot of problem for me and for other Members in the House because we are going to take away the rights of people who have serious addictions, who've been seriously damaged and they don't have any rights to sue. They have no rights.

Again, I will repeat: To say that they have individual rights is a very disingenuous statement to make. It's totally disingenuous because we all know that there's no lawyer in his right mind or her right mind or their right mind that's going to take on a case to try to sue Atlantic Lottery on behalf of one person. Not going to happen.

I'll continue with my commentary after my colleague from St. John's Centre.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, there are a lot of factors here that we have to look at. Why are we fighting to make sure they don't take out the ability for a class action? It's because there are so many people across the country that are already impacted by gambling. As my fellow MHA for Lake Melville talked about, it really impacts people in the worst ways. He talked about the damage done in his district to people.

I was just looking at a professor of psychology from the University of Calgary. He's in an article there and the subheading is: “High financial risk at stake in cheap place.”

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevance.

L. EVANS: I'll stay relevant. I'll stay relevant on this because across the country we know there are a lot of people who are already addicted, especially to these VLTs, life-damaging addictions. But also when you start looking deeper into the VLTs, they talk a lot about the influences of alcohol. Also, the sounds of the machines, the colour of the machines, it all is a way to actually attract people and keep them addicted.

Now, the relevance of what I wanted to talk about is this professor in his article talks about it's more than just alcohol that contributes to the people consistently playing and losing a lot of money. Many people, he says, become mesmerized while playing the VLTs. I think that actually adds to what my fellow MHA there from St. John's Centre was talking about. The machines are set up to mesmerize you.

Actually, I'm going to quote this professor who's done research into these addictions: “People will describe losing track of time – not realizing just how long they have actually been playing or how much money they have lost.” That is one huge problem and it's impacting many, many people.

We should be looking at solutions, more than just reducing the number of machines and reducing the number of hours to play. It's important.

He also goes on to say: “It's certainly very absorbing and is an effective way for people to cope with negative feelings because they can forget about their problems.” And we're in the middle of a pandemic. We don't know the damage done to our emotional and mental health by this pandemic.

Also, a lot of people are in financial crisis – business owners, people who've lost their jobs. So it's important now; they can forget about their problems. So what we're going to do is we're going to allow this to continue with no recourse for them.

This professor also talks about irony. I like using the word “irony.” He said: The irony is that sometimes the VLT play is actually contributing to problems. Research has shown that even if the player didn't have financial problems, by using the VLTs to help forget about their problems, they add another one on: financial problems. So I will quote him again and say: “So they're escaping their problem, but also making the problem worse by amassing more debt.”

What happens then when they get so far in debt? I talked about people committing crimes or people hiding, people embezzling. I'm going to tell you now, relevant to this, we need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to help these people and make sure that they don't lose everything. One of the things is deterrence.

I worked on the projects – we called them the projects – working on rotation. Back in 2000, I met a gentleman who became a good friend of mine and I'd see him on the different projects, working up in Voisey's, over at Muskrat, and all those kinds of things. One day he came home from a rotation and his wife was gone. She was gone. All her stuff was gone from the House. He never had any problems with her, he was a supportive husband, loving husband, and he'd be gone for weeks at a time. So, Mr. Chair, he thought his wife ran off with another man or another woman.

What he learned is she had a gambling addiction to those VLTs. While he was gone, she was playing the machines. She got so far in debt and she was hiding it from him for so long to the point where she couldn't hide it anymore and what she did is she just packed up, rather than deal with it. That's the power of addictions; that's the power of lives being ruined.

So I think it's important for us to make sure that we're doing all we can. One of the things is I don't think we should be cowering. I don't think we should be cowardly. I don't think we should be covering our own butts – if I can say that. But at the end of the day, I can't sit here and allow something as erroneous as this.

With that, Chair, I'm going to actually end.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Chair, the Minister of Finance talked about, in response to some of the issues here, the measures that are in place to treat addiction through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation and the mitigating measures that they put in place, but I have to ask: How do I trust an organization that profits from gambling to treat and prevent the very actions that they need to get their profits? You can't be both the promoter and the regulator; you cannot serve two masters.

We have heard already of how the VLTs evolved and how provinces became addicted to them, but it is interesting hearing the whole notion of addiction, and especially if we're going to be looking at compensatory damages and the like and the individuals we are talking about. It is interesting that some people blame themselves, Chair, for their gambling addiction. They victimize themselves. Others blame the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. When they blame themselves, they ignore basically the situational variables in gambling. It is interesting that many felt intense shame and unhappiness, adopted a lesser image of themselves and they suffered alone.

Here's the thing: They did blame the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, the federal government and the provincial government – they usually put it under one name: the government. Basically, where this study took place, they did blame government for unilaterally putting the machines in place there at a time when they were very vulnerable. They were victims and they were vulnerable. I contend here this is the key thing with this, what's so difficult for me to accept this act as it is.

The second contention that these people reference is that government continually modified the machines to make it harder for players to win money. They basically had the bells and whistles which attracted them. Then, the machines got to the point where they didn't stop whatsoever. Once the machines were changed again to accept bills, it basically made it impossible for them to walk away.

It goes on to say here, in the medical model, how some of these people are very sick people. They have a powerlessness over gambling and gamble normally again. They can't do this. I really would like to know – and here's a question: What are the measures – from anyone on this side – that Atlantic Lottery Corporation, other than a phone call, that are taking place, that are put into effect, to help those who experience that powerlessness over gambling?

We haven't yet, Chair, heard that at all. We've heard vague references to it. I would like to have that answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

J. HOGAN: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety on a point of order.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Chair.

I just refer to Standing Order 48, which is entitled Relevancy, and read out 48(2), which is “The Speaker or the Chairperson, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition” – which is the key here, it's needless repetition; not saying that the points aren't relevant, but we've heard them over and over and over again.

I refer to Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice which does say that if a Member persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate.

We have listened to both sides of the arguments here and there are two sides of the argument here; this is the point of a debate. We put forward legislation and arguments have been made about why it's maybe not good legislation, why amendments could exist to that legislation and we've heard it. We've heard once, we've heard it again, we've heard it three times, we've heard it eight times and we've heard it 10 times. That's, by definition, of something being repetitive and tedious.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I've been paying attention to repetition and I've warned Members of the House here that certainly they need to stay relevant to that section of the bill. Certainly, I will continue to pay close attention to it and I will, again, instruct the Members that we don't need to hear repetition as well.

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

It's interesting that we're looking for more ways to shut down the debate than to deal with the issues here.

I still have one question there that I asked and I will stop there for an answer: Basically, what are the measures here? If indeed we're taking out the class action measures, provide for me, here and now, what the measures are that are in place that would show that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is not being negligent.

It's a simple question. I've heard general reference but I have yet to hear specifically how indeed, as the minister said, that they have measures in place to deal with that. I don't think I've asked that before. I'll stop there and wait for an answer.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

Trying to shut down debate in a democracy in this House of Assembly is –

CHAIR: I will ask the Member to stay relevant to the bill.

Thank you.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair, but I had to make that point. It seems to be a bit of a trend.

Anyway –

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chair, point of order.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chair, out of respect for the Chair and the Speaker, Mr. Chair, I've just witnessed one Member and now another call into question a ruling of the Chair. I believe that's unparliamentary.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I'll take that under advisement.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

Again, I will ask you to stay relevant to the section in the bill.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I wasn't questioning your ruling. I was questioning the antics of the Members opposite and they just continued on with it.

Anyway, Chair, it's amazing to me how we're talking about clause 3 here, a piece of legislation that's going to take away the rights of individuals who had their lives ruined and it's just interesting how somehow this seems to be one big joke and somehow let's try to find a way to shut it down.

I think the reason why we're raising this is because it is a serious issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: I say to the Member, if he finds it so boring, why don't you just leave, if it's too much trouble.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Member to continue.

P. LANE: Anyway, Mr. Chair, before I was –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

P. LANE: Thank you for your protection there, Mr. Chair.

Anyways, Chair, as I was saying, and I wasn't going to make these remarks long, actually, this time around, believe it or not because I think I've made my points known as it relates –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I couldn't hear myself speak.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, as I was trying to say the reason why we keep bringing this up is because we're hoping that the Members opposite, that the government will actually, instead of heckling, just listen to what's being said here about the seriousness of this. The fact that we have people in this province and we've all known them –

S. CROCKER: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Chair, same Standing Order, Standing 48(2) clearly says: “The Speaker or Chairperson, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition ….”

Mr. Chair, these are the points we've been hearing all evening. Not that they're not valid points, but the reality is there's a question before the House, Mr. Chair, and we've all heard the comments around this question. The Member continues to talk about the same issues, Mr. Chair.

I would ask you to rule on Standing Order 48.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Again, I will remind Members to stay relevant. We certainly don't want to hear continued repetition.

I'll recognize the hon. Member and ask him to stay relevant to the bill.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I continue to reference to clause 3 of the bill, Mr. Chair.

Clause 3, Mr. Chair, is a limited clause. It's very far reaching –

Mr. Chair, I'm finding it difficult to try to gather any thoughts here when all I can here is heckling over across the way.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I'm just going to ask for full co-operation from the House. It's been a long day; a long day for us all. I'd ask for co-operation from the House.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

As I was saying, clause 3, while it may not be a large clause, the implications of this clause are very serious. They're very serious. Because what we are actually doing is we are legislating away the rights – we're actually legislating away the rights of citizens who have suffered irreparable harm.

J. HAGGIE: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Chair.

Section 48(2), this is the seventh time the Member opposite has repeated that phrase in probably the last 59 minutes. I would argue that is needless repetition.

Can we, please, move on?

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

Perhaps the minister's time would be best spent trying to get doctors for the 98,000 people in our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

S. CROCKER: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Chair, we're in here in a debate on clause 3 of a bill. Clause 1 of a bill is typically where there is a free-ranging conversation. Once we get off clause 1, we come into a very much detailed.

Now, we're into a situation where the Member opposite is hurling insults towards the Minister of Health and Community Services. That is terrible in a debate in this House of Assembly at this hour of the day to actually hurl insults across this House at the Minister of Health and Community Services.

P. LANE: Mr. Chair, I'd like to know what the insult was. I don't think I hurled any insults.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Yeah, Hansard will reflect the comments made by the Member opposite, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I'll take it under advisement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Order, please!

I'm going to ask the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands to make your point and let's move on.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

That's what I've been trying to do for the last 10 minutes. I've been interrupted about four times. I said that I only had to make a couple of quick points and I would be done with this for tonight. But I keep getting interrupted with all of these –

CHAIR: Move on, please.

P. LANE: – erroneous points of order. And I won't be shut down by them.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I'm going to conclude my remarks just by saying that the reason why we keep raising this issue – and it might be a joke to people over there – is because of the irreparable harm caused by VLTs, in particular, to citizens of our province and we are talking about legislating away their rights. At the same token that this is happening, Mr. Chair –

CHAIR: The Minister of Health on a point of order.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Sorry to do this, but 48(2), that is the second time in three minutes the Member opposite has made the same phrase and the same statement; even my watch is getting fed up with it.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Mr. Chair, the reason why I repeated it three or four times is that every time I get midway through the sentence I keep getting called on a point of order by the Members opposite because they don't want to hear it, and too bad, I'd say. Too bad for you.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, again, I'm going to try to conclude my sentence. The reason why we keep repeating these points is simply because of the irreparable harm that is being done by some people in this province as a result of these gambling addictions and that this particular clause is taking away their rights to seek damages. We just simply believe – I believe; some of us believe I suppose – that those people who are harmed the most should be able to have some remedy available to them. The Minister of Finance keeps saying about the fact that: Yeah, they can sue on their own. Again, they cannot sue on their own and no lawyer will ever take it on. It's an absolute disingenuous statement to suggest that they can sue on their own, because we all know the reality of the world that that will never happen.

So, unfortunately, I'm going to have no choice but not to support this bill. That will be all I'll have to say about it, other than my vote. Now, I may speak in third reading, but that will be it for tonight on this.

CHAIR: Thank you.

P. LANE: Thank you.

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to have a few words here and a few questions, I guess, for the minister.

I'll just read 6.1(2): “Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person may bring an action against the Atlantic Lottery Corporation or any person acting on behalf of the government of the province or a director, officer, employee or agent of any of them to recover damages in an amount equal to the loss or damage proved to have been suffered by the person as a result of a negligent act or omission of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation ….”

The question that I have to ask, Mr. Chair: How do you define neglect or omission? Those words haven't been brought up here tonight: neglect or omission. I ask this House: Is neglect when you know you're going to offer a service that is going to cause harm? Is that neglect? Until we get that defined it's hard to say that we, as a government, are saying: Okay, we're going to take your rights away. But in the act is says – that the government is bringing in – in neglect. So if you're going to go ahead and offer a service, which you know is going to affect the 0.7, which the minister says is the number of people, 0.7 of the population – are we neglecting our duties as a government by supporting this here and allowing this here? Are we allowing this here, being a part of it, being negligent? It's omission from it all. That hasn't been discussed in this House. It hasn't been discussed. I know the minister brought up earlier that neglect can be defined – let the lawyers discuss that. But shouldn't we discuss that in this House of Assembly before we approve this bill? What is neglect and what is omission?

We know, as a government, on many times on a bill we have to try to protect ourselves to the laws that we make in the province. If we have an act in this province and a law in the province which in there says that if there is any neglect or omission, shouldn't we have defined what neglect or omission is? So that when we make a decision are we negligent, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is Atlantic Lottery Corporation negligent in their work knowing that's going to cause harm? That's the questions that are not answered and this is why this debate is continuing. So if we are omitting facts that – listen here, this is causing damage. If we are saying that this is causing damage, yet we're not going to go ahead and do something about it or we're not going to let anyone sue the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, it's something, Chair, I think that we should seriously look at. It's something that we haven't defined in this House and it's something that the minister couldn't answer when asked that question.

When you look at those two words, “neglect” and “omission,” we know this is causing harm to a certain number of people. It's causing a lot of psychological damages, it's causing a lot of financial damages and it's causing a lot of harm to a lot of families which filters down to the whole family and not just the person who has this addiction. I just bring that point up to the House for us to make an informed decision and to have those answers before we vote on this here after third reading. It's a very important point. We, as a government, just can't turn around and say: Oh, we're negligent, but we still can't be sued for it.

I'll conclude on those remarks, Chair, and I hope the minister will stand up and give us her – because this is the point earlier that I made: Here we are going to set up a committee to look at this whole act, the lottery licence act, we're going to look at that committee, yet by looking at that committee shouldn't we have those answers to bring back to the House so we can make an informed decision? That is a big part of this that we're going to go ahead with the committee after we approve this here without having the full information on this amendment. I bring that to the minister's attention. I know the Government House Leader is over there listening attentively and maybe he might have the answers for it.

I'll just wait to get the answers, Chair, so that we can have an informed debate and make a proper decision.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to speak a little bit more on clause 3. I'm going to stay relevant to the bill, Bill 18, the Lotteries Act. Just looking at section 6 – sorry, Mr. Chair, I can't hear myself.

Just speaking on section 6.1(4): “Notwithstanding any other law, an action for damages referred to in subsection (2) shall not be instituted or continued under the Class Actions Act or as a part of any other representative proceeding.”

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Chair, in relevance, 48(2), saying that we're in clause 3, that's repetition of the clause we're even in, Mr. Chair, and irrelevant to the clause itself. Saying that we're in the clause doesn't make you relevant to the clause.

L. EVANS: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Government House Leader has the floor on a point of order.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Chair, again 48(2), irrelevance and needles repetition, and saying that we're in clause 3, repeating that we're in clause 3 doesn't make your comments relevant.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.

Please stay relevant to the bill.

L. EVANS: Yes, Chair, I was just referring to the subsection that I was dealing with, just with the class action.

Now, when you back through Hansard, I'm not repeating, I'm staying relevant.

CHAIR: Continue.

L. EVANS: I'm staying relevant and I'm speaking on important issues. There are so many people in Canada – 0.7 sounds irrelevant. But if you do the math that's about 260,000.

Did anyone do the math? Maybe the Minister of CSSD might have done the math, because he's always on the number. My fellow MHA from Lake Melville actually has done the math. I should ask him what it was. But I think it's about 266,000 people. That's a lot. My numbers may be off, but anyway, if you look at all these people being impacted. We talked about just a recent class action that had 30,000. That was just a small class action.

I'm staying relevant. I'm not going to say it again because I'll be called on duplication.

I'm going to quote the minister now. The Minister of Finance did say – and I'm saying this for the first time. She said: I'm not saying lawsuits will not happen. If they're negligent, you still have the option to sue.

But in my notes, when I was originally thinking about speaking on this, which I didn't the first time, one of my biggest problems is if we just limit it to individuals and take away class action, what about people out there who don't know how to navigate, who don't know where to go, whose life has been ruined? They don't know the steps or who to call or where to get help. So being knowledgeable about how to navigate the system, or the ability, the mental ability, the knowledge that they may not have. This is important.

Also, when you get in with a single lawsuit and it's dragged out, because the government and the people from Atlantic lotto do have deep pockets, one individual may not have the strength or preservation to be able to continue on to actually seek justice.

We're government; we need to be doing better than that. We're basically being bullies. We're going to be picking on people with mental health issues, addictions issues. We saw what happened with COVID.

I have to tell you now, the thing is mental health issues in Canada are rampant. You just have to look to your youth. I used to do a lot of safety training. Man, I have to tell you –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have to ask the Member to stay relevant to the bill.

L. EVANS: Okay, sorry, I will.

When you look at the 0.7 out there that are very vulnerable and you take away the ability for them to have a class action, you are actually denying them justice, which is what my fellow MHA from Mount Pearl - Southlands was getting at. He repeated himself several times. It's important.

I mean, here in Newfoundland, it's difficult for somebody to sue.

Actually, I was looking at a CBC article.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. EVANS: Mr. Chair, I can't hear.

CHAIR: Order, please!

L. EVANS: I was looking at a CBC article: Doug Babstock, he was looking at suing. He said, in actual fact, he was up to $500 a day going into the machines. He started and within a year he was addicted, he said. After he retired, he used the word ridiculous at how bad his addictions got. He confessed to his wife. This is a gentleman, one person, who was trying to sue.

The minister talked about reducing the number of hours as a deterrent. But he said he used to play four hours per day. So, I mean, how much are you going to reduce the time the machines are available? Because I tell you, the people with addictions, if you reduce it down to four hours a day, there are a lot of people that will actually go out there and actually gamble for four hours a day.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will remind the Member, while I appreciate the commentary that you have, the story that you're telling, it is not relevant to the bill.

L. EVANS: (Inaudible) going to be impacted by taking away class action, that option. Who's going to be impacted, Chair?

I'll tell you who's going to be impacted: our most vulnerable. That is why we're here at 9:25 p.m. Basically, this government is taking away the ability for our most vulnerable to seek justice from the harms that are going to be incurred.

We know that gambling is addictive. We just got to look at – well, take somebody famous: Pete Rose. He threw away his life. Charlie Hustle – that tells you how old I am. I remember him running around the bases.

Mr. Chair, when we take away class action, that we're doing here in clause 3 and we were doing it in 6.1(4) – I'm sorry if I'm repeating it, but that's where the class action part is, so I'm staying relevant – we are taking away the only option for our most vulnerable: people with mental health issues, people with social issues, people with the knowledge and the – you know, in the House of Assembly here, most of the people here have the wherewithal to actually sue if you wanted to. But if you go out on the street and you talk to our most vulnerable, they don't have the wherewithal to sue. Therefore, when you take away the ability to have a class action, you're taking away the rights of the most vulnerable, Chair.

I'm going to stay here. And do you know something? I'm going to make sure I'm not repeating and I'm staying relevant. At the end of the day, a government who's there to represent the people, especially to protect the most vulnerable, should not be eroding the rights of the most vulnerable. In actual fact, what you're doing, you're not only setting them up off the cliff, you're actually pushing them off the cliff.

There are studies there. I just read out from a professor that says that people turn to these machines a lot of times for comfort. It really contributes to the issues that they're facing. It actually adds the extra burden of the issues. This government should be ashamed of itself because it's taking away the ability for our most vulnerable people to actually sue for wrongs.

Oh, yeah, maybe the other provinces have done it, but like the Member there from St. John's Centre said about his mother – what was it, jumping into – running off the edge of the dock, would you do it? So do all the governments have to do with the same thing?

At the end of the day, we're going to sit here and we are going to vote against it. Do you know something? We're going to actually have our dignity when we walk out the door.

If you take away the class action, the only ability for the vulnerable people to actually have justice for wrongs that's happened, their only ability – do you know something? The government is wrong and the government should be ashamed of itself.

In actual fact, I'll end there for this time. I might come back after I hear my fellow MHA for St. John's Centre speak from his learned book.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I have a question to ask that maybe the Minister of Finance can answer directly in her closing speech, eventually, or now.

Previously, I asked: What are the measures in place, specifically – and I'll just repeat it while she's here – that Atlantic Lottery has in place? But I do want to go on to section 3. In section 3(2) it talks about bringing an action against the Lottery Corporation. Can I –

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

J. HAGGIE: The Standing Orders do not allow Members to refer to the presence or absence of Members.

J. DINN: Chair, I didn't. I said in her closing she can answer. I did not refer to any absence.

CHAIR: Thank you. I will take it under advisement.

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: A quick question. If indeed we are removing the right to a class action and it says in section 3, clause 6.1, “a person may bring an action against the Atlantic Lottery Corporation ….” I am understanding that to be a judicial action. If we're removing the class action, is there a mechanism where a person who is aggrieved can actually go through some other mechanism to bring the fact of their damages and have it resolved? Maybe something that is not through a judicial appeal, which would be less expensive on everyone?

So that's the other question I'm asking. Eventually, I would like maybe those two questions to be answered. What other measures are in place? More specifically, is there any mechanism available right now to people who have lost their savings because of a gambling addiction and because of the VLTs and so on and so forth? Is there any mechanism or procedure that they can avail of that would help resolve that situation for them, maybe a board of arbitration of some sort or a tribunal that would decide that? That way, Chair, at least there is some semblance of concern on the part of the government and Atlantic Lottery Corporation to protect the rights of the most vulnerable.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers, shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those in favour, 'aye.'

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 4 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 Lotteries Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 18.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 18.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 18 without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed Bill 18 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

S. CROCKER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 22.

SPEAKER: Any additional speakers?

We're on Bill 22, An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles, second reading.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll be as succinct and as relevant as I possibly could in a short time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I have to represent the wishes of the District of Bonavista. I'd like to make a short declaration that I think in the District of Bonavista we have the greatest number of viewers of the House of Assembly. Maybe after today, it may not be quite a high number, I would think.

I found last night that I returned a call that was on my phone and it was Irene Duffett. She was a resident of Port Union, her and her husband Wilson. They moved to Shirley's Haven in Catalina. Guess what their favourite programming is at Shirley's Haven in Catalina. This is it.

SPEAKER: I remind the Member to stay relevant to the bill, please.

C. PARDY: Did I say I was going to be relevant?

SPEAKER: You did, Sir.

C. PARDY: It starts now.

Safety standards in Bill 22 are paramount there is no doubt about that. My hon. Member for Ferryland for many months wished to have the ATV regulation brought to the House. It is there.

Of every email and notification I've had in the District of Bonavista, the only issue in the current bill that I've had was helmets within Side By Sides. I don't know what the other 39 districts are, but the only thing I can say to you is that my intent tonight was to read out the 20-plus names, which I had permission to do, many of a professional nature – retired RCMP officer, retired school board employees, a couple of them in administration – but wanted to clearly state that they didn't think that helmets in the Side By Sides were necessary.

I'd often use the expression that I used to –

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevance.

C. PARDY: This is relevant, Speaker, I promise. When we talk about safety in schools, I was fortunate enough to be an administrator in the school with the Clarenville Winter Games complex. The gymnasium was three times this Chamber. A beautiful facility of which the kids were very active and, I would claim, very healthy because they had a facility at which they can really be active in.

If someone had said that we can increase the safety in that chamber by having everyone wear a helmet while they ran around the gymnasium and played, I would not be able to refute that. I would think if the children that ran around Clarenville Middle School wore a helmet, maybe they would be safer. I think the genesis of wearing a helmet in a Side By Side is safety, but I just wondered to what point and to what degree do we have that element within the well-supported Side By Side.

Before I read out a few of them, and in the short time that I allowed I would have, we look at data and one thing I know with data, we can throw data out that is very self-supporting. I think a lot of us would know in the profession that we're in and some previous professions that data sometimes you can use but if you wanted to find data that could work against a position, you certainly can find that, too.

One piece of data that I want to share with you, to show that it's not a level playing field when we come to off-road vehicles, is that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a very low population as far as the other provinces are. In fact, it's only PEI of the provinces that would be less.

I would say, in PEI, there are 2,813 off-road vehicles – 2,813. If we jump to Nova Scotia, which has almost double our population – and I think the minister may have cited that in his opening address to launch Bill 22 – they have close to one million in population. They have 67,304 off-road vehicles. How many off-road vehicles do we have in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? We have 258,365, and that's from Stats Canada. One would say that we have a unique culture, a culture which the use of off-road vehicles is rather extensive.

In fact, if you do the ratio on that, it's one for every two Newfoundlanders that have an off-road vehicle, and that is an astounding figure. Some talk about, if you look at the Province of Quebec, which was referenced I think as being a recreational haven, a little over eight million, 8.5 million people, and they have 870,000, which would be the largest population or number of off-road vehicles in Canada. That's in Quebec.

But their ratio is one for 16, roughly; do the math on that and it may be one for 15, but that's close to ratio. Newfoundland is one for every two. I would say that puts us in the category of being unique. How do we know whether a law is meritorious? Ask the users.

I know we have some who said that the helmets are, but I can say, unequivocally, from those who reached out to me in the District of Bonavista and for those that I reached out to them – I think a previous hon. Member was going to check that out over the past weekend to see and I said that was a good idea. And I reached out to several.

Every one of them, without exception, had no problem with any of the rules. They didn't mention the 125cc one that we had. They didn't mention that at all and I understand that can be an issue; but, exclusively, every one of them did not think it was necessary to have helmets on Side By Sides.

Anyway, to save time, I can talk about the statistics, but I just want to jump to a jurisdictional scan. What I present to you has come from the legislative research in the Chambers that was arranged by our legislative information specialist that we have available to us in the House of Assembly.

Alberta: If a Side By Side has a manufacturer's installed rollover protection structures and seat belts that are properly worn, helmets in Side By Sides are not necessary. In Manitoba, they are not necessary.

Earlier we said that they are mandatory in BC. Well, according to the legislative report that I have a copy of and will gladly table from our researchers who reached out to their researchers, while it's stated in legislation, it's omitted in the regulations. So, therefore, they were saying that it's not mandatory in the Province of BC. Then we talk when you cross over from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland. Well, it is not mandatory in Nova Scotia either because it's not in the regulations.

I would say to you that is evidence to know. And when I mentioned to the researcher that was assisting me here in this Chamber, in this House, she double-checked with her colleague in Nova Scotia to make sure, before I presented that – which I thought might have been this afternoon. But the only thing being – she double-checked to make sure of its accuracy before I stated it – what it came down to is that while some guides available online imply that helmets are required, the wording of the legislation and the regulations does not include Side By Side.

The only thing, to wrap up and to jump to the end, I would say there are, as I stated, 20-plus couples that have stated – and I just want to throw out a few names in a concluding flurry of commentary. Every one of them had no problem with any regulation, and I say that again: repetition. The only thing I would say – no problem with any part of the regulation; the only thing was the helmet in the Side By Side, they had an issue with.

If 20-plus out of the District of Bonavista got a problem or an issue with helmets being mandated in the well-fortified Side By Sides, I would say to you, in the other 39 districts, and in yours on your side, the government side, your constituents have an issue with Side By Sides as well, especially those in the rural areas.

We may be unique in the District of Bonavista, but I can guarantee you we're not that unique. I would say to you, out of consideration, let's do what Alberta and Manitoba, what British Columbia and what Nova Scotia did: still under advisement and it's not showing up in the regulations. I would say this is one that we should pause on, reflect on and make sure that we don't jump the gun on this and adversely affect the population that we serve. That is what I would state.

Dan Clarke runs an outfit for ATVs within the District of Bonavista, resides in Musgravetown. He's one of the ones pushing to get the trail – like the CBN T'Railway that they have – to stretch from the start of the district, which will be in George's Brook-Milton right to Bonavista, bringing tourists, economic development. He wears his helmet – everything on an ATV, snowmobile helmet. He does not think – him and his wife – that it's necessary in a well-fortified Side By Side.

I'm gone over the five minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

C. PARDY: But I am going to wrap up. I just want to read you some names, some of these you may know – not many of you, but some of you: Shawn and Jackie Vokey; Randell and Wanda Webster; Allan and Irene Fudge; Gerry and Shirley Parsons; Ivan Greening of Musgravetown; Dana Ivany; Scott Ivany; Shawn Loder; Rick Pam Collins; Thelma and Terry Fitzgerald; Jeanette Reader, Musgravetown; Morgan Ellis, George's Brook; Dennis White, Catalina; and I would say there are others. At least that gives an indication that it should be a reflection.

I know that our senses may not be the sharpest now at this late hour, but I would like for us to consider that regulation: putting it on pause; studying it further, like a lot of other things need to be studied and make sure we don't harshly jump on one aspect of this act and what you've presented to adversely affect so many people.

One hundred per cent wishes for helmets not to be worn in Side By Sides in the District of Bonavista. Extrapolate that over the 40 and we have a significant number.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience and I'll allow for somebody else.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I think one thing we can take from my colleague there is not every district is created equal when it comes to the use of ATVs or Side By Sides or dirt bikes. Certainly, how they're used up in Labrador, as an example, is very much different from how they're used in Topsail - Paradise.

In Paradise, we are bookended between CBS and Mount Pearl and the T'Railway there. The T'Railway going toward Mount Pearl and the T'Railway going toward CBS, there is no motorized vehicles allowed. However, the segment going through Paradise does allow motorized vehicles.

I can tell you from my own experience walking the trail and biking the trail, 90-plus per cent of the users on motorized vehicles are safe and courteous. Surprisingly, it's the – well, not surprisingly, but the dirt bikes, the two-wheelers, tend to be flying by, but I will say the ATVs and the Side By Sides are very respectful driving by in terms of speed and courtesy.

This bill, when we look at ATVs respecting the off-road vehicles, it's essentially about safety. It's essentially about ensuring people use the machines safely and responsibly.

You'll recall when the trikes came in, when the first ATVs were coming in. I think they were introduced in the early '70s and according to The American Surgeon magazine, almost immediately they realized alarming rates of injury for children and adolescences. I still see some of those trikes around. I mean, they used to flip over quite easily. I think in 1987 they ceased all manufacturing of those because they were considered dangerous.

ATVs, I think, which was interesting from the same article, tend to be more dangerous than dirt bikes. Even though I see the dirt bikes flying up the trail, they're actually more dangerous than dirt bikes. They say it's due to the crush injuries that occur. Failures to wear safety gear and helmets and such. In fact, they go on to say they're as dangerous as motorcycles based on the mortality and injury scores.

Just like all districts aren't created equal, so are the machines are not all created equal. Take your four-by-fours, you have utility type four-by-fours and then you have, I'd almost call them the racing four-by-fours that are done. You see the same with snowmobiles. You see the touring snowmobiles and then you see the ones that just fly.

Even when you look at your Side By Sides, there are those who have the fully enclosed area and all the safety and then there are those that are less. It's hard to come out with a blanket safety clause that we're going to cover all of it because they're not all created equal.

In my district, even though we're not a huge user of ATVs, people have them and go and use them, I did get calls on this. There were three items that were the main issues brought forward. One had to do with the age of the user and the size of the machine that they were using. They talked about some of the kids' machines that are built and made are actually, when you get to a certain age, they're way too small for you, to the point that you actually can't operate them safely.

The other thing that was brought up was the height restrictions. I had adults call me who, on their rig, can't put two feet on the ground and can balance with one. So they had issues with the two feet on the ground.

The other one, of course, which my colleague from Bonavista spoke about, had to do with Side By Sides. This is perhaps the one in which I got the most calls or most emails, and that had to do with the use of helmets.

Now, I don't have a Side By Side, I don't drive a Side By Side. I've been in them. So I have limited knowledge of it, but what I'm told is, again, not every Side By Side is created equal. Some come with the three-point harness. Some come with the moulded seats in, which actually wearing a helmet in it becomes less safe to do. So there are issues there.

There's also on all these machines that you buy, you can see the stickers; they're all over them, the recommended manufacturer guidelines on usage – their recommendations. So they may recommend a helmet but it's not mandatory.

When you look at it, who is the better person to determine or the better organization or business or government to determine whether it's safe or not safe? I would think you'd have to consider the rig. You'd have to consider each rig or type of rig and see what's safe on that.

I go back to this legislation and I say: Well, what is the intent? What is the intent of this legislation? I would say it's safety, you know, safety is one of the biggest pieces of this legislation.

Then your next question is: Is it addressing the intent? Is it addressing the intent of safety when it comes to this? You have to look at that and see and some of the comments we've already gotten will tell you that, you know, not every rig is created equal.

Then you have to look at it: Is it creating other issues, unforeseen issues? Like I said, I've already touched on one. Some of these rigs have the moulded seats. You strap yourself in and you can hardly move and you're there, which prevents, actually, the safe usage of a helmet. But, again, I still look at the safety standard here, and I'm speaking from less experience on these rigs. I've ridden snowmobiles and quads, but not the Side By Side.

When we're trying to come in with legislation to ensure and increase the safety aspect of their usage and the responsible usage of these machines, then you really need to consult with the groups that utilize them. There are many groups out there – trail groups, Newfound Riders – to consult and then there's also the manufacturer usage directions that you can follow.

I mean, I think about up in Topsail- Paradise, you see them – they're on the roads sometimes – on dirt bikes with no lights in the middle of the night, flying by. I know, growing up – my brother would have been asked this more than me, but if you're going out you're asked: Where are you going? Who are you going with? How are you getting there? When will you be back?

Now, up in Topsail - Paradise, we see these young adults out on the bikes, flying around and I'm surprised – well, unfortunately we have had some deaths recently in this. But I have to say when you talk about responsibility and it's addressed in here in terms of the age or usage, where are parents with this?

The other thing that's happened that we can't ignore is during COVID, during the pandemic, there was a huge uptake in these recreational vehicles, these ATVS and the like. So the training aspect of it, I think, is a good thing. Because I don't know how many went out, bought these rigs, came home, turned the key and went on. We need to look at that.

But the one thing, when you come in with any of this, when you come in with any legislation and, of course, the regulations that will follow, no policy, no regulation, no law is going to be effective unless there's enforcement. I know with the current situation in some communities – I'll call it a lack of enforcement, but maybe it's the lack of resources to enforce. But when it comes to this, I don't know how you enforce this, how you enforce all that's happening here.

I really think when it comes to the Side By Sides, I got no issue – I heard no issues on the snowmobile usage and having helmets on that. I actually heard no issue with the quads in terms of wearing a helmet and the safety issues there. Now, again, it may be different in some districts, but I can only speak for my district there. The biggest comment or response back – the biggest response back – was around the Side By Sides and the use of helmets or not the use of helmets, whatever you look at it.

If you do a bit of research, you look at how many types of brands of Side By Sides, four-by-fours, snowmobiles. They're not all created equal. But, at the end of the day, safety is utmost here and we have to do what's best to increase, maximize safety.

Look, if we all wore a helmet in here all day, day in, day out, we would be safer; but is it practical and is it practical in some situations to have that helmet? Does it make it less safe in some instances? The responses I get from users of Side By Sides or certain types of Side By Sides – those with the three-point harness and the moulded seats – I think they would tell you that it's less safe.

So that's the comments. I just wanted to bring them to the floor in terms of what I've heard in my district. Some of us will say you don't have as big issues in Topsail - Paradise when it comes to use of ATVs and motorized vehicles, but we do and it's just a different type.

Thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers if the minister speaks now, we will close debate.

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

S. STOODLEY: So excited, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate everyone's feedback. I'd also like to say thank you to the members of the public. I know my colleagues have mentioned and I've also heard from many people of the province over the last week a lot of feedback. So I really appreciate, you know, detailed, helpful, thoughtful feedback. So I do want to say thank you to everyone for all the feedback that we have received.

I just want to address a few comments. The Member for CBS talked about the fact that he thought that maybe this was rushed. So I know that the Members opposite have been calling for this in the last sitting of the House and I think if we had brought it in in the last sitting, it would have been rushed. Our teams have been working on this since 2018. It was not rushed. We did extensive consultations, you know, going on from 2018 until now.

We engaged the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency to do surveys around mandatory helmets. Our teams went to Labrador on numerous occasions. We had countless meetings – I can count them. I have a big spreadsheet here of all the meetings. Lot of meetings with the Snowmobile Federation, snowmobile clubs, the T'Railway Council, MNL, Off-Highway Vehicle Distributors Council, different medical groups, Indigenous governments, Indigenous organizations and community groups. I've received tens of letters from municipalities, lots of emails now – even more emails and calls from residents of the province. So we have heard a lot from the people of the province.

The three kind of main areas that I've heard concerns around – one is around the two feet on the ground. So I also want to add, Mr. Speaker, we do have some amendments that we will be proposing in Committee. So we have listened to the people of the province and we do have amendments that we're going to bring forward in Committee. I'll get to those when we get to the appropriate clauses in Committee, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to, I guess, give some additional context. When we talk about the clause “two feet on the ground,” the next part of that is “or disability-related modification.” We worked with the Disability Office here in the provincial government on that wording to make sure that it was inclusive, but we'll discuss that further in Committee. We also heard concerns around the cc's and the size. I appreciate everyone's helpful feedback around that, Mr. Speaker.

The other element I'd like to touch on a bit is around helmets. In my opening statement and in the media conference that we did, in the act it's very clear that we're proposing helmets are mandatory, except for where stated in the regulations. When you look across the Digital Government and Service NL legislation, Speaker, in terms of safety equipment, it's our practice to put the safety equipment specifically in the regulations.

We do that so that we can be more flexible and fast acting so when there's a change in things, we can change that faster than having to come back to the House to change safety equipment. In this instance, Speaker, we are trying to tell the House what our thoughts were. We are trying to be transparent about that. Speaker, I was very clear that there are two exemptions that we are thinking about. Now, we will and we are taking all the feedback we're heard into consideration and doing additional reviews with different groups.

The two in particular that we're looking at for potential exemptions are for hunting and trapping for under 20 kilometres an hour. Although I've heard a lot of debate in the House where Members think that's maybe not an exemption that we need to have. I think that was very helpful feedback as well.

Then the other one was around helmets in factory-enclosed Side By Sides. We are very seriously considering that as an amendment, and I can't say for sure, and that goes in the regulations – not an amendment, sorry, an exemption to the mandatory helmet clause. We are very seriously considering that, Speaker, as an exemption in the regulations. The regulations will be developed depending on the outcome of the amendments and the debate we'll have this evening.

I do want to touch on, though, the requirement for mandatory helmets. My colleague across the way mentioned around BC and Nova Scotia. I commend the Member on their research. For the Province of BC, in their Off-Road Vehicle Regulation, 2(c), Side By Sides are expressly included in the regulations, where helmets are required for both driver and passengers. So that's my research, my team's research. Nova Scotia does not exclude Side By Sides, Speaker. All provinces and territories, except for two, have mandatory helmets on Side By Sides. The Member mentioned the two that do have exemptions, and that's fair, too, and depending on our regulations we might be one of those.

I've received a lot of feedback and I've heard in the House people say: Well, I have a car, I have a convertible, I can drive on the highway and I don't need to wear a helmet. I've heard a lot of feedback from people who spent $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 on a very expensive Side By Side and there's a perception that that is safer than your car. But Transport Canada has very strict rules for roadworthy vehicles. A Jeep Wrangler or a convertible, they meet Transport Canada's standards for roadworthiness, and they're crash tested and there are very high testing standards that the vehicle manufacturers have to produce. When we look at off-road vehicles, I'm sure companies do testing, but there's not that same level of standard for off-road vehicles. I think it's a fallacy, I guess, for someone to think that their $30,000 or $40,000 off-road vehicle is necessarily at the – it could be, but they're not tested and Transport Canada doesn't set the same regulations for safety around off-road vehicles as they do for roadworthy vehicles, Speaker. I just wanted to mention that.

I want to also be clear around some of the numbers. I've had colleagues ask me: How many people have died specifically in a Side By Side in Newfoundland and Labrador? We've reached out to the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency and NLCHI, the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, and that information is not tracked in that way. So there is no record in Newfoundland and Labrador of the specific type of ATV, because Side By Sides are considered an ATV, and they don't keep track of the type of ATV when they're looking at the accidents. Now, other provinces do, Speaker.

There is a Statistics Canada report, Circumstances surrounding all-terrain vehicle (ATV) fatalities in Canada, 2013 to 2019, and that's available on the Statistics Canada website. This does not include data for Newfoundland and Labrador and Manitoba, but it does include data for the rest of the country. When we look at 2013 to 2019, in Canada, on average, there are 100 ATV deaths per year and that includes Side By Sides. So, between ATV and Side by Sides, 100 deaths per year in Canada, on average, between 2013 and 2019, and of those, 9 per cent were Side By Sides. In Canada there are nine deaths a year involving Side By Sides. In 79 per cent of all the ATV deaths, Mr. Speaker, the final cause of death was reported to be an injury sustained during the incident, such as a fatal head, chest or spine injury. These are very serious accidents that occur across Canada involving ATVs and UTVs, and we are trying to improve the safety and we are trying to reduce accidents and save lives.

Now, I'll end just by saying I worked in financial services and whenever we had a really stressful time I'd always think: Oh well, I'm not saving lives. I have made mistakes in my career and when I make a mistake it doesn't impact someone's life, Speaker. Where I know some of my colleagues here had jobs where if they make a mistake it does impact someone's life. So I was thinking earlier today that we can save lives here. Making these types of rule changes where we make helmets mandatory will save lives. I guess I just feel so privileged and thankful that we're in this opportunity where we get to save lives and I, personally, don't think that we should – you know, I've heard the inconveniences, Speaker, from the people of the province. Side By Sides are designed to be worn by helmets. Rick Noseworthy from the T'Railway Association says it's not true that you can't – all the arguments I've heard, he's kind of argued against.

Speaker, in conclusion, we are trying to improve the safety culture and we're trying to save lives, and I'm happy to answer lots and lots of questions in Committee.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 22 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles. (Bill 22)

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

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

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 22)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 22.

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 the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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 (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 22, An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles.

A bill, “An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles.” (Bill 22)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

I'll just start off with a couple of general questions.

First, the new legislation does not change enforcement related to ATV, Side By Side or snowmobile safety. Can the minister provide some comment on how the legislation will be enforced and who will be enforcing it? Are there enough resources available for enforcement?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair, for the question.

In terms of the enforcement, obviously, the RNC and the RCMP. We have a range of peace officers who are listed in the act under the definition section; I can just go to that for a second. Peace officer: a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary; a member of the RCMP; member of a municipal police force; a park warden under the Public Service Employment Act; a wildlife officer; an officer under the Provincial Parks Act; and anyone else designated as a peace officer in the regulations.

In Digital Government and Service NL, we don't provide funding. I'd have to refer to my colleagues at the Department of Justice, but we have worked very closely with our enforcement partners and many of the changes that we're proposing have been recommended by the RNC and the RCMP to help them better enforce the rules.

We're very hopeful that this is a good tool to improve safety and enforcement.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: My next question was going to be: Will there be more enforcement? Maybe you can speak to the Minister of Justice to see when he can get it enacted and get some more enforcement.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, we're not giving any additional funding with this bill from Digital Government and Service NL, but we have included recommendations from our enforcement partners to improve enforceability of the legislation, including specific clauses around supervision; we're increasing fines, a range of things to improve our enforcement partners.

Adding funds would be a budget decision, which we're not making at this time.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: In the briefing we were told that the changes being recommended were decided upon in consultation with a number of the clubs and associations; however, not every off-road vehicle is a member of a club or an organization.

How will owners of off-road vehicles be informed of the new rules so they don't find out about it after their violation?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much for the question.

We've received a lot of feedback from people. It's been on the news; people understand that changes are coming. Our Motor Registration team will have to implement a lot of changes as well. We're going to do news releases. I'll be on Open Line. We're going to make a reasonable effort to make sure that people are aware.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

I think you did answer this but I just wanted to make sure I get it on the record.

Can the minister outline what consultations took place with municipalities? I think you did answer that but I just wanted to ask it.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much, Chair.

We did meet with MNL and from 2018 to now we've received feedback from many municipalities, like tens of municipalities. I have letters and we've had discussions with different municipalities because some municipalities are allowed to create their own rules and then allow off-road vehicles to ride on their roads. Obviously, this impacts them greatly. I believe this is going to come up at the upcoming MNL conference as well.

My understanding is MNL are supportive of our proposed changes.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks for that.

In the briefing we were told about possible regulations, and I'm just going to go back to this again, that operators and passengers must wear a helmet to conform to safety standards. I know you said you were going to look at it based on the Side By Side.

But if the vehicle is an off-road vehicle and it goes less than 20 kilometres, can the minister provide some insight how they got to that regulation and what's the rationale for it?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much, Chair.

One of the starting places when we looked at exemptions across the country, looking at what members of the public would want, in the communications that we had and the surveys that conducted and then, I guess, as a government, which ones we wanted to put forward as well. The hunting and trapping, particularly, is in Quebec and Manitoba. So we thought that those were appropriate for the Newfoundland and Labrador environment.

Thanks to all the members of the public who have provided us with additional feedback. We're going to take that into serious consideration.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

One other question regarding that. I know they said if you're hunting and you're driving along and you go less than 20 kilometres an hour, the only thing I'd be leery of there is that somebody is going to put a gun on their bike so they don't have to wear a helmet. That would be the only concern that I would have.

We have ways of getting around these rules and speed is not going to be – it's not like we have a radar detector in the woods, but somebody will put a gun on their bike just so they don't have to wear a helmet. I don't know how that works but I just wanted to throw that out there and put it in.

That's it for this section, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to have a few words about this here and say that the number of people that contacted me was a lot more than most Members said in this House. I know the minister got a lot of copies of the emails.

I'll ask the minister, and I could if I didn't (inaudible) the other way: When you're reading off the jurisdictional scans that you had, would you mind tabling that, what all the other provinces are doing with that?

S. STOODLEY: Yes, sure.

E. JOYCE: Okay, perfect.

Usually, when a minister reads something off you can ask for it and I didn't want to do that. I'm asking just as a friendly gesture if we could have that, to have that reviewed.

In your point, Minister, when you mentioned that since 2013 to 2019 in Canada there was 100 deaths in Canada with ATVs, 9 per cent were Side By Sides, so nine in six years.

Do you know if there was a breakdown, how many of them were factored sealed or were they open Side By Sides? They're all grouped in itself.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

In the Statistics Canada report you can look at some of the background information. They didn't have it broken down there. I understand you can contact Statistics Canada for some of that information. I didn't have this in time to do that, but I'd be happy to send the Member the Statistics Canada report online and you can then investigate all the background data that they have. But from what I can tell, they didn't have it broken down further.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: We haven't got the full information on this.

When you speak to the experts, and I'll be upfront, I know a lot of people who have Side By Sides and a lot of them when you scroll down and look at them, they thought they passed the safety standards in Canada because they have the roll bars, because they have the steel doors. They got this protection built in.

I heard the Member for Topsail - Paradise talking about the headrest that is fitted for your head. That is true. So with a helmet on you'll be pushed forward here on a regular basis and your ability to look left or right is one thing.

A lot of these vehicles also, the factory-sealed vehicles as we call them, they're not the speed demons. They are not the speed demons that you see on a lot of the roads.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, just to bring it to your attention. One of the biggest tourism things now is these groups, Side By Sides, going across the province; people coming in from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I see a lot in Corner Brook; I see a lot.

Now, if you have to leave St. John's in one of those small factory-sealed vehicles with two helmets and drive across Newfoundland, it's going to deter a lot of tourism.

S. CROCKER: Can I have leave for a second now?

E. JOYCE: Sure, go ahead.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I brought that up in my comments, actually, when I spoke to the bill earlier. But I would point out that somebody coming from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, they would be coming from a jurisdiction which have these rules.

The jurisdictional scan: Nova Scotia does have a mirror image of what our proposed legislation would have. Anybody coming from an Atlantic province, as an example, would be coming from a jurisdiction where they would already be required to wear a helmet in all Side By Sides. So they would be accustomed to this as they come to our province.

E. JOYCE: I have to express their concerns –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Chair. Sorry about that.

I have to express the concerns. If I start reading in the number of emails that I have from the people in Humber - Bay of Islands and around that area, we'll be here a few days because there are a lot. A lot of those individuals are very concerned that the older type that are in the factory-sealed – I had a few text messages and a few emails just a few minutes ago saying: Is the minister going to take it out in the regulations? I sent the notes back: No, there is no guarantee but they'll look at it during the regulations.

As I said the other day in my few words, if we don't get it out of the act itself, then it's at the discretion of whoever happens to be the minister and whoever has influence on the minister. That is the problem that we have here. With the nine deaths, which are the deaths from 2013 to 2019 across Canada in Side By Sides – which is sad; every death is sad in the province for this. We don't know how many are actually caused – or with factory-sealed Side By Sides and not those smaller, much quicker ones that will go over in through the barrens, go over the rocks. A lot of these here can't do that kind of maneuvering and don't have the ability to do that type of Side By Side in the backcountry and over very rough terrain. Without that stat it is hard to say, okay, let's group everybody in.

I'm not sure if the concerns are met by the people in the province. I don't think there is any person in this House that would say we don't want the safety concerns put in that's going to save someone's life. But if you speak to the people who actually have the vehicles, you would know then that they're saying that if you put it in there, there is a greater possibility that you would have more accidents with it if you put the helmets in because of the conditions.

I'm just trying to look up the accreditation. When you have a lot of these accreditations for these factory-sealed, it is accredited for safety across Canada. It is accredited – the Canada Safety Council. It is. So when you talk about the cars and not the safety as tested as much as the Side By Sides, you look at the Safety Council and you look at that they do pass that test. It's a great bill that was brought in. I know the minister did a lot of work. I know the staff did a lot of work on it. I know it's controversial.

With the two that the minister said that there's going to be amendments to – which is good, which is great. But if we can find some way to get around that with the Side By Sides where people feel safe in Side By Sides – they feel safe. They know with their seat belts on, with the roll bars, with the steel doors they feel safe. These aren't the small Side By Sides with no doors, no windows. You see them a lot in the Mad Max movies just zooming back and forth.

A lot of these individuals that are on these vehicles – and I can read but there's no need. I'm sure the minister has them and the minister responded to most of them. To her credit, she did. But if we just lumped those factory-sealed vehicles in with the Side By Sides without any doors, without any roll bars, without other safety features, we are doing a disservice for the ones that went out and bought these vehicles for that reason.

A lot of people that we hear from, that's why they went out and bought these types of vehicles, because they're safe. They're much safer. They want to go for a ride on some of those trails that we have in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They want to feel safe, they want to feel comfortable and they want to ensure that they make it home. That's why a lot of people have bought those types of vehicles, because they are.

So I ask the minister – and I know you're saying that you'll consider it in the regulations. I have no doubt that you would consider it in the regulations, but my concern is that if it's put in this act, then it's out of our control in this House of Assembly. We are not in control. Once it's in the act, who makes that decision then is the staff and the minister, whoever that is. Who makes the decisions?

S. STOODLEY: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

S. STOODLEY: Just to respond to that specific point, the regulations are approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's exactly my point. You will bring those recommendations to Cabinet. If Cabinet is going to make the recommendations, it's out of this purview of this House of Assembly, exactly my point. The minister just made my point for me.

I'm not saying that you won't take that out of the regulations. I'm not saying that. I'm sure you would consider that – I'm sure of that – but why put the people through the stress and wait and the need of going through this anguish over it when we know that they're the safest ones of any Side By Side, the factory-sealed ones. I'm not getting into the ones with no doors, the Mad Max ones going up over rocks and in through valleys – not those types – we're talking about the ones that I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want me to get that?

E. JOYCE: No, that's people calling me about it already.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: Minister, seriously. I'm very serious that if we could take that out now, I think this would be a bill that's supported by everybody in this House because there are a lot of good points in the bill. There are a lot of good safety issues in the bill, there's a lot of work gone into the bill. But when the people who take their position seriously, buying these vehicles to be safe – I have a lot more to say and talk about this. I could even read out on the safety of those vehicles. I could send it to the minister actually.

They ask here, what is accreditation? Accreditation looks well in health care organizations such as national standards of excellence. Once these vehicles gets accredited they meet the national standards. This is something that I feel we're missing. You're saying that they not be as strong as cars. We don't know if they are, but I think a lot of those Side By Sides are pretty safe.

As my colleague just mentioned, they're not going 100 kilometres an hour on the road also. A lot of the Side By Sides, the ones we're talking about, can't even get up to 100 kilometres an hour, but then again they are pretty safe. If you have the roll bars on them. I think it's 3600 – is it 3600?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: They're all different ones, but I know a lot of them; 1500 is pretty safe.

Before we leave tonight I encourage the minister that we can make some guarantee, some commitment or some promise that if they're factory sealed that they will be taken out of this bill. Make a friendly amendment and I think this bill will go through this House and there will be a lot of positive comments and a lot of people safe to get this bill through this House as soon as possible. So I'm encouraging the minister.

I'm just going to look for a few things after this because I'll speak again on it because I had so many comments about this. I can't remember the last time I had so many comments and inquiries about an issue. I had some about the size of the snowmobile, but the vast majority were helmets inside factory-sealed Side By Sides. Then when we got the stat – 10 deaths are a lot across Canada. But when you got the stats that there are 100 deaths in Canada over six years and nine of them were Side By Sides and we still don't know how many of them were actually the factory-sealed ones and how many were in Newfoundland. We don't even have the statistics of how many in Newfoundland and Labrador were done with riders in the factory-sealed safety vehicles. So that's the other thing. Here we are making the decision here and right now in this House we don't have the full information. I thank the minister for tabling – going to the table so we could all have a look at the scans all across Canada. I had a look at all of that and I thank the minister for that.

But to say we don't have the statistics for Newfoundland and Labrador and the statistics that are being used across Canada don't even break it down either. It's hard to make a rationale. People out in my way that have contacted me, they're saying: Well, how many? We don't know. So we can say now that we don't know. As parliamentarians we cannot give the people the answer to how many deaths have been caused in Newfoundland and Labrador – or not caused by, but how many deaths were people riding factory-sealed Side By Sides in Canada or even in Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot give those stats to the people who are the ones that will be riding those vehicles and now going to have to be using helmets. So it's going to be tough for us to go out and justify that, I say to the minister, unless we have the information to supply it.

We know and we all see it across here, without the information people start filling in the gaps of the information. People will start saying: Well, there was none. We don't know; we honestly don't know. People might come up and say: Well, there are 20 or 30. We don't know. Well, we know it's not that, but that's how the people start putting in with the false information, when we don't have it. So I'll leave it at that, but I will be speaking again on it.

I say to the minister, two things, I know you responded to a lot people, and thank you for that, but I ask that another amendment be made, if the minister wants to make a friendly amendment, to have this taken out of this bill. Even if you take it out of this act now, until further consultation, so that we can get the facts to bring it to this House of Assembly so that we can make an informed decision. Right now we cannot make an informed decision if there's a real need to take them out of those factory-sealed Side By Sides.

I've got a lot of calls and I know there's a group out in Western Newfoundland that I've been dealing with on it and explaining to them the process that's going to happen in this House. They're just saying: Look, we're responsible adults, we are following all the rules, we're trying to keep it safe and that is why we bought these vehicles, to be safe. That's the only concern that they have. The only concern. I mean, when you bring in a bill that size, with so many regulation changes and just have three things that people got major concern about – that's pretty good. It's good. Now with the friendly amendments that the minister is going to make on two of them, there's one left.

I know and I look around the room, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, mentioned he was getting calls on it also, on the helmets. We're trying to work together; we're trying to work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and especially the people that we represent. What I'm doing here is – by the way, I own one also. If you try to get in the one that we got with a helmet you can't even steer because you got your head back and the minute you put your head you can't even look straight on the road. It's the roll bars, everything into it and that's why we bought it. I think the speed can go up to 18 miles an hour or 20 miles an hour. That's it. Now with the helmet in you wouldn't even be driving safe. With the helmet on the minute you turn you're smacking into the window. The minute you hit a little small bump you're head is hitting at the roof. That's how enclosed they actually are.

I ask the minister to reconsider making a friendly amendment on the helmets because I think most of us in here have heard the same calls. It's not that we're not trying to be safe to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; we are trying to be practical to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is why we need – if the minister even made the commitment that: No, it won't be in the regulations right now. If it increases then you bring it in the regulations. But I just ask the minister to reconsider that for the people that contacted me, personally, and I know contacted the Premier and the minister. I can start naming the people and I can start reading the letters, I won't do that, but there are a lot of people. I think the last count I had was over 240 emails that I got concerning this. The vast majority are helmets. There are some on the size of the snowmobiles, 125.

My time is near, so I'll just thank the minister and I'll have another opportunity to speak on this again.

Thank you, Chair.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to respond quickly. I just want to be clear, the act that we're proposing says that helmets are mandatory, other than exemptions listed in the regulations, and so the regulations come afterwards. We're just trying to be transparent about what we're considering for the regulations and we appreciate all the feedback. That will be determined in the regulations.

I also have here an owner's manual for the Ranger Crew XP 1000, which to my understanding isn't an enclosed Side By Side and the factory-enclosed Side By Sides recommend helmets. In fact, there's a flashing light in this one that flashes and says: Wear a helmet, wear a helmet, wear a helmet. All the manufacturers recommend helmets. If you go to anyone's website and look at all the photos, Chair, everyone in the photos and videos on all the manufacturer websites of all the enclosed Side By Sides are all wearing helmets. They're built and designed for people to wear helmets.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Chair.

In my relatively short, non-repetitive preamble, I mentioned about data may not be complete sometimes and we throw data out. The only thing I would say to you, the minister had suggested that there were 100 ATV-related deaths in Canada each year, which is correct. But another little significant piece of that would be that half of those ATV-related deaths involved alcohol or drugs. That's significant because it gives that picture when we look at that number across Canada, and we know the rationale lots of times.

I was directed towards Parachute, which is a national, charitable organization dedicated to injury prevention. Also, Parachute discussed children and youth are at special risk. They mention that ATV use by children result in serious injury and death; children and youth's lack of knowledge and development of skills to safety operate these vehicles; and the Canadian Paediatric Society recommends that ATV drivers should be 16 years or older, and that's what we're suggesting. We have no disagreement with that.

If I look at the epidemiology of terrain vehicle and snowmobile-related injuries in Ottawa – and that was published in 2019 – they state that the age group with the highest rate of emergency room and hospital visits were those 15 to 19 years, followed by 20- to 24-year-olds and, thirdly, 10- to 14-year-olds. In total, there were 204 fatalities resulting from ATV, snowmobiles and other all-terrain vehicle use in Ontario from 2008 to '12, with 20- to 24-year-olds representing the highest rate of fatality. Although the fatality rate across all groups is low.

One study reported that children – again, from the same study – under the age of 16 were four times more likely to require treatment in the emergency room due to ATV use compared to older riders. Although children represent only 12 per cent to 15 per cent of ATV ridership, they account for 27 per cent to 35 per cent of all ATV-related fatalities. Four times higher than any other group. So when we look at that statistic, then we know that what we need to focus on, it isn't the riders that the Humber - Bay of Islands is addressing, there are parts in the regulations that we can zero in on because the data provides it for us.

Finally, on the last part, the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation mentioned twice now Nova Scotia crossing and coming across to Port aux Basques, but let me read to you what the information specialist from the Legislative Library here who checked twice with their counterparts in the legislative library and information searches in Nova Scotia.

Here is what they said about Nova Scotia, cut and paste coming from their legislature: It appears that helmets are not required on Side By Sides in Nova Scotia. And your officials can check again. The term isn't included in the definition of an off-highway vehicle in the Off-highway Vehicles Act, but the definition does include four-wheel-drive vehicles and dune buggies. I reached out to the department responsible – and this is the legislative researcher in Nova Scotia – to determine if these are considered to be Side By Sides and found out that it is an ongoing matter of discussion, particularly for four-by-fours. In any case, the helmet requirement excludes both these type of vehicles.

When I called to reassure that I can recite it in this House to make sure of its accuracy, she followed up again and got somebody else who reassured her today before I entered the House.

I concur wholeheartedly, without any repetition, with the MHA from the Humber - Bay of Islands. The only thing I can't get my head around is the last time he spoke previously on the previous time, Bill 22, he talked about a lot of people in his district hunting turrs from a quad. In the District of Bonavista, it's only a boat. So he's got a lot of uniqueness in the Humber - Bay of Islands because it's not in the District of Bonavista.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Chair.

I won't be long. I just have a couple of questions. I read through the briefing that was given to us. Again, I mean, everybody agrees with the intent because it states right there that the primary objective is to enhance safety, and nobody can disagree with that. We all are interested in enhancing safety. But I would argue that enhancing safety is not just about bringing in legislation. It's about education, it's about training and, ultimately, about enforcement.

I'd ask the minister: What plans do you have in relation to education for people on off-road vehicles, enhanced education – is there something that you're planning for that? You can answer that and I'll come back again with another one.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

Absolutely education is a very important piece. We've thought a lot about how do we improve the culture and improve the safety education of people of the province. What we are proposing in this act is mandatory training for different groups of people. Training would be required for anyone under 16 years of age. Again, that's getting at the youth getting into accidents unfortunately. So youth, under 16 years of age, mandatory training; anyone registering an off-road vehicle for the first time, so any kind of new user or anyone who moves into the province; and the third then, Chair, is anyone convicted of an offence under the act and regulations and has their registration suspended or cancelled.

If anyone shows us, demonstrates that they're not a safe user, then we're going to have mandatory training. The details of that are to be determined and I'm sure we'll get to that further when we get to that section. But we have contemplated education. I guess in terms of the training, we did consider having mandatory training for everyone, but we do recognize that there are a lot of very experienced users in the province and it's probably not reasonable to have everyone do training. So we thought that this was a good kind of compromise where, over the longer term, everyone would have gone through this training – all the 16- year-olds and then once you register a vehicle for the first time.

Thank you.

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

T. WAKEHAM: I thank the minister for the answer, but that's not the type of education I'm talking about. I realize you've got training in here. What I'm talking about is education that goes well beyond that. That kind of enforcing the message out there about how you should use these machines and where you should use them.

I don't know if you have any statistics right now on enforcement. For example, can you tell me how many tickets have been issued to people riding quads without helmets?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you for the question.

I don't have that number in front of me.

Thank you.

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

T. WAKEHAM: That goes back to the whole enforcement piece because bringing in legislation is good but if we can't enforce it, it doesn't really matter. We have to try to educate the public on the safe use of these off-road vehicles; it isn't just about training.

But the other thing I would argue is you identified people who would do the enforcement but can you tell me how are they going to enforce it.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm responsible for the legislation. The enforcement happens in different departments and different peace officers. I know we don't have enough officers everywhere, I've heard that in a lot of the feedback. We do give peace officers powers in the act to set up checkpoints, that kind of thing. Then, in discussions with the RCMP and the RNC, if they receive complaints, they'll do targeted enforcements.

If they know that someone does a certain route and they've gotten complaints, then they'll go and make sure they – I'm not an expert in that, I can't really speak to the enforcement. I'm just trying to give a flavour for what we've heard from our partners.

We also do blitzes. Then, in terms of the education, we don't have big budgets for awareness and education. We work with our safety partners, social media and government press releases; we did the media conference. This is a tool to improve safety. We're taking this opportunity to hopefully improve the culture and have a conversation around safety.

Thank you.

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

T. WAKEHAM: Again, I would argue that is one of the key components here, the education and the enforcement piece that goes along with the legislation. It's going to be critical. I think we can do a lot more, maybe spending a lot more – if we put some money and resources into that whole education piece.

I'm not going to go into the mandatory helmet use; lots of people are talking about that one. When you talk about persons operating a Side By Side, unless the person is able to sit with the seat belt fastened and both feet flat on the floor, I would suggest that maybe being able to reach the gas pedal and the brake pedal would be a better way to put it, because the reality of it is I think those are the things that really matter. There are lots of people who could move the seats up and reach the gas or reach the brake, perhaps the brake more important. I know you mentioned you may change some of that one so I'll leave that for now.

The training piece we talked about. You'll have some suggestions about that in the regulations. Somebody that has a driver's licence, for example, for the last 20-25 years and goes in to buy a quad, I am sure the company will provide them with some training on how to use it, but I'm not sure what else will be required there.

Lastly, the piece on the snowmobile has been the real issue that has come up, especially out my way. What I have been told – and, again, I understand you may be bringing in an amendment to that one. Is that an amendment that's going to be brought in this evening as opposed to regulations on the cc's?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the regulations? Yeah, it would be –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I guess we do have amendments to bring in. We're going to bring them in at the appropriate clauses as per the process. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to –

T. WAKEHAM: Okay, I'll wait until we hear the amendment before I speak on that one.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Chair.

In my previous life, I got paid to do a whole lot of stuff that wasn't safe. We did all kinds of training and had all kinds of recommendations, but we still had to do it.

I'll start off by saying I'd never put my children in an unsafe situation, although I've done some unsafe things. If I go for a ride on my Side By Side – which is fully enclosed, has a governor on it if my seat belt isn't on – I offer the option to wear a helmet. I don't wear one. I don't wear one because I feel safe. My son actually wears one sometimes, but his complaint is he can't turn his head and look out to the side. There is some reality to that.

This morning when I went down to the Newfoundland and Labrador building trades conference, I didn't get to speak but I was there. The past president of the Teamsters Union, a gentleman by the name of Dave Pierce, came over. He said, I heard one of things you said in the House about hard hats inside of trucks and all vehicles that they had over at the Bull Arm site. He said we still have two workers off on long-term disability because they wore hard hats inside of vehicles on site. There is certainly risk associated with it in some of these Side By Sides.

I guess my point is all things aren't equal with Side By Sides, not even remotely close. What I think everyone in this House, who are speaking to the helmet issue are saying, if it's a factory-enclosed Side By Side with a three-point harness, we're asking that people don't wear helmets. That doesn't mean people don't have to wear helmets.

The next thing that was said when that was brought up was recommendations from the manufacturer. Well, they are just recommendations. To give you a couple of examples: Jeep Wrangler. If you go into their book, their recommendations are you don't drive on the highway with the doors off or the top off. We don't enforce that here in Newfoundland. You can go anywhere you want and you can see people driving in their Jeeps with the doors off and the top off, but the manufacturer recommendation says they don't recommend that you do that on the highway. That's the first thing.

The next thing is we just spent five hours in this House debating a bill. I heard numerous times about the recommendations on lotto machines, manufacturer's recommendations. We still got to pass a bill to protect Atlantic lotto, but their recommendations aren't good enough.

Now we're trying to enforce manufacturer's recommendations. We're going to let manufacturers create laws in our province. It's a recommendation for safety and I can tell you who that's there to cover. We all know. It's there to cover the manufacturer.

One other thing I'll say is that I have talked to multiple, multiple groups in this province, including the Snowmobile Federation and ATV federations in my district. They all told me they weren't consulted.

I only have one question: I would like the minister to read into the record who you actually consulted with.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would be happy to give a more detailed overview.

This may not be everything because a lot of this happened before my time. I have some information. I can speak to things that have happened in the last year as well.

I think it's important for people to understand that when we're doing consultations the way the legislative process work, it's not appropriate for us to say: Here are the exact clauses that we're thinking of, what do you think? The way the process works, we all see that at the same – the House of Assembly is the first group, appropriately, to see our proposed bill. So the process that we had last week – or earlier this week; I can't remember – was second reading; we had a media conference; the Members of this House were briefed in advance as a courtesy; the bill was put online; we had briefings for our technical partners; and we did a media announcement where we ran through all the specifics.

We did not say this is exactly what we're thinking, what do you think, because that's not really appropriate. We have general discussions to understand their concerns, their feedback. There might be some high-level discussions, but this House sees our proposed bill when it's ready and sees it first. That's the process.

We've heard additional feedback and we're debating it. So I think there's a misperception around that some people expect, maybe months in advance, to see exactly what we're going to have, but that's the role of this House of Assembly. We proposed it here, Chair.

Let me just see: many communities, snowmobile clubs and Indigenous governments. We worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency. We did a survey of residents in 2018 regarding helmet use. Our teams went to Labrador on multiple occasions to meet with many Labrador communities and Indigenous governments.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency survey was around helmet use, age limits, training and, I guess, generally, how off-road vehicles are regulated in Newfoundland and Labrador. The opinion survey was in August 2018. We did a survey that was geographically representative with 96.2 per cent of respondents supporting the mandatory use of helmets.

Respondents indicated a desire for increased enforcement of the legislation as we've heard. We did extensive community visits in Labrador in the summer of 2019. We consulted with the Snowmobile Federation. I've had many discussions with these groups: the snowmobile clubs; the T'Railway Council; MNL; the Canadian Off-Highway Vehicle Distributors Council, I met with them maybe a month ago; different medical groups and many Indigenous government.

I guess in terms of the Innu Nation, for example, we've had back and forth with them since 2018 up until September of this year; the Indigenous organizations in Conne River, 2018 to this year as well; the government in Nain, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the Qalipu First Nation in Corner Brook. We met with the snowmobile club in L'Anse au Clair 2018 and 2020; the Grand River Snowmobile Club in Happy Valley-Goose Bay in June 2018 and July 2018; Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation, back and forth 2018 June, July, August, September, October 2019, January 15, 2020; the Newfoundland T'Railway Council, June 2018, December 2020, December 2020 again, January 6, 2021; and the White Wolf Snowmobile Club in Lab City, June and July 2018.

A few months ago, I met with the Off-High Vehicle Distributors Council, MNL and the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation this past summer. I met with Safety NL twice since I've been here and that does not include the – I would say at least 100 letters that we've received and that I've reviewed from safety partners, organizations and communities across the province.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: One comment I'd make is that certainly if you go to the Safety Council, Safety NL, any of those places, they're going to err very far to the side of safety. I just want to go back to one statistic you just said.

You said that you had 46 per cent support for mandatory helmet use. I'd like for you to break that down for mandatory use for snowmobiles, mandatory helmet use for ATVs, mandatory helmet use for Side By Sides and mandatory helmet use for enclosed Side By Sides.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That occurred before me; that is the top-level information that I had. I can certainly get additional information if it is available.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So we had no law for snowmobile helmet use in Newfoundland and Labrador and there was a question asked about helmets. I would argue that the bulk of the people who use snowmobiles already utilize helmets.

Would you not think those numbers are skewed?

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

S. STOODLEY: I guess I'm not really in a position to go through in detail the survey results of the 2018 survey. I apologize to the Member.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So we have three-year-old statistics that don't even broach on the question that is being asked about enclosed Side By Sides and you didn't think it was important to do a new questionnaire based specifically on enclosed Side By Sides?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

This has been a long process; the technology is always changing. What we hear from people is changing. The legislation in other provinces is changing. I have committed to this House and the public that one of the exemptions we're seriously considering in the regulations is to exempt factory-enclosed Side By Sides. We're very seriously considering that.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I raised most of my issues during the technical briefing such as the limitations to sit astride the bike with feet on the ground, also the helmets inside the Side By Sides and the cc's. I do want to say my concerns were echoed here in the House, but I also want to thank the minister and her department for working with us to address these issues. I am going to wait to see how that unfolds with the amendments that's being proposed.

I do have a couple of questions for the minister and they are about training. In section 22(1)(b), 5(3) and 7(3) it talks about training: Training will be required for anyone under the age of 16; anyone registering an off-road vehicle for the first time; anyone convicted of an offence. So when you look at that, that is a lot of people. When this comes into effect now, we're going to have a lot of people.

So my first question to the minister is: Does she know the numbers that are going to need training? Also, have you identified the resources that are going to be put forward to meet this training because it's going to be a bottleneck and if people don't have the training and if there's a delay in training, we're actually going to have people – can you hear me?

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

S. STOODLEY: Sorry, Chair. I'm happy to answer that.

That deals with the later section. So is that appropriate for me to answer – okay.

On training: we are still working on exactly what the training would look like. Our plan is to proclaim the act in two different parts. The training would be proclaimed afterwards to give us more time to work with our safety partners.

Right now, there would definitely be online training. It would be no cost or very low cost. We've looked at kind of the federal government boating training as a kind of a guide. We believe there would also be some in-person training where online training was not available or not appropriate. So we do not believe there would be a bottleneck, but that's to be determined still with our safety partners. These are the things that we're proposing at the moment for training.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks, Chair.

When you get to the regulations – legislation I'm talking about first – you're going to bring in this rule for the Side By Side. Now, in my area, you don't see many Side By Sides. There is some but not a lot. So you're going to put it in legislation and you're going to look at it in regulations. Once it gets there – and you decide that you're not going to change it, you're going to leave it the way it is – then it's too late for these people. They all can't be wrong. That's all I'm going to say; make sure the department looks at that. They all can't be wrong when all these people are sending emails.

I'm not one of them, but all our caucus, just about, had somebody that's representing and sending emails, and just to say that it's going to go in legislation, once it gets in there and it goes to regulations, we have to make sure that we look at that and not just force it through and say, okay, it's done. This is the point that I think people are trying to make.

That's all I'm going to say. I wanted to put that in there in that section that you have to put these people in your mind that they ask this question and there's enough people asking it.

That's all I'm going to say. I'm not going to try to force it anymore than that, but all those people can't be wrong. This is the kind of thing that we need to have that discussion on.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I just want to go back to a comment I made earlier. It's not repetition; I'm going to elaborate on it.

Some Members have asked questions and it's in response to some of the responses that were given. It goes back to enforcement, because really this legislation, I would say, is almost useless if it doesn't have proper enforcement.

When asked about enforcement, the minister went down and described what's there under peace officer and talked about the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, talked about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, member of a municipal police force, park warden, wildlife officer, officer appointed under provincial parks and so on. In relation to that, there were no additional resources given to this. In fact, the minister said it was another department; another department had to deal with it. Which, really, if you're coming in with legislation and it requires enforcement, then I would think you would have at least had a discussion with the other departments or the relevant departments. I know when environmental assessments go through government they are actually circulated to every department for comment. When you're doing legislation I know legislation gets circulated to certain departments. It's beyond me why enforcement of this, which really puts this legislation into effect, I don't understand why that wasn't looked at in more detail in terms of how you are going to enforce it.

The minister spoke to – they spoke with their partners and they talked to the RNC and the RCMP – who are very competent; no argument with that, but they are strained with resources – and talked about, you know, they set up a sting to catch people who are operating illegally and that. What I can tell you, from my experience and there are many people in this House who have served on municipal councils, when you look at the stings there, I mean, you have to do it on the availability of the RNC or the RCMP or people that are able to ticket or impose fines.

Now, in Topsail - Paradise, I can tell you in the last eight years there might have been two stings done on the T'Railway and that was all coordinated but it was based on the availability of the RNC in those two cases. We mentioned a member of the municipal police force – most people who've worked on town councils would call them municipal enforcement officers. But I can tell you, municipal enforcement officers do not have the ability to impose fines, they don't have the ability to confiscate and they don't have the ability for moving violations. All that falls to the RNC and the RCMP, who are, as I said, usually involved elsewhere and strained for resources. So, as a past town councillor, those complaints on Joey going up the road on a wheelie on his dirt bike going mad, they come to the town council. The residents are calling town council and they're saying: This is not safe, they're going up our road and they're crossing the highway.

Look, I'm not arguing against the legislation. What I'm saying is you can't have legislation come in and not have the resources to enforce it. This is an add-on for the resources that are there. Right now there are no additional resources. What this does is it puts an additional burden on the municipalities as the front end on this. The municipalities are going to be the ones dealing with the brunt of this unless they can get some time from the RCMP or the RNC to do a sting here and there. The enforcement of this falls on the municipalities, and there is just not going to be the resources there to do it.

If we're really, really serious about this piece of legislation, then we really have to be serious about the enforcement. I can tell you, up in Topsail - Paradise, as I said earlier in my preamble, 90-odd per cent of the operators up there are responsible, safe users, but it's always that five-or-less per cent, the Evel Knievel's flying up the road, that are going to kill somebody. I mean, that's what it comes down to. So if this is important enough to do the work on this and put in the time to come in with this legislation, I just don't know – what is the plan for the enforcement of this? Because that becomes –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. DINN: Good, you were always there.

What's the plan for enforcement here when there doesn't seem to be any additional resources there? That's my question and that's my concern.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm glad to talk about enforcement. We have officers all over this province. In every corner of Newfoundland and Labrador we have officers. We have officers in on the back roads. The Member opposite talked about, at one point, they were moose hunting and they got stopped, and he mentioned that they didn't check their registration. Because he didn't officially pull somebody and look at it that's not saying they didn't actually look at the vehicle to see if there was a plate on it.

They issue tickets every single day. This is just another aspect where there are more rules for those enforcement officers to issue a ticket. But you got to realize, we all drive the highway and we all don't see an RCMP officer but we adhere to the rules: the speed limit is 100 and we go 100. We may go 110, but we know once we exceed that there's a good chance for a ticket. So it's like being in the backcountry. The fear of getting a ticket – which is not the reason you should wear a helmet, but it's the reason many people wear a life jacket because they don't want a $35 fine when they're out in the boat, but they put it on – encourages their safety.

Our enforcement officers are quite prepared, ready and able to enforce this legislation when it becomes in effect.

Thank you very much, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Will this legislation make it mandatory to wear a helmet in an Argo?

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

S. STOODLEY: Sorry, I didn't hear. An Argo? I'm not –

L. PARROTT: An Argo, yeah.

S. STOODLEY: In the definitions an amphibious vehicle is listed. So 2(n), an “'off-road vehicle' means a wheeled or tracked motorized vehicle designed or adapted for cross-country travel on land, water, ice, snow, marsh, swamp land or other natural terrain including … (vi) an amphibious vehicle, but not including agricultural equipment, infrastructure equipment or a garden lawnmower, lawn tractor or golf cart ….”

Does that answer the question?

L. PARROTT: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Will this legislation require operators of groomers to wear helmets?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Vehicles on the highway would fall under the highway enforcement act. I'd encourage the Members to look at the definitions here. There are other clauses – hold on. There's a section about approved areas which talks about where – you know, approved areas. The clauses around managed trails and managed trail operators. We've got disability modifications. Things I listed: all-terrain vehicles; mini bike, dirt bike, trail bikes; miniature vehicles, such as dune buggies or sport buggies; off-road maintenance machine and that sounds like a groomer to me. A trail groomer would be an off-road maintenance machine.

There are other things in here, like what is a Side By Side. So something with four or more wheels or tracks. I'd have to come away I guess and tell you exactly where a groomer fits in the rules, but there's a plethora of categories here.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I would strongly suggest that you reconsult with the ATV associations, the Snowmobile Federation and the ski hills in Newfoundland and Labrador before those definitions are enforced, because you just made work way more dangerous – extremely dangerous, actually. Working in blizzard conditions in the middle of an evening, at night, when things are groomed, with a helmet on, is just outlandish. You might want to consult them before you move any further.

What about off-road vehicles that have X plates? Will they be required to wear helmets?

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

S. STOODLEY: (Inaudible) what's an X plate? I'm not familiar with an X plate, I'm sorry.

L. PARROTT: You don't know what an X plate is? Okay.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I just want to go back to the comments on my question on enforcement. The Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture spoke to the staff that are already here, which was not the point of my question. It was around the fact – and I don't argue the competency of those staff. I'm sure they do a fine job. The Minister of Digital Government talked about this being a tool and the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture called it – I think he said – just another aspect. I think that's pretty flippant in describing a very important piece of legislation that deals with safety. There are 20-odd pages to this. That's not just a tool. That's not just another aspect. This needs to be enforced.

Now, it's great that the backroads that the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture – I'm pleased they're being looked after. That's wonderful that they're being looked after. But if you had listened to my earlier part of this, I'm talking about those that are not on the backroads. Those people that are in the municipalities, who are flying up the roads, who are putting people in danger – that 5 per cent; that's what I'm talking about.

If they had been listening, he would have known exactly what I was talking about. I made no comment on – I even read the definition. My point was focused on municipal enforcement officers and the RCMP. I read the wildlife – I got no issue with those. They have their job to do and they are doing it well. But my point is a lot of the stuff that is not happening on the backroads fall on the shoulders of the municipalities and the only way they can enforce it is if they have the co-operation of the RNC or the RCMP and they do their stings. That is my point.

So regardless if you call it just another aspect or a tool, the use of the word “another” is additional – it's something additional that the staff currently got to deal with, and no additional resources. So it is a simple question: How do you deal with the issues around municipalities who don't have the resources to enforce this? That's the question I'm asking.

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

D. BRAGG: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to inform the hon. Member opposite that many of our operations are sting operations and we work collaboratively with all other departments. We can work with municipal enforcement; we can work with RNC; and we can work with RCMP. But it will be (inaudible) and it is another aspect, it is another rule that we have to enforce, as our staff members would.

I was on an enforcement patrol a while ago and every time we stopped down, there was an infraction; there was a ticket issued, Mr. Chair. Yes, that was backcountry, but then we came right into what I would call the bowels of the city and there was another infraction that we issued. The same thing will be done when we look at ATVs, UTVs, Side By Sides, anything that is not licensed for the road that if our officers witness it – same as RCMP, same as RNC, it will be. Will we get it all? No, Mr. Chair, but the aspect here is safety.

The hon. Member talked about Evel Knievel. If he is talking about lots of younger people, maybe the conversation needs to be had with the parents, Mr. Chair, because we need to look at the safety of all this. Our enforcement officers do what they can, where they can, when they can, as much as they can.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. STOODLEY: I'd also add that I understand an X plate is for construction equipment, and construction equipment is excluded from the definition. It would not be required.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: I'm sorry about that, Chair; I was just looking something up. The minister is correct, but the tool Bobcat is the same as a Kubota but they get X plates and the Kubotas can't. I went through that a while back but there was one –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

E. JOYCE: The funny part about it; you go out and buy it, we were going for 11 years and once someone finds out that my wife got one, all of a sudden they're gone off the – I wonder how that happened.

The funny thing about that: Hillview Terrace was still given one by the department. Still using an X plate, but everybody else in the province couldn't use it, but Hillview Terrace was allowed. Eventually they said – and I remember in the (inaudible) – oh, but remember our discussion about that. We allowed that one. So they can drive around St. John's, but somebody out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador can't go from here to his fishing shed with it, but the Bobcats still can do that.

The minister is saying now the Bob/Toolcats, which is used for snow clearing on the side of the roads, they don't need to wear a helmet. Now if you want to talk about safety, when you're talking about going in the snow, you're talking about going over ice but the Toolcat, you don't need to wear one. That's just the irony of this.

I just have to bring something up that the Member for Bonavista brought up about the turrs. Over our way, we have freshwater turrs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

E. JOYCE: My point about that was with the turrs, you have to go to the water to get in the boat. If you had gun saying you're going turr hunting, you don't need a helmet on. That was my point how people can get a gun, say I'm going turr hunting. That's exactly what's in the regulations.

On a serious note, though, that is exactly how it allows. That's how it allows it in this act; you can say that you're going turr hunting, I get into my boat, put my gun in and go on. That was my point behind that.

The other thing I was going to mention is when the minister mentions the manual for a lot of the Side By Sides, that is the standard for all of them. That is standard for all of them. Even in the Bobcats, it's standard.

P. LANE: What is?

E. JOYCE: They say it is recommended to wear helmets. It's standard. It's not that –

P. LANE: To avoid liability.

E. JOYCE: To avoid liability – I think that was brought up earlier by a few of them.

The other thing I noticed, Chair, in this whole debate that we had is now the minister is saying that she's seriously going to consider helmets for the regulations; she's seriously going to consider it.

I just ask the government: If we feel that it's going to be seriously considered, is there any opportunity here that we can work this out now and not wait six or seven months?

The reason why I say that, Chair, is this is a big industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. If you go to the associations that the people who are selling these types of vehicles, without this being clarified, I can assure you, there will be a lot of people who will not go out and spend the money on a $35,000 or $40,000 machine if they got to wear a helmet. That's what's going to happen.

This is no knock on anybody here, but that's just reality because I can assure you if people who got those six seaters and they got to go across Newfoundland and Labrador in helmets, they're going to start selling. I'm being serious on that, Minister.

What you're going to see is you're going to see a lot of people hold off on the purchase until they see the regulations. I can assure you that. That is a fact. I'm hearing from people that they're going to start selling theirs because it'd just be too unsafe, for one thing; too uncomfortable to get into, the second thing; and they feel this is why they went out and bought these types of vehicles for safety. If they bought it for safety, that is why they want to be able to use it, is because they feel safe.

I don't know if there's a Member in this House who would have one of those vehicles and say to their son or daughter go take my vehicle, take my Side By Side – factory enclosed – if they thought it wasn't safe. It just wouldn't happen and we know that.

Now, if you had somebody who was using one of them open ones that we see on Mad Max, a lot of us would say, okay, you got to know how to use it. You would be more concerned than you would with your bigger – because those bigger Side By Sides have to go on a lot of trails that are a bit groomed or a bit level. They can't go in the woods like we've been always saying.

I just remind the minister that the generic manual – and I just got two or three emails about that; I got two or three emails from people to say look that's just generic and they're on all of them.

Just for the record, on the Kubota, it's not in them; haven't seen them, it's not there. There's no flashing red light. There's no picture there: wear helmets. It's not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can get an X plate; you just couldn't.

E. JOYCE: You can get an X plate; just I couldn't get one.

But anyway that's all good. That's water under the bridge.

Minister, when you say that there are a lot of those vehicles that has it on it right in front, somewhere, that you have to wear a helmet; it's recommended that you use helmets. I know in some that I've seen, it's just not there. Some maybe generic, maybe just different models, I don't know. I really don't know.

I would just ask the minister: If you're going to make recommendations yourself, if the government is going to make recommendations itself to make two changes, why don't we go all the way, make the third change here tonight so we could ease people's minds across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and we can show that this Legislature is working well and working together?

The amount of emails I got, phone calls, information that I got, and I know the minister got it and I know the Premier got it, the amount that we got, there's a major concern there. If we don't alleviate that concern and the anxiety that people have in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over this, when the experts that I know out in Western Newfoundland feel that's it more of a safety hazard to wear a helmet than not wear a helmet, I listen to those people.

A few of those people had outfitting licences. They drive a lot of these vehicles for recreation, but also in their own work, they have the smaller Side By Sides to do the heavy lifting. They know the difference. They know the difference between the Side By Sides, which are not factory enclosed and the ones that are. They're saying to me in the emails and the conversations I have: If they're not factory sealed, you should wear a helmet. They're not saying blanket no helmets nowhere, they're using their common sense. They're using their experience and their knowledge and knowhow and they're saying: These vehicles are unsafe without a helmet. These vehicles here are safe without a helmet.

The old saying is that you go on experience. I take the experience of the people that I know, Wayne Stratton is one. I know a lot more, a lot more that do have the expertise for this.

I ask the minister again and I ask the government again: Why can't we just solve this tonight and have three amendments, not two, so that we can say that we did our job and alleviate the major concerns in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

I'm just going with what the minister said: There were nine deaths on Side by Sides across Canada. We don't know how many were alcohol or drug related; how many never had seat belts. That's the information that we need. What type of Side by Sides were those nine deaths across Canada? That is something that we would need to know.

Every death is sad; we're not minimizing any death. But sometimes you cause more harm to a person who's riding a Side by Side; it's uncomfortable and unable to see either way.

I see my time is close, Mr. Chair. I thank you. I'll be back again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll add that it's nine deaths per year on Side by Sides in Canada. So 54 for the time frame.

Also, the Member mentioned about an X plate in Hillview Terrace. That was done by mistake and that has since been taken back. That was a few years ago.

So thank you very much.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just getting back to my other question that I had regarding training. I don't want to disagree with you, Minister, but there will be a bottleneck because there's going to be a huge demand for training.

My second part of the question is: What type of training will there be available? Will it be accredited training from an accredited-training provider? Because one of the issues we had back in the day with safety was any company could start training; any company could develop a training package and there were a lot of gaps that created safety hazards and unsafe conditions out in the workplace.

I was just wondering: Have you given any thought to that? And if it's not accredited, will there be some sort of standard format that's required so that somebody up on the Northern Peninsula is getting the same level of training as somebody in – let's say for example – Gander?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member, for the questions.

In terms of the training, like I mentioned, we are hoping to do a staggered proclamation whereby we would proclaim the majority of the act in one go, and then we would proclaim at a later date the training. We'd give people six months or a year or two years' notice or whatever.

Then, also, in terms of the standards: The Canada Safety Council sets standards around training. We haven't yet figured out exactly what the training would be but we would work with our safety partners to do industry-standard training. Obviously, it would have to be available widely and we'd have to make sure that it was feasible for members across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to do the training online or in person if needed.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Chair.

I think that it's a robust debate. If anything, I believe that there are more questions tonight than we've ever had before. It's not being Opposition for the sake of Opposition; these questions need to be answered. I think we need to do our due diligence and do some more investigation work into this and come up with some more reasons for this bill to pass.

I have a question for the minister and it's not being facetious by no means, but what makes a person with a hunting licence less likely to get hurt than a person without a hunting licence?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I guess what I would say is that our government looked at the different exemptions across the province in discussions with the different groups, the Indigenous organizations and the organizations that we consulted. These are two that we're putting forward. We're trying to be transparent about what we're thinking in regulation. We've had a lot of helpful feedback. I've heard lots of feedback that the hunting and fishing is maybe not needed, which is great. We'll take that into consideration when we propose the regulations following the act.

That exemption was specifically in Quebec and Manitoba. I know in our kind of northern environment in Newfoundland and Labrador, in many cases we have a similar environment as Quebec, so it's certainly a reasonable exemption to consider.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: I almost got a Cabinet position that time.

Thank you, Chair.

We're here talking about Bill 22, the Off-Road Vehicles Act. First of all, I'd like to say thanks to the Table Officers, the Pages and the House staff for sticking around, putting up with all of us and giving us an opportunity to debate this bill.

For my district, these vehicles are very much utility vehicles; they're used for many things and woodcutting is one of them. We have a regulation in there about hunting for 20 to 30 kilometres. I would argue that anybody going woodcutting is not going to do as much as that towing a load of wood for sure.

The real issue I do have with the hunting regulations, it's kind of ambiguous for the simple fact that we might have a hunter that's got to go 100 miles. If they know where a spot is and all that kind of stuff, then they might not go 20 or 30 kilometres for the first 99 kilometres. So, like I said, it's a little bit contradictory that we would have a regulation or a rule in there about you don't have to wear them hunting, but if you go out on a pleasure ride with your family, where most people are going to try and be safe and they're not running about, then, I think it's very contradictory in the bill itself.

The off-road vehicles are used so much in my district. I think the stat that my colleague from the District of Bonavista gave; I'm willing to bet that a lot of people in my district do have probably two, even three, of these vehicles for their use. I think the real thing that we're talking about here are the factory-sealed vehicles, for the simple fact that they do have a higher level of safety.

I remember when I was seven years old I used to take an extra stocking cap with me on the Ski-Doo because there was no such thing as wearing helmets or anything. The reason why you took the extra stocking cap is if you went through a few drifts, you might get your hat full of snow and if it got wet, you'd be cold. So if you got your hat full of snow, you changed hats.

Like I said, at seven years old I was allowed to take a 3500 Citation, but it was because I was responsible with it. I never ever had any accidents but I wasn't going mad on it either, unless I was on a straight-out bog. That's just the way it is and everybody is going to try their self, kind of thing, but it comes down to personal responsibility.

Whether we put the regulation there or not, if somebody doesn't feel safe, as my colleague from Terra Nova said, they can wear a helmet. But if we put it in as a rule, then we're making everybody that is responsible do something that they're not comfortable with. With that being said, wearing a helmet, yes, sure, it can be safe. As the analogy was made, we could all wear helmets in here and probably would say we were safer, but it doesn't make it plausible.

I have a lot of trails, trail associations even, in my district, like the one from Red Harbour to Rushoon. Since I got elected, the president approached me and we helped re-establish their trail committee, Chair. It's very robust now but they use the old Burin Peninsula highway between Rushoon and Red Harbour. That's their thoroughfare. They use that quite regularly just getting back and forth between each town. They're not going mad. It's a nice trail and stuff like that, but nobody expects to drive a quad or a Ski-Doo without a helmet. Therefore, if those safety regulations are put in place then you're not giving people the opportunity to enjoy fully the equipment that they have purchased.

We talk about that towns apply for the ATV road use. Maybe that's the best partner to grow the education and enforcement. When it comes to the education side, if somebody is under the age of 16 or 16 to 18 or a new user, then maybe there is a licensing situation that can be in place for anything like that so that enforcement is there and we know that people are taking that responsibility serious.

With having that many vehicles in our province, I think that the responsibility really is with the user and not every user is bucking the rules or anything like that; they are going out and they're utilizing these vehicles for the utility that they're using them for.

Like I said, when it comes down to enforcement that is a whole different quintal of fish, but as my colleague from Topsail - Paradise said, without any resources allocated to the enforcement side, it will be pretty difficult to have our people on the trails looking for violators.

The last thing I will say is that we have a lot of ground search and rescue associations here in our province and I wouldn't want to hand strap them either with having to use a helmet in a situation where they need their full vision.

Like I said, the contradiction I really have is the hunting thing. If you're going to include hunting, then why not woodcutting?

With that being said, they're very expensive vehicles. It is a recommendation to wear a helmet, but if it's not really necessarily safe for different size people to do so, then there is no need to make it a rule, but put the responsibility on the people that are using them.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move the Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is the Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

S. CROCKER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for CBS, that this House do now adjourn.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do adjourn.

Is it the wish of the House?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

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