PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin this afternoon, I'd like to welcome Brock Pittman here this afternoon. Brock is the subject of a Ministerial Statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we'll hear statements by the Members for the Districts of Stephenville - Port au Port, Terra Nova, Topsail - Paradise, Baie Verte - Green Bay and Waterford Valley.

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Port au Port resident, Cheryl Stagg, is a compelling leader who is passionate about her community and province. With her varied background in small business and community involvement, she has made her mark in so many aspects of the community.

A long-time supporter of the arts, Cheryl was instrumental in the establishment of a Stephenville Theatre Festival and has served as its founding administrative director. Cheryl was co-founder and editor of the local newspaper, The Georgian. She has also worked for the provincial government in the former departments of adult education and development.

Cheryl has served on a number of national, provincial and regional board of directors including Canadian National, Marine Atlantic, Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, chair of the College of the North Atlantic Board of Governors, Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, Bay St. George Chamber of Commerce, Airport Advisory Committee, among others.

In 2016, Cheryl was presented with the prestigious Order of Newfoundland and Labrador in recognition of her years of commitment and dedication that she has given to the people of the province and to the organizations that tie our communities together.

Thank you, Cheryl, for your amazing contributions to our community and our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to honor a well-known business owner, family man and the best friend I could ever have asked for.

In 1989, Jim Brown started J-1, a major construction company that serviced Newfoundland and Labrador. He owned Newfoundland Helicopters, another successful business that served the entire province.

Jim was a business titan. His group of companies employed a large number of people throughout the entire province.

Jim was eager to give back, serving as mayor for a number of years. Many times, he was the first call people made when there was a job to be done or if someone was in need. His philanthropy was well known with his annual support of local hospital, schools, sports teams, local charities and many, many unknown individuals.

In true Jim fashion, he never sought recognition or acknowledgement for any of these contributions, not in any way. As a matter of fact, he is probably looking down on me, cursing on me because I'm saying this out loud.

Jim's greatest joy was his love for the outdoors. He was an avid angler. Life was at its best when Jim was standing by a pond having a flick and just enjoying nature.

Unfortunately, Jim passed away, tragically, this summer, but I can assure you his family will ensure his legacy and his work lives on.

I'd like to ask the House to rise with me in remembering Jim Brown. Rest in peace, buddy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Speaker, I am proud to rise and recognize eight exceptional athletes from my District of Topsail - Paradise who received the 2024 Premier's Athletic Award for Athletic Excellence.

On October 30, the following athletes each took home awards in their respective sports: Stephen Westcott, boccia; Benjamin Fudge, gymnastics; Will Carroll, hockey; Katie Winsor, hockey; Nicholas Quinn, parasport-badminton; Gavin Baggs, parasport-athletics, basketball, hockey and swimming; Jorja Row, soccer; and Darcy Butler, swimming.

I'm always delighted to hear of exceptional individuals and their contributions to the athletic community. This recognition is a result of countless hours of dedication and time, and I commend them for all their hard work.

In addition to these athletes, I also recognize the commitment of their parents as, without their support, these awards would not have been possible.

Speaker, I would ask all in this hon. House to join me in congratulating these outstanding athletes who are a true inspiration for the community and wish them continued success in their future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

L. PADDOCK: Speaker, tomorrow, the Baie Verte Chamber of Commerce will celebrate their golden anniversary.

Five decades of support to the business community on the Baie Verte Peninsula is a notable achievement, support that has been provided through a focus on community-mindedness and a desire to do better. They have lived the ebb and flow across all business sectors and they have been the anchor when those sectors have experienced great challenges.

Last year, unfortunately, low tide came again on the Peninsula; but luckily, we can spring forward to today where there's a greater energy and optimism for what the next few years will bring, especially across the mining, fishing, forestry and tourism sectors.

Now a pan-peninsula Chamber of Commerce for their 19 communities, they are pursuing opportunities towards some of the area's untapped potential, like with tourism. Of specific tourism note, certain aspects of our provincial history are anchored in that area, like Le Petit Nord and the Dorset Indigenous cultural remnants.

The signature event of the chamber is the Baie Verte Mining Conference. As such, I invite all MHAs from the 50th Assembly to further engage the chamber in person, by partaking in their mining conference and dinner in early June 2025.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I wish to highlight the beautifully restored, tiny duel-purpose historic institution, the Blackhead One Room School and Church Museum. This must-see treasure in Blackhead village near Cape Spear was originally constructed in 1879. This building is a provincially designated heritage structure and hosts a wealth of family history stored in a genealogy exhibit, which also includes a self-guided walking tour.

This past weekend, the museum held their craft and delicious bake sale. My daughter and I were delighted to visit and see the amazing Christmas village complete with two model trains with a conductor, Christian Starr.

On September 29, the museum had a special puppet show, The Road to Confederation by Jake Thompson of the show NL Now.

From adult workshops, afternoon tea, community garden scoffs and much more, the Blackhead museum is a valuable historic building that has stood the test of time but only with the help of its many volunteers. To name a few: Scott; Shawn; Wes; Hunter; Toni, with the grounds work; Donna; Melissa; Ann; Suzette; Katherine; Ellen; Angela; Colin; Toni; and, of course, Bonita.

Thank you for all the work you do in the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to obtain employment. That is the purpose of our Supported Employment program, which is essential in promoting inclusivity and expanding opportunities for individuals with intellectual disabilities to find meaningful work.

This past year, we invested $10 million in the program, providing resources and services that helped more than 650 individuals participate in meaningful employment, individuals like Brock Pittman who is currently watching from the public gallery.

Brock is a second-year student studying political science at Memorial University and, today, is my mentee through Avalon Employment and MentorAbility Newfoundland and Labrador. He was looking for a mentor in politics so I was happy to oblige.

Initiatives like this open doors and create opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to thrive as valued members of our workforce. We fund the Supported Employment program because it is a compassionate approach and, also, because it empowers people and makes our economy more productive.

Speaker, I urge my fellow MHAs to support this program and to consider mentoring individuals within our communities, someone like Brock Pittman. Together, we can continue building a more inclusive Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

We'd like to welcome Brock Pittman to the gallery and thank the Avalon Employment and MentorAbility Newfoundland and Labrador for their service in helping to build inclusive and meaningful workplaces. We would also like to recognize all of the mentors throughout the province who support employees in the workplace.

We hope that the Liberal government will ensure that these supportive employment programs will continue as we recognize the importance of employment and the removal of barriers for individuals in the workplace.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

Welcome Brock.

We would like to see the province support more people like Mr. Pittman and that's why we were saddened to learn that this government had no plans to fund supportive employment programs, even though the federal government warned them months in advance of cuts.

We, therefore, call on this government to find new means of supporting these programs; not out of compassion, because it's the right thing to do.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, as we unfold this debacle called the land purchase or land deal, I found out that the Premier's office didn't take the call. The Premier has said he didn't take the call. The current minister said he didn't take the call.

So I would like to ask the former minister of TI, the current Minister of Housing, did he take the call from the developer about this land?

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

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member opposite is correct. The Premier did not take a call. He is correct in stating that I did not take the call because the call occurred last February to the past minister of Transportation and Infrastructure – well, the call went to the Transportation and Infrastructure Minister's office and, as a result of that, a meeting was set-up with now the proposed vendor, at the time was the donor of the land.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: I think it took us three days to figure out who took the call.

Speaker, yesterday the minister confirmed that he doesn't own the land that the new sport and well-being dome is to be built on, according to their RF.

So I ask the minister: Who owns the land?

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

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The land is owned by H3 Development. They are currently in negotiations with the provincial government. I've said publicly here in the House and outside in media interviews that we are very close to a final deal with H3 Development, which is why we signed an MOU with them so that we can build the new acute-care facility, which will service hundreds of thousands of people for generations to come, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: SPEAKER:

T. WAKEHAM: So, Speaker, they actually were in negotiations with H3 long before they did the photo op of announcing the site for the new hospital; long before they said it was going to only take 10 acres of donated land to be built on. They forgot to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador anything about the $23 million they're about to spend.

I ask the minister: Are you aware that part of the land you're attempting to build the turf dome on belongs to another developer?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

The location of the new hospital is incredibly important and we have to be very strategic. I can say to you, Speaker, that not only will we use it, not only will our children use it, not only will our grandchildren use it, our great-great-grandchildren will use this hospital.

We have to be very, very smart about where this location is. It has to have appropriate infrastructure; it has to have appropriate access to this facility. It also has to be at the apex of multiple communities where the population is: Mount Pearl, St. John's, Paradise. It has to be very strategically located.

It is unfortunate the Members opposite can't be as strategic as this government is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, it's amazing though that when they issued a request for proposals for the sport dome, for design services, they included a list of requirements of what they were supposed to look at. They haven't awarded this yet, but one of the things that they were required to look at in this site investigation was to be completed on the survey and geotechnical investigation.

I wonder, Speaker, why would we invest in a billion-dollar hospital complex and not require that work to be completed?

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for the question; happy to address it.

As we have mentioned before, the wellness dome and sports complex was announced in the provincial budget. We put out an RFP. It was public. Media stories were done on it. We did a news release about it back in March or whenever it was announced in the provincial budget. We have been in step with what we are supposed to do in terms of acquiring land so that we can service people in Newfoundland and Labrador who need, not only the ability to have access to sports complexes, but rehabilitation after their medical surgeries or whatever procedures they have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, again, I'm going to go back and focus on the land because that's exactly what I'm talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Also, in this request, it also required watershed and flood plain investigation, yet the government is rushing out to spend $23 million of taxpayers' money on land that they don't even know if it's in a watershed or if a flood plain investigation has been done.

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, our officials are obviously doing their due diligence and have done their due diligence in terms of looking at the land that is currently zoned for what we want to do with it. Unlike the other land, that the Member opposite has been pointing out over the last few days, which is not zoned for what we want to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, this in particular, again, asked for, water and sewer valuation, powerline studies, yet again we're moving ahead with $23 million of expenditure without even knowing if it can be built on.

Again, is this a blank cheque or cost plus, plus? How can you squander people's money without even knowing what the final cost is going to be?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not doing what the Member opposite is suggesting, at all; we are very careful and strategic. Four years ago, when we were in the midst of a global pandemic, our Premier had the vision to put together the Health Accord. Knowing full well the problems in our health care system, planning for the future.

One of the things that we announced a couple of years ago, Members opposite may remember, is a replacement for a 100-year-old hospital. If anybody has been to St. Clare's, they know that hospital has to be replaced. It is going to take time to do it. We have a strategy. We have a vision. We're executing on it so the people of this province can get the health care they need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, let me tell you what they don't have. They don't have the award given for the request for proposals for all of the information they required to build the dome. They also don't have the $2.1-million report that they commissioned Deloitte to do which is supposed to talk about site preparations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: They don't have that, yet the minister is prepared to stand up and spend $23 million of taxpayers' money without even knowing if this land is fit to build on.

Is that what you're doing?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Speaker, saying it loudly does not make it true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: Speaker, this government has been very strategic. We have a Health Accord –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister is standing right there and I can barely hear her speak.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: We have a Health Accord that outlines exactly the way we're going to develop health care in this province. I can tell you that many, many provinces in this country are now looking to what we've done because of the strategic view that we have taken.

We had Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey go across this province. We all know that we require a hospital. We know that hospital is going to be around for 100 years. We have to be strategic. We have to be well timed. We have to be thoughtful. I ask the Opposition to be that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, deflect, deflect, deflect. That's exactly all that was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Deflect, deflect, deflect.

Yesterday again, we found out that they announced a new dome in Kenmount Crossing, they didn't own the land. In 2023, they announced a new school in Kenmount Terrace, for which they didn't own the land. Now, a new hospital is promised on land that they still don't own.

How many projects are the Liberals going to announce on land that they don't own?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, we are very aggressive as a provincial government in trying to make up for the infrastructure deficits that our province is facing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

F. HUTTON: We're building schools in Kenmount Terrace, yes. We own the land. We're building a school in Portugal Cove - St. Philip's. We're building a school in Cartwright. We're building a school in Pelley's Island and we're building a high school in Paradise, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

F. HUTTON: We have finished a hospital in Corner Brook that was started before 2010 by the previous administration. We finished it. Long-term care facilities in Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor – look at the track record. Look at what we're doing in terms of infrastructure. That's what people of Newfoundland and Labrador are noticing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Minister, people are noticing a lot more than that. You need to go outside the bubble every now and then, Minister. You're in a big bubble; you've been there for years. Go outside the bubble and you'll learn a lot more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Thank you.

Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health indicated he supported the decision not to hold anybody accountable for the travel nurse lease scandal. Yet, a senior health authority official said she has concerns.

Why doesn't the minister share the same concerns?

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to the hon. Member's – what he said there, his preamble, in terms of not knowing what's going on. I would count myself among a lot of people in this province, in this hon. House as well, and perhaps the other side, who are very aware of what's happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I take great exception to the fact that they think I don't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: The arrogance.

B. PETTEN: There is no arrogance here.

I will not take lectures from the Minister of TI, nor will I take lectures from anyone on that side of the House, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Now, will the minister answer my question that I just asked?

Do you share the same concerns as your staff have about this travel nurse scandal? Do you share those concerns, Minister?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Whenever there are questions about health in this province, I share everybody's concerns about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: This issue dates back to last March, before I was minister, when the former became aware of allegations with regard to leases in this province for –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HOGAN: The minister at the time did the right thing by writing the Auditor General to advise her of the allegations; to write the CEO of NLHS to advise of the allegations; and to write the chair of the board of the NLHS to advise of the allegations.

We now know that the leases have been terminated as a result of those allegations and investigations. We also know, and the Auditor General confirmed, I believe, yesterday in media reports, that this will be part of her scope with the investigation that she is doing into agency nurses in this province.

I remind the Speaker that that Auditor General investigation is what the Progressive Conservatives asked for. She is doing it. I look forward to her results, and anything in that report that we need to act on, I can guarantee you, we will act on, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

So the minister just confirmed, they were well aware of everything last March that was confirmed through their internal investigation, but they won't disclose that so we'll keep asking questions, Speaker.

Last week, the minister confirmed leases were cancelled under the act. We know there are penalties. How much did cancelling these leases cost the taxpayers, Minister?

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

J. HOGAN: Sorry, Speaker, but the allegation by the Member then was that, I guess, the government was aware of things back in March. That's not true.

Back in March, there was a letter written from the president of the RNU to the former minister advising of allegations that she had heard, not that they were necessarily true. The minister at the time did the right thing by writing the Auditor General, as, again, suggested by the Progressive Conservatives, writing the CEO of NLHS and writing the chair of the board of the NLHS to look into those allegations. You had to look into something before you could act on them.

They were looked into by NLHS. They are being looked into in further detail by the Auditor General. I look forward to the Auditor General's conclusions and I guarantee you, we will act on any recommendations that she brings forward when the report is thoroughly reviewed, analyzed and investigated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Obviously, the minister had great concerns, he wrote the AG back in last March. So you got a lot of information in that letter that we have not seen and it's not provided to the public.

Minister, can you provide how many former health authority employees currently have leases in place?

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

J. HOGAN: The Member needs to start telling the truth. That letter was provided to him and tabled in the House of Assembly, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Mr. Speaker, there was a letter –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: There was a letter by Ms. Coffey to the minister outlining her concerns; we never seen that letter. There was a letter and information provided to the minister in August from the NLHS providing their concerns and that was never provided to me.

So the minister can jump up and throw down his microphone and act really mad, but it doesn't intimidate me. It doesn't intimidate anyone on this side of the House. We have questions to ask and the people want answers.

I'm going to ask another one now, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: How long were these, now cancelled, but inappropriate, leases in effect?

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, as I said in response to the first question, all this information, if the public is asking and the Opposition is asking, it should be public information. That's why I wrote NLHS yesterday asking for further details about their investigation and to provide each and every piece of information relating to the leases, when they were signed, the values of them and how long they were for.

I look forward to the response from NLHS. When that letter is given to me, it will immediately be made public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

In March, this issue with the inappropriate leases was identified, but not addressed until August. Why did it take so long for an investigation to be initiated, Minister?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Again, the former minister was advised of these allegations back in March. It takes time to investigate. The Auditor General is still doing her investigation. I would suggest the reason it takes a certain amount of time is to make sure it's done properly. But that's the way I think NLHS does things, and I know that's the way the Auditor General does things, Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Not the way things probably should be done, Minister.

The health authority said that the leases were well intended and no one was hiding or disguising themselves within the process.

I ask the minister: Can employees inside the health authority violate any policy or guideline as long as they do it so openly with no intent to hide their actions?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I believe what the Member just said is things shouldn't be done carefully, in an analytical way. I guess it should be done quicker, which would lead to things being done maybe improper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HOGAN: But I will say with regard to any employee in any situation in this province, it doesn't matter where you're employed, if you're employed here in government, if you're employed at NLHS, if you're employed at Hydro, if you're employed with the university, if you're employed in private practice here anywhere, if there are policies about employment that exist, they need to be followed. There are consequences for breaching policies depending on what has been done.

We look forward to the AG's report. I look forward to the letter from NLHS as well outlining the details of what they found when they did their investigation leading up to the decision to terminate the leases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, the minister just summed up everything and he never said it.

Why aren't you taking the necessary action today instead of hiding behind the AG report? Do what's right. These employees have done wrong. Why don't you, as minister, stand up and do the right thing because that's what the public expects of you, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

So NLHS – for the Member, as he clearly is not aware of this – is a separate entity from government. It is at arm's-length from the government. It has 23,000 employees. They have a full executive that deals with HR issues and operational issues on a day-to-day basis. All of these issues do not come across the former minister's desk or the current or future minister's desk. That is the job of NLHS. The government provides policy direction to NLHS and they implement the operational, day-to-day decisions of the health authority, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Condescending and arrogant comments do not deter me, never will.

The minister – if you look through Hansard – he does a great job on being arrogant. I do not be bullied by arrogance, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thanks for the protection, Speaker, I appreciate that.

Government are the ones, Speaker, who will not listen to questions. It's only this side of the House; don't anyone at home think we're at this. What a joke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: I hope people listen.

The minister said he didn't sign off on the leases. Did the former minister, who's now the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, sign off on these leases?

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, part of this job is being in the public eye and I quite enjoy my role as Minister of Health and Community Services; it's a difficult job. You don't know how many people in the last four months have said to me I can't believe you're taking this on, it's very difficult. We're with you, we're behind you, we want health care to succeed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I know that there's going to be some taking some knocks in this job, I get it. But to stand here today and provide answers to questions in the House – and this all stemmed, by the way, Speaker, from me answering a question last week telling the public, telling the Member that these leases were terminated. I wasn't trying to hide behind anything, I was trying to publicly tell people what the Member asked.

To be accused here of being arrogant for trying to answer questions, trying to advise the difference between NLHS and government, trying to advise how policies and procedures work and being called arrogant for it, I will continue to try my best and deliver health care for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, Hansard doesn't lie. Read Hansard and it reeks with arrogance. The minister needs to realize there is a lot in his words. I just ask questions. I can't control arrogant responses. If he's doing his best, he should do what we're asking him to do and deal with these people. That's all we've ever asked. If he wants someone to cheer him on, I will cheer him on if he does the right thing. I can't cheer him on when he's not.

Speaker, we have heard cases where seniors and other vulnerable individuals were evicted from housing that was in turn rented to a travel nurse at higher rates.

Minister, can you clarify how widespread this is?

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, one thing I won't do is politically interfere where there should never be political interference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: If that's arrogance; well, I'm the most arrogant person in this room, Speaker, because I won't be doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody's looking for political interference, they're looking for answers.

Yesterday, in this House, the minister said no one was as disappointed as I was when she referenced the information provided to her by m5. Speaker, m5 is getting paid $8 million – $8 million to sell the Liberals nonsensical UK soccer investment.

Will the minister table the full m5 contract?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I stand by what I said yesterday; I was very disappointed when I understood that the numbers provided to me by our agency of record were incorrect.

I'm very proud of the work we're doing in the UK. Based on the UK's changing immigration policies, we believe there are a lot of health care workers in the UK who will want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, we did three job fairs in the UK where we have over 900 interested individuals. We have done over 100 one-on-one interviews with people in the UK who want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have 800 left.

We are going to recruit health care workers to Newfoundland and Labrador and I'm very proud of our government for doing that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Obviously, she doesn't want to table the contract; to publicly promote the UK contract cost significantly more than the UK soccer sponsorship itself.

What else is included in the m5 contract?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm happy to chat about our immigration efforts in the UK. I wanted to go myself to make sure that our job fairs were a good use of taxpayers' money. I went, I attended two of the job fairs in London. I chatted with job seekers in the UK who want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, Speaker.

Our job fairs, I think, cost about $40,000 for staff and travel to attend the job fairs. Of those, we are going to get social workers, we are going to get paramedics, we are going to get nurses and we are going to get doctors.

That is an investment that is worthwhile.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: The previous minister said we had 3,000 people who came from the Ukraine that were all in the health system. Now she's saying that everyone she's talking to is in the health system. The health system is falling apart.

The m5 contract cost $8 million and it belongs to the people of the province. With one email the Premier or the minister can make it available.

Why won't you do it?

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

G. BYRNE: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not take that Member saying falsehoods on this floor –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

G. BYRNE: – that I said there was 3,000 health care workers from Ukraine.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Address the Chair, please.

G. BYRNE: That is not correct.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Address the Chair, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Again, the m5 contract, $8 million from the public purse, belonging to the people of this province. With one email his minister or the Premier could table it.

Why won't they do it?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, this isn't about an m5 contract. I'd be happy to look into that and if it's publicly releasable, I'm happy to do that. This is not a secret.

As a province, we have a declining birth rate. From a population growth perspective, we have to spend money to get doctors and nurses and social workers and health care workers to find out about Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is like a big sales funnel, Speaker. We need as many doctors and nurses, early childhood educators, residential construction workers to come out of that funnel as possible and we have to fill up the top of the funnel, Speaker, with interested people who want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Your microphone is not on yet.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: How many people have personally indicated that they immigrated into this province because they saw the province's name in little text –?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: How many people have personally indicated that they immigrated into this province because they saw the province's name in little text on a soccer jersey? Give us the number.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I didn't hear the preamble, but I look forward to reviewing Hansard to see what happened and bringing it up in the House the next time I have the opportunity, Speaker.

I'm very proud of the range of marketing initiatives and tactics that we're employing in the UK. Because of the UK's changing family immigration policies, we believe that there are a lot of health care workers and early childhood educators who want to move to Newfoundland, Speaker.

We have a declining birth rate. If we want people to be working in our health care system, in 10, 20 years' time, we have to spend money to make sure that people know about Newfoundland and Labrador. The immigration process is not a short process, Speaker. They have to want to come. They have to fill out the paperwork. The federal government has to allow them.

This is a long-tailed recruitment exercise, Speaker, and we have to fill up the top of the funnel so that people know about Newfoundland and Labrador.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, last week parents at Menihek High School were sent an email informing them that the whole school and core-specific fees were now required. The email outlined to parents that the fees be paid as soon as possible, in cash, at the school.

I ask the minister: How many schools in this province are forced to rely on payments, in cash, from parents to make up the lack of funding that this government provides for supplies?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm unaware of the email that the Member opposite is referencing, but I will make every effort to find it in our department and address it.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is currently investing heavily in our education system here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the most recent of which is our Education Accord where we've deployed the resources of several experts in the field who are taking a look at the entirety of our education, from our early childhood right into our seniors, and how we can impact the learning opportunities that they have across the spectrum.

So we do look forward to the report coming from the Education Accord on how we can do things better here in Newfoundland and Labrador. In the meantime, we continue to invest in our transformation team and, on the day to day, we have conversations with our classrooms and determine what resources are needed in each of these. We'll continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Well, clearly, the email should have never went out in the first place, but they're looking for cash.

Speaker, accessibility in our schools is important to us, but clearly not this government. The elevator at Menihek High School was broken since November, last year, and only just being now repaired, failing students who have accessibility needs.

I ask the minister: Why does it take over a year for critical maintenance issues to be addressed in our schools across this province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.

As the Member opposite would know, the responsibility for infrastructure in our schools in this province is a shared responsibility between the Education Department and the Department of TI. We work very closely with our partners in TI to ensure that all the measures are implemented and that all of our resources are up to date and that our infrastructure is sound.

We do have a significant number of buildings and we do recognize that there are challenges in some of them, but we'll continue to work together to meet the needs of the students in the buildings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: It sounds like a complete failure to me on their part.

Speaker, teachers continue to highlight the need to address violence in our schools. In September, a student was suspended from a city high school for making credible threats. The student showed up the next day with a machete and a selection of knives.

Other than the feeble response of setting up committees, think tanks and an Education Accord, feeble attempts, the minister refuses to address school violence in a meaningful way.

I ask the minister: Why is that?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you for the opportunity to respond and I'm very surprised that it's taken anybody on the opposite side of the House this long to bring up this very important issue here in our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: Speaker, we have definitely recognized that there's an issue with violence in our schools, but I wish that I was naive enough to live in the world where the Member opposite lives to think that it's a one-size-fits-all approach to fixing it. It is a very complex issue. It requires the collaboration of many departments of government. It is a reflection of our society and where we are going here in Newfoundland and Labrador and we have to figure out how to address that on all angles.

That's why we're very proud to support our Education Accord which is going to look at how we can support students, not only in the classrooms, but how we can address situations outside of the classrooms.

It's one thing to stand and look at a student and wonder why they fell in the water, but this government is going to go upstream and figure out why they fell in in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, we brought this up before and the world I live in, I've lived that life, unlike the minister, and I would say, right now, instead of pulling out students from the water, they're probably drowning them.

Speaker, a recent landmark arbitration decision between the New Brunswick Teachers' Federation and the Department of Education undermined the province that violated its obligations under safety policies, the occupational health and safety act and the collective agreement and awarded damages to the principal and the resource teacher. In other words, the province failed to address violence in the classroom.

So I ask the minister: Is she waiting for a landmark arbitration decision in this province before she takes the issue of violence in the classroom seriously?

I have a copy of that arbitration decision –

SPEAKER: The Member's time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to respond.

As I said, we do recognize that there is an increase of occurrence of violence in our classrooms. That is why we're proud to work with our partners at the NLTA to develop our pilot program that introduced eight student services teaching and learning positions into our schools, where they can meet students on the front lines to address some of the issues that operate in the day to day.

We've also increased our student assistants to 160 and put in an additional 40 IRTs in the past school year. We will continue to increase our counselling services. We've actually changed the student to counsellor ratio, which used to be 1-500, now it is 1-333.

Speaker, this is a widespread issue; we have to have a widespread approach. If I had the ability to stop people from being jerks, I can tell you, I'd do it and I could point in the direction that I would start.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Oral Question has expired.

S. COADY: Point of order.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Speaker, I rise on a point of order, Standing Order 49 in particular.

Speaker, I believe I heard during Question Period, the Member opposite, the Member for Terra Nova, refer to a question and he said the current minister was probably going to bake sales.

Speaker, I find that misogynistic and I ask for him to withdraw that comment. It is incumbent on all of us to call out when we hear misogynistic remarks. I think it is important in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Withdrawn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that not withstanding Standing Order 9, that this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 20, 2024, but shall continue to sit to conduct Government Business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, approximately 100,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador live with mental illness.

Only about 40 per cent of the people affected by mental illness and addiction seek help.

Seventy per cent of mental illness developed during childhood and adolescence and most go undiagnosed.

Less than 20 per cent receive appropriate treatment.

Emergency and short-term care isn't enough and it is essential more long-term treatment options are made readily available.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide access to long-term mental health care that ensures continuity of care, beginning with psychiatric and neuropsychological assessments being more accessible to the public so they can access proper mental health treatment and supports on a regular and continuous basis.

I've raised this petition many, many times in this House and government doesn't seem to be taking it seriously because there is not progress happening here in what people are asking for. People are telling us that mental health and addictions issues do not do well on wait-lists. We heard the report today by the Canadian Mental Health Association telling how far behind we are.

This government, two years ago, announced that they were going to put 9 per cent of the health care budget towards mental health. It hasn't happened; it hasn't come close, yet people struggle on a daily basis looking for ongoing long-term treatment and specialized services. It is not happening – it's not happening.

We look at some of the comments that have been made, in some cases, people are waiting as long as 24 months for psychiatric services. People with lived experiences are telling us they want continuity of care. They want proactive rather than reactive cases. They have difficulty in locating and accessing services.

One person said – and think about this, this person is dealing with this on a daily basis, lived experience – when they say they're not the right kind of crazy. Think about that. That's what individuals are saying out there in order to get the help they need and it's not available.

So this government needs to do much, much better on the mental health issues and providing continuity of care and providing long-term services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for a response.

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, I'm just going to respond to the Member and the petition.

I appreciate him raising it on the floor of the House of Assembly. As he knows and all of us know, we do have in place the All-Party Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Addictions and we're addressing many of those issues that the Member raised.

Suffice to say, while we're waiting for that report, we continue to invest in mental health and addictions services across the province in subsequent budgets.

Just one fact to alert the Member and others, our spend on mental health is over 9 per cent of our health budget and we will continue to expand on that, Speaker.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

Many rural communities in the District of Bonavista with speed limits of 50 kilometres or less do not have driveways off the main road with the 115-metre sightlines to meet the requirement for road access. Many of these properties have large amounts of land and new residents are unable to utilize existing or historical driveways/roadways. This regulation of 115-metre sightlines in existing rural communities is restrictive and detrimental to property sales, thus a hindrance to new property development.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to adjust its regulations within such rural communities to allow property development by granting road access to said properties.

In the school system, if you were an administrator in the school system and you did everything the same for every student, you're off track, because we know that some students need something a little different. They need a little more assistance, a little further programming. So you're off track.

The Minister of Education stood, in answer to a question from my hon. friend, and she said: One size does not fit all. It's true, one size does not fit all. Let me give you an example of three situations in the District of Bonavista, which I have written the department over the past couple of years.

Mr. Pelley lives in Harcourt. He's got a large block of land and he has access to the land on an easement, which was a community easement, a driveway. But it's right around a hair turn, a 90-degree turn. The previous Minister of TI went to look at it and said it was ridiculous. He wanted to move to the end of the property, away from that sharp turn, 100 metres down. But we were 15 metres short and the department refused it. In other words, stay just inside that 90-degree turn.

We have Mr. Gulliford in Brooklyn, another small community, he has a large piece of land but he only has 80 metres of access. But here's the kicker, not one driveway in Brooklyn would meet the regulation under TI.

Therefore, what TI is saying in this rural community is that there's no more land development unless you can use one of the existing driveways. That is the reality of this regulation. It is shameful and it ought to be revisited.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: The last one, which I don't have time, is in George's Brook-Milton, same situation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time to respond to the Member's petition.

I became aware of this situation last week when the Member opposite sent me an email related to one of the examples he just gave this House of Assembly. At that point in time, I did say to the Member opposite, either via text or email, that I would look at it. Our department is currently doing that and reviewing it because what we want to do is to be able to help promote expansion within rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador or all areas of Newfoundland and Labrador for that matter. So we are looing at it, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

The breakwater on the lower coast in Trepassey is in urgent need of repair. This breakwater is necessary to protect the one and only access road to the lower coast.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to complete the necessary repairs and install a more durable and sustainable breakwater.

Speaker, I spoke on this yesterday and things haven't changed in Trepassey as of today. When I spoke to the mayor today, they're holding off cleaning the road until the sea settles down. So this is not a major storm. We have some big rough waters, there's no question, but this road has been covered since last Thursday. They've cleaned it three times, and the town is responsible for cleaning it. I did ask the minister yesterday, maybe his department can get someone to go down with a plow to be able to keep this clean.

They said they're not going to do it anymore because it's so costly to get a contractor in that they're going to leave it and wait until the sea settles. Well, that's not good for the people down on the lower coast. We need to have that done. It's a safety issue right now. As I said the other day, a lady came up across that the other day in a Side By Side with her son. It should be done.

Last February is when the thing was built. It washed out this February. There's been nothing done since. Now, we had a meeting last month and we had a discussion. They were going to go up in a couple of weeks. There has been nothing done up to this point. This is only the start of winter. These are not the major storms right now.

We need something down there to correct this problem. A temporary fix is what they said in our meeting and we have nothing happened since October 21, when we had the meeting. So I would hope that the minister can help this town in some way, get this problem solved and alleviate the problem for the day. We need to get somebody in there today to be able to clean that road and keep the costs down for the town.

There are only 300 residents there. They need some help in being able to clean this road and keep it clean while the storms are happening. They really need the help. It's just costly for the town. They don't have the money and the infrastructure to do it. They just don't.

I ask the minister to see if he can help this town out in a way that gets them by until next year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, thank you again for the opportunity to address the House and the Member opposite.

I think he referenced yesterday as well when he spoke about this in the House – I was not here to respond. I can't remember, but we did meet with the council at the Member's request and at the council's request. It is a town road. We are attempting to work with them.

In Transportation and Infrastructure, safety is paramount and we are efforting to help the town as much as we can, but it is a town road.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I present a petition to call to amend the Residential Tenancies Act to include rental increase limitations.

These are the reasons for this petition:

A lack of supply of rental units, coupled with increased demand, has resulted in profiteering by some landlords simply because the market allows.

The Residential Tenancies Act, 2018 allows for annual rent increases of any amount, for any reason. In doing so, the current legislation lends itself to predatory rent increases for the purpose of profit and treats housing as a commodity rather than a fundamental human right.

Significant rental increases are making life more unaffordable for many in our communities, especially seniors and those on income support and those on fixed incomes. The private sector has failed to deliver on the promise of affordable homes.

Therefore, we the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce legislation to limit the amount rent can be increased annually.

Speaker, this, along with an end to no-fault evictions or rent and vacancy control, will not solve the housing crisis but it will prevent people from being evicted or forced out of housing and from becoming homeless for that matter.

Now, we heard from government Members that it's not one issue in the school, it's also society. Well, I would argue that, for many families, having affordable housing is key to their ability to be able to provide their children with the needs that they have.

I was talking to one mother this morning. She and her husband work. They are paying $2,000 in rent. It doesn't leave them much at the end of it, which means that their children cannot participate in some of the school activities or the outside extracurricular activities as well.

We have seniors who are facing, for the first time in their lives, Speaker, increasing rents that are impacting their ability to put food on the table, pay for their medications and so on and so forth. But it's causing significant stress.

So this is a simple way that will not cost the government money as such to put in these measures, to keep people from being thrown out or being rendered homeless until such time as there is a sufficient supply.

Speaker, if the private sector was the answer, we wouldn't be in this situation alone. I understand the profit motive but here there has to be some balance that actually will keep people housed and stable.

Thank you.

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

The closure of the Canning Bridge in Marystown has had a devastating impact on residents, fire and emergency services and the local economy. The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure are aware of the poor condition of the bridge, mostly recently documented in a bridge inspection report completed in January 2020, which confirmed the Canning Bridge was in poor condition.

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

I spoke about this with the minister and, like I said, I'm working with the department to get this done in a timely manner. I'm hoping that the minister can update the House on the progress of the Canning Bridge. There is a Bailey Bridge proposed and people are asking about any action on it and stuff like that. So I ask the minister if he can probably update the House.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I heard the very tail-end of the Member's request and, I think, I got the gist of it, because we were chatting about this yesterday offline. What I can tell you is that the contract, the tender has been awarded and the work on the Bailey Bridge is expected to begin before Christmas. As we're planning to do that and then, of course, so that the folks can be reminded, the Bailey Bridge is being constructed through the winter months – and the contractor says as long as the weather is permissible, they're going to continue to do that – the existing Canning Bridge will remain open so that people, pedestrians can go back and forth on the Canning Bridge and emergency vehicles, as our release stated, I think it was in August. I can't remember the exact date right now.

But the Canning Bridge will remain open during the winter months for pedestrian traffic and for emergency vehicles. That is still the plan and the work on the Bailey Bridge is anticipated to begin in the coming weeks, before Christmas, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This is petition is for affordable travel in my district.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to return affordable travel to the region of Northern Labrador. Unlike other communities in this province, our Northern Labrador communities of Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet are land-based but are not connected to the provincial highway system.

Our Northern Labrador communities are totally isolated, with no road access, and marine transportation is limited to five or less months each summer.

Our marine transportation service is a once-a-week ferry running July to October. It starts in late June. Our air transportation service is provided by a single monopoly airline, Air Borealis, and is weather dependent and cost prohibitive.

The cost of air travel for residents living in Northern Labrador is grossly disproportionate to the available income thereby restricting travel, increasing cost of living and contributing to isolation.

Speaker, this is an important petition. We saw recently where the Goose Bay Airport authority and the mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay went to Ottawa to do a presentation to the standing committee on transportation and infrastructure. What was shown was that the air travel out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay had increased 33 per cent in the last five years; over in Lab West, 47 per cent increase.

But what they noted was that a ticket from Nain, in my district – no road connection – to St. John's, our capital city, was $2,500 for a return ticket. Now, looking at that, I just went into my phone again so this is recent. A return ticket from Nain to Goose Bay – so if you want to get to that Trans-Labrador Highway, you fly out of Nain, a return ticket is $1,233, Speaker. People in St. John's can fly to Florida and basically have their hotels covered for their trip and it would still be less than getting out of Nain.

Now, why is this important? We just saw recently a news release there from the provincial government celebrating the first direct route to Europe since 2019: WestJet offers this route for the next three years, starting in 2024. The flight will operate seasonally, three days per week, from May to October.

And it says, “Budget 2023 included $1.5 million to support the development and expansion of air travel in Newfoundland and Labrador.” But when I presented this petition before, for affordable travel, I was told that there was not going to be any help for my district.

Just looking at the presentation, I got a constituent – I learned from my fellow MHA in Bonavista. His name is Sean Lyle and he's really, really upset because they can subsidize the travel to Europe –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has expired.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye,

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker

I call from the Order Paper, Order 7, I move, seconded by the Minister for Health and Community Services, that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on An Act to Amend Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, Bill 86.

There was some progress on that bill, Speaker, and I just ask that we resolve to consider that.

While we are in Committee, I would also call from the Order Paper, Order 6, Bill 83, An Act to Amend the Medical Act for Committee of the Whole as well.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: One seconder is good for two motions.

Is it moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 83 and 86.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Gambin-Walsh): Order, please!

We're now considering Bill 86.

A bill, “An Act to Amend Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.” (Bill 86)

CLERK (Hawley George): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I have three questions; I'll probably just ask them here.

In clause 1(3) the definition of health care benefits is updated to include a new subparagraph, 2(c)(i)(D) other expenditures by the government.

Does the minister have a plan to identify and quantify what these other expenditures would be?

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

B. DAVIS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

The quantification of that will happen throughout that process. As the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands had said earlier in this debate with respect to opioids, we want to cast a wide net. So we want to make sure we have a flexibility to add some more things in there like counselling services and thinks like that, that would be, not necessarily a hard cost, but would be a cost into the system. We will continue to work on that.

I know that your questions previously to this were talking about the justice-related costs. We're going to try to do whatever we can to find ways to input the costs that are required, but bearing in mind that this is a national class action. We're going to do what we can to do the best for the people of this province.

We're going to continue to do that and if there are ways we can find things that we are – counselling services that we're providing in the justice system, we're going to look towards that as well. Now that that's under Health and Community Services that will help in that process.

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

J. DINN: Madam Chair, if I may be granted some leave, I'll ask two other questions about clause 11 and 12, if that's all right, because I may have to step out.

In clause 11, does the minister have a list of active ingredients –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I'm having difficulty hearing the Member.

J. DINN: That's an unusual complaint.

Does the minister have a list of active ingredients ready to be prescribed in the regulations? Is it consistent with other jurisdictions and what consultations were made in formulating the list?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Chair.

I want to go back to the previous question that you had. That will be developed through litigation, as I've said as well, I just wanted to be a little clearer on that.

We do have a list of the ingredients that would form the national framework for this. We are always looking at ways to improve the standing. That's what the legal counsel that we have from British Columbia are working on, as well as all the jurisdictions.

We do have the list of ingredients right now currently, but, as we know, over time, that may expand, depending on what opioid manufacturers do.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Regarding clause 12, when does the minister expect this act to come into force? I'm looking for a specific date or an anticipated date.

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

B. DAVIS: I don't have the specific date, but I will endeavour to have that for the House. We're going to try to do it as expeditiously as possible because we want to make sure we're ready for that. We're hoping it will be proclaimed by the end of this calendar year, not fiscal.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Chair.

I'm very pleased to speak to Bill 86, An Act to Amend the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, and to, as well, ask questions with respect to this important act.

I also recall back in November of 2019 having the opportunity to speak to the foundational bill, which was Bill 17, that I believe received Royal Assent in December of 2019. There was much debate back then, five years ago, so as a result of that, there are some questions that I will be asking.

With respect to this particular amendment, I think it is safe to say, and one would agree, that the amendments that have been proposed are introduced to give us a better legal position with respect to our negotiating position and to ensure that people are compensated fairly in terms of damages.

So I think there are many important goals which have been stated in this amendment. Of course, the ultimate and the primary objective here is to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador holds opiate manufacturers and wholesalers accountable. That's the key here, accountability for their role in the current public health crisis.

I would say as well, for not only their role, but the fact that it has been alleged, and this is what this class action is all about, is that they have perpetuated the public health crisis, which we are seeing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to opioid addiction.

So with respect to some of these specific amendments, there are some questions that I have and I'm going to start with one of the amendments that the minister had mentioned in his opening remarks with respect to the Limitations Act. I just want some clarification on this from the minister.

In particular, I think one of the clauses stated that the amendment with respect to limitations will exempt Crown actions from limitations under certain conditions – under certain conditions. So that will better shore up or ensure cost recovery over an extended period of time.

So I'm wondering if the minister could please give me some examples of what those certain conditions would be, what they would look like.

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the hon. Member for the questions and her support on this piece of legislation, which is great. I know her colleague, the MHA for Bonavista, asked a number of questions – I think it was yesterday – and they were all very good questions.

We're changing the limitations period from two years to 15 years, and I think that's one piece of what you were asking. I don't want to pre-suppose what you were asking. I missed a little part of what you had said with the limitations, so if I didn't hit it with the two to 15 years, that's based on the legal advice that our legal counsel out of British Columbia had brought forward to us, making sure that we have the ability to hold those manufacturers and consultants that would be involved, and now expanded, accountable for the actions that they cause to our communities.

I think that's an important piece that all of us support in the House. Let's make sure we get as much as we can to align ourselves with this piece of legislation. I'm glad you talked about the foundational aspect of the first bill in 2019. I know that this is going to put us in the best position to receive the – I hate to use the word biggest amount of money, but the most amount of money we can receive through this class action.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

So with respect to what the minister has just referenced, the two years to 15 years, that's clear that the reason before that would be so that the Crown could have more time to pursue a certain action. But what I was referencing, actually, was the exemption for Crown actions from limitations under certain conditions.

Basically, the Crown will be exempt from limitations under certain conditions. I'm asking, what would those conditions be? What would that look like? Can you please give us examples of what those conditions would be to ensure cost recovery remains viable over a certain period of time or an extended period of time?

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

B. DAVIS: Sorry, I didn't catch that. I'll try to get a clearcut example. What clause specifically are you looking at in the act?

What I can say is, yes, the two years to 15 years is exactly as you highlighted. It wasn't about the limitation for government to make action; it's about making sure that the proceedings can happen. Because, as you know, a lot of these proceedings would take a significant amount of time, especially when you're dealing with all jurisdictions. You're dealing with high-powered lawyers on the other side as well, so they're going to try to use whatever needs and means they have to drag out that process as long as they can. That's why we want to make sure the limitation period is from two years to 15 years.

I know you had more specifically about the government, but if you give me the section, I'll make sure I try to have the answer from the staff that are listening to our debate here today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Yes, thank you, Minister. That would be clause 15.

Moving along to another question, with respect to the specific allegations in the class action, are we alleging in the class action suit that opioid manufacturers and wholesalers fail to warn doctors and the public of the dangers of opioids, looking at what the specifically allegation is?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Exactly, you're correct.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Are we also then alleging that they marketed opioids as safer and less addictive than other medications? Is that also one of the allegations in this claim?

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

B. DAVIS: I'm not sure how specific I want to get into that, just based on the case. But what I can say is that we know that they have not been forthcoming with all the information that they may or may not have known. That's what the class action suit will uncover and what our lawyers and teams across the country are working towards.

We want to make sure that those individuals that would have been consultants, that would've been advising, whether it be Big Pharma or one of the manufacturing companies, about this and how they were going to be marketing that and educating the public and/or the doctors that would be prescribing these opioids to the general public, we want to make sure that that whole piece is looked at, knowing full well that it may end up in court, or definitely going to end up in litigation at this point.

I guess it's fine for me to say that we would assume that they didn't provide all the information that they may have had knowledge of.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Going to the Explanatory Note, with respect to the amendment, it says that the changes or the amendments will align this province with other provinces and territories. So from that, can we assume other provinces and territories have introduced the same or similar changes and amendments?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, absolutely, this aligns us with the other jurisdictions, with what the legal counsel would have provided to other jurisdictions as well. It may not be exactly the same, but it's going to have the same intent. The changes that were made here come out of – the legal counsel that we have suggested that these changes would make our case stronger, and they have made those suggestions to other jurisdictions as well.

I don't know exactly how many of those jurisdictions have them in place currently; I know those jurisdictions will be moving in this general direction if they're not already there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Can the minister please advise how many other provinces and territories are involved in this class action suit?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I can get the exact number, but I don't want to say all. My intention is to say all; I just don't want to miss a territory that may or may not be in, but my understanding is every province and territory is in – but I'll confirm that with you in a follow-up question, if you have one – as well as the federal government.

I can confirm that now – yes, all provinces and territories are in, as well as the federal government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

You have stated, and it's clear that the Province of British Columbia has taken the lead with respect to this class action suit.

With respect to that, I'd just like to ask a few questions about that. We've heard that the BC government has led this charge, if you will, and they are lead counsel, if you will, and that there's going to be analysis of recovery, it's going to go province by province, and we're going to look at the damages, and the financial effects, and treatment costs and so forth, trying to quantify the damages.

I believe it was the Attorney General who yesterday stated that there will be a national number that will be agreed upon – forgive me if that's not his exact words, but from what I gathered yesterday – and it may even go to the court and to a judge to decide what value of damages for provinces.

So what I'm wondering about here is: What assurances can you give that Newfoundland and Labrador are going to get their fair share of reparations here?

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

B. DAVIS: Yes, I think both myself or the Attorney General will answer this. If you want, he can follow up, if that's okay with you.

The assurance is that we're in this as a collective. As a federation, we've joined with British Columbia, who has had a massive impact as we know, on the opioid crisis that they're facing. They're working very, very hard, along with all other jurisdictions across this country and the federal government, so the national group. I think you're correct in saying that the Attorney General, I think said yesterday, that we would get our portion of it based on per capita. That will be worked out with discussions with that, but that would be the minimum we would receive.

We're always in a situation where we want to try to get as much as we can for our province and we're going to continue to work as hard as we can on that. But the question is very valid to make sure that all parts of the federation are treated equally in this, and we will be, very much so.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Chair, with respect to the other provinces that have been involved, I understand that all of them have come on board with respect to this class action suit.

Can the minister provide some information about any jurisdictional scans or any reviews that have been done.

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

B. DAVIS: The lawyers that would be working on this in our department would be in constant consultation with the group – I'll call them the group of the federation – with the lead counsel being BC.

Every jurisdiction feeds in information and works very closely with each other to make sure that we're – I think I even may have said yesterday that the rising tide lifts all boats – we want to make sure that we're there with them, working with the federation to get the best value that we can for the people that we all represent.

I'm very happy that the House of Assembly is aligned with supporting this piece of legislation and the work that's going to come from this, because I think the MHA for Bay of Islands said it's going to take a very substantial amount of time to potentially get to the finish line on this. I think it was either him or the MHA from Mount Pearl - Southlands. It was one of them. But they were very good points, whoever made those points.

They take time, so it's going to be a team effort on all this. Yes, they share resources and share results and share the best approach.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: You mentioned the group, the working group, I guess, of officials. So I would assume that British Columbia is the lead and they have working groups and officials, so each province would have working groups of officials.

Are there meetings that take place or what does that look like in terms of how this is coordinated?

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

B. DAVIS: Yes, there are meetings. I can't give you the exact detail on how often those meetings happen, but they do happen very regularly. This is a process that we're going through as a team, not unlike a caucus or a Cabinet would meet. They would meet, they would make decisions, decide on the next approach for the next time they're meeting with the lawyers from the other side. That's what would be the process here. Not unlike a regular case, this would just be a much bigger – JPS lawyers are working with the national group, I won't say daily, but they're definitely plugged into the workings of this national group.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Now I'm going to just switch gears a little bit here and talk about similar legislation that we have had here in the Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, and that litigation has taken a very, very long time. I believe it started in 2011. So we're looking at 13 years later and the process is still not resolved. We were given the impression back five years ago that the opioid damage legislation follows basically the same example and the same route as the tobacco legislation.

So how long does the government expect litigation for the opioid health care cost recovery? Now I know you can't give an exact time, but you can understand where I'm going with this. Thirteen years later and we still don't see any resolution with respect to the tobacco health care litigation. I mean, what are we looking at here? Do you have any idea?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It definitely is a long time, and it's a very valid question that the hon. Member asks. I think the MHA from Bonavista asked a similar question about a crystal ball; I think he used the word crystal ball yesterday. I don't have one, I wish I did, but I can tell you that it's probably going to be a substantial amount of time.

I'm hopeful it won't be. I think it will be faster than the tobacco, just based on the experience and learnings we've had and the impact that opioids have had. People understand that better than they did when we were dealing with the tobacco early on.

So I think they've got a framework in place on how that's going to progress. That's going to make it a little faster, but I don't want to presuppose what time frame it would be. I would just be throwing a dart in the dark, and I don't want to misinform the House on what could potentially be – because any time I say something here, I'm going to be wrong.

If I say it's going to be five years from now, I could be wrong, it could be shorter. If I say it's five and it's 10 years, then I'm wrong; I don't want to misspeak to the House because it's a challenging file. It'll take what it takes to get it done. That's not a saucy answer or anything like that, I just don't know the time frame.

But I do believe, based on the experiences we've had with the tobacco – and you've made a great correlation to that – this will be faster than that was. That's what I think I can say unequivocally and be safe.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I'm just going to go now away from the class action suit piece and ask questions regarding individual plaintiffs. I know that this is not the subject of this amendment, but are you aware of individual plaintiffs in Newfoundland and Labrador who have come forward with their own specific claims in regard to this issue of opiate addiction?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the hon. Member from Placentia West - Bellevue highlighted this yesterday in his speech, that this legislation will not preclude individuals from being able to do their own individual class-action lawsuit that is in existence today.

I can't speak to specifics of individuals from this province that are in that class action lawsuit. I would assume the answer is yes, but I don't know specific examples that would be part of that national individual class action lawsuit.

I know full well, and many people in this House know full well, that the families and individuals have been devastatingly impacted by opioids. It's in our districts, it's in our communities and it's in some of our families. My heart goes out to everybody that's dealing with those issues.

Those individual cases are not picked up in this particular piece of legislation, but there is an individual class action lawsuit that is ongoing right now. I would assume, based on just anecdotally, individuals in this province would be a part of that. I can't specifically answer the question of who and how many. If I can find that information, I will provide it to you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I wasn't asking for specifics. Just if you have knowledge that there were individual plaintiffs that have come forward with their own claims and cause of action.

Going back to the tobacco litigation, we know that with the tobacco litigation, for example, since 2002, I think, up to about 2019, the provincial government had spent approximately $850,000 on litigation, specifically in relation to the tobacco case.

So can I ask if you have any idea of how much the provincial government has spent since 2019, when Bill 17 was introduced, to the present on litigation with respect to this opioid case.

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

B. DAVIS: I do not have that at my fingertips. I can get that for you in the future, I'm sure. If I get that information throughout this question period in Committee, I'll let you know. But I don't have that at my fingertips right now, unfortunately.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Also, we could ask in terms of budget, has there been monies budgeted for this opioid case? I'd also like for you to identify what the anticipated cost of this particular statement of claim would be as well?

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

B. DAVIS: All valid questions. All things that I can try to ascertain for the hon. Member.

The cost associated with this, to the best of my knowledge, will all come out of the settlement that will be received from the manufacturers and/or consultants that would have been part of this. As far as costs and budgets, I will take that away from here today, Madam Chair, and provide that information to the hon. Member if I can. I will provide it as quick as I can.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

One final question – and this is something that had arisen in 2019 when we were debating the underlying bill of Bill 17, and I'll just give a little background with respect to this.

In 2009, Canadian class actions were taken on behalf of individual patients who were injured by prescribed opioids. So we saw since 2009 that there were a number of Canadian consumer class actions that were successful in getting settlement agreements, and had been approved in several provinces.

Now, there was a clause 12 in Bill 17, which was something that we'd discussed back in 2019 when Bill 17 was in Committee. What that clause did, was it permitted the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to exempt itself from any lawful agreements to settle, that had been perhaps in place.

This was a concern raised in 2019 at the Committee stage in questions. What the concern was, was that the provincial government could essentially breach its agreement if it subsequently decided that the bargain or the deal wasn't convenient anymore or it was improvident.

So I'm just wondering if you have any information about this, and whether that clause of Bill 17 since 2009, was that clause used by the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to basically usurp any lawful agreements to settle?

I know that's a long question, but is that clear? And if so, if you could provide some direction or explanation on that.

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

B. DAVIS: As Mom used to say, clear as mud.

It hasn't been used yet in this province.

CHAIR: Any more questions?

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, that answers my question, and that's the conclusion of my questions.

Thank you.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, I heard you, I guess it was yesterday, when we were debating the bill. I do understand that this is about recovering certain health care costs only. I guess my question, concern, whatever you want to call it – I'll put it in the form of a question, I guess – is that when you think of the impacts of somebody with an opioid addiction, yes, we know there are going to be costs in terms of treatment costs and so on, if you're having to go receive different kinds of medical treatments and so on. But there are an awful lot of other costs that are associated to it, costs to the public, to the taxpayer.

Now. I just think of situations – and I think this was raised, but I'll raise it again anyway for clarification – of police. Somebody is addicted to an opioid and because of their addiction, it causes them to break the law, by way of example. There's a cost on that in terms of the RNC and RCMP. There's a cost in terms of the justice system, in terms of the courts to prosecute that person. There are costs if that person ends up in Her Majesty's Penitentiary. There are going to be costs associated to it.

There are families, for example – I know of examples where the kids were taken away because of an addiction. Child, Youth and Family Services kicked in because there were children, and they were taken out of the home and became wards of the state, so to speak. Now the taxpayer is bearing the cost of those children, whether it be fostering or putting them up in these houses owned by Blue sky or hotels or whatever. There's a cost of social workers.

There's a never-ending list, I suppose, of costs that one could – and it's not a stretch to make a direct link between those opioids and those addictions and dealings that those individuals would have, not just with the health care system, but, like I say, with the justice system, with the Child, Youth and Family Services, with Income Support and everything else.

So while this is dealing with certain health care costs, only, was there any discussion or talk when this all came down originally to include these other costs? Did that happen? If it was decided that we're only going to go with direct health care cost with this one, is there any discussions about further lawsuits that would capture the other costs that I mentioned?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you.

I thank the hon. Member for his words, both in second reading as well as what he's asking questions on now, they're valid.

The premise, I guess, not being a lawyer and understanding from all the legal shows that I watch, I guess, making sure you have the best chance of success is one of the key reasons why class actions suits work well. The language is virtually the same with slight modifications in all jurisdictions, but health care benefits are the only ones we can go after in this particular one.

However, I will take what you've said back to the department and look what other options there are. I know there's been many, many discussions with people around the table from all jurisdictions about how you get at some of those other costs that we all, as taxpayers, have to borne because of the situation that some people find themselves in. There are lots of reasons why people end up in the correction system, some of which would have been a direct reflection of what you've said.

So not directly related to this, but it's a very strong takeaway that you've given me that I will take to the department and try to make sure that my colleagues across the country, when I sit down with them and when the Attorney General sits down with them, that we are all pulling the cart the right way not pushing on a rope. We want to make sure we do that right.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Minister.

I certainly would appreciate that because, as I said, it's not a stretch. You could draw a very direct line from opioid addiction to various arms of government, not just direct health care costs. It's definitely worth at least pursuing. I'm not a lawyer either. I don't understand what chances they would have of recovering it, what the success rates might be. Maybe it would be decided that it's not something that they'd ever be able to be successful in, but it is at least worth pursuing, because those are big time. It's not just real costs; it's very, very substantial costs, I might add, very substantial costs.

Minister, I think you indicated during second reading and perhaps even through Committee of the Whole, yesterday, that in terms of our compensation here in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think you said it was based on population. I'm just wondering, is it totally based on population or would there be other factors?

The reason why I say that is that we all know, when we made this argument ourselves many times, when you talk about health care transfers, equalization and everything else, the cost of delivery of health care, as an example, because of our sparse population and so on, makes it, perhaps, somewhat unique and drives the cost here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, the other things that kind of pops to my mind, and I don't know if there is, is a number that says this is the percentages of population that have opioid addictions in Newfoundland and Labrador as compared to other provinces. Again, I have no idea what the numbers are, but, for argument sake, if 1 per cent of the population in province A had to deal with it, but then maybe 3 per cent of the population from province B, one could argue that simply going by population is really not fair. There has to be some accounting for the fact that there's a bigger percentage of that population impacted; therefore, they should be entitled to a larger slice of the pie, if you will.

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

B. DAVIS: It's a very good question. It's one I've asked on a couple of occasions with my staff as well when you deal with provinces such as ours that are sparsely populated, but large geographic footprint, population is never the only way you want to impact any kind of funding arrangement that you would get, whether it be from the federal government or a distributor or a manufacturer of opioids or tobacco or anything. That will be the starting point but that's not settled yet, so I just want to be clear, that's not settled, it's just a starting point for discussion. The court, when we get to that point, will have to approve the proposed distribution and then it will be decided there.

All of those factors that you highlighted about cost of delivery, that's a real concern. That will be factored in. The percentage of the population that have opioid addictions and involved with that, that will be considered as well

You're spot on.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Minister, glad to hear that.

I guess my final point is probably more for the Minister of Health than anything else to be honest with you, but this bill here is holding opioid manufacturers, distributors, consultants, manufactures of ingredients that would be addictive ingredients that are in the opioids themselves and, as I said, trying to cast that wide net, which is a good thing.

I'm just wondering out loud, and I'm assuming this is something that would come in an action, perhaps from patients as opposed to the government, but I would think that if I was a patient or I had a family member with an opioid addiction and I was part of a class action as an individual, that while the people that you're going after here for the health care costs obviously have a huge responsibility, I would feel that there is some degree of responsibility that must be accounted for by the medical community themselves.

The company might have manufactured it, but somebody had to write those prescriptions and somebody had to write those prescriptions over again and over again and over again and over again. We've all heard stories of people, you know, who've talked about that. It's one thing: I had an accident, I have a pain, give me an opioid, whatever, to deal with that situation. But when you hear of patients who have been on opioids for X number of years and going through them steadily and then sometimes going to the doctor in advance saying, I ran out, I had to use extra or whatever the case might be, I don't think anybody could argue.

I'm not trying to paint a negative picture with all physicians, but I think it's fair to say that there is some degree of responsibility on the health care provider in allowing somebody to continue down that path for that period of time without actually realizing and intervening to say: There is an addiction here. This is more than me prescribing something for pain. This person has an addiction.

The individual knows they have an addiction, the family, the loved ones, all realize the person has an addiction. In many cases, that person is out on the streets and everything else is going on in their lives, but for some reason the physician didn't realize there was an addiction, didn't realize there was a problem. I think there is an issue there.

I also think there's an issue when I've heard – and, again, I talked about this yesterday where I've had a couple of people who came to me that said they were prescribed opioids, they continued to receive those opioids for a long period of time and, at one point in time, the doctor just decided I'm going to drop you as a patient. Now they can't find any doctor to take them on as a patient because doctors are saying oh, we don't take patients with opioids.

So I think there's a bigger problem in terms of the role that health care providers played in all this, and also what are we going wo do to deal with people now that have opioid addictions and they have no primary care provider and primary care providers, apparently, can open up shop and say I'm not going to take people who are on opioids. So where are these people left to go?

I guess discussions need to be had with the NLMA perhaps, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and with our Department of Health to figure out how we help these people because they are out there and it is a concern.

Again, Minister, I know you're not the Minister of Health, but I just wonder if you have any commentary about that because there has to be some accountability. To my mind, it wasn't just a guy that made the pill; someone prescribed it.

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you.

I'm glad the hon. Member asked that question, albeit it was a very lengthy question, with so many parts. But I think there are a couple of things I'd like to highlight on that.

I'm going to say something first. The bill doesn't deal with this directly. It doesn't deal with this directly. It's a very valid concern that you have. I'll use the word that you used maybe in 2017, maybe 2018, that many of the doctors were hoodwinked – truly. That's part of the court case that's going forward. The manufacturers and the consultants were selling doctors and prescribers a bill of goods that didn't actually exist in the reality that we see today.

So that's what we're asserting, as a federation, that that's what they did. They marketed this as having little to no side effects; the addictive properties were not what they were; the ingredients are not what they were; and that this was going to solve the problems of the world for this particular patient.

That wasn't true. The doctors believed that, based on the research and based on what was put forward by those opioid manufacturers. That being said, if someone has a complaint about a doctor, those go to the regulatory body, and they'll be looked at from that perspective. I think there's a couple of highlighted things that you said in your question that could realistically go to the governing body to say, well, that's not really fair for a doctor to have done those things.

But I don't think you were trying to characterize the doctors all in a negative light, and that's why I'm taking this approach to say that I do honestly believe that that's the premise. A large part of the case is if they were clear and upfront and honest with the providers that they were selling these products to or telling them that these are the best products for X case, if that was actually true, we wouldn't be in this situation today. It wasn't true.

All of us have friends, family or individuals in our districts that were told that. They never started out nefariously to be addicted to opioids. This, many times, started at the other end of a prescription pad, based solely upon the recommendations by the manufacturers who were completely misleading the doctors and the prescribers in many, many instances.

So it's a very good point that you made; I'm fully supporting what you just said. That's not the legislation for it, but it's the whole foundation of why this is the issue that's right across our country. They were derelict in their responsibility to market the drugs the way that the intended outcome would be. If you knew full well that by taking this drug for longer term or even shorter term could make your patient addicted and challenging to be on those pills for the rest of their lives, you as a prescribing doctor would probably have never prescribed it or would have prescribed it differently.

I think that's the point I wanted to make, that it's important that this class action lawsuit moves forward and we hold pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers responsible for their actions that they had in single-handedly hurting communities like the Member from Placentia West - Bellevue said in his remarks, and like many of us in this House of Assembly deal with on a daily, if not hourly, basis.

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

P. LANE: I thank the minister for that and I do concur with him. Just to say it's not to cast a negative light on all doctors, as you said. That's not the intent, but I think it is a legitimate part of the conversation.

I would agree with the minister that, certainly initially, when they started prescribing it, they were told it's fine, whatever, but my concern would be, after a period of time when you prescribe it, because you're told it's fine, but then next month, they want more and next month they want more and months go by and years go by and then that person has obvious problems, addictions, I think, that a reasonable person might point out. Then I would think there would be, at that point, some degree of responsibility to recognize that and say, while it was not my intent, while I did it based on what they told, obviously I'm seeing, anecdotally in these patients, there is a problem here.

I would think, at that point in time, doctors collectively, maybe through the college, with the Department of Health, whatever, there should have been – I know it's water under the bridge at this point, we're trying to make things better, but there was a lot of damage done, I guess. At some point, somebody should have said hold on a second, b'ys, there is a problem and then come up with some way to try to solve that.

Solving the problem is not to simply say I'm going to now drop my patients who have addictions. That's not solving the problem, to say I'll just drop them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

P. LANE: It's certainly not the solution then to say that I just won't take any patients who are on opioids. So now you have someone who gets dropped, they're cold turkey and they have nowhere to go and a doctor, even if they're taking patients, are going to say I'm not taking a patient who's on opioids and that person is left to their own devices and where they go. Then they go to the street and the illegal drug trade and so on, and they spiral out of control even further.

It's a big issue. This is going to deal with reparations for the province; I get that. Glad we're doing it. I support it 100 per cent, but it is a much bigger problem and I think there's more to it than simply the drug manufacturer. They have a big role, but it wasn't just them.

As we move forward, I think it's important that we have whatever programs or resources we need to deal with people that have these opioid addictions, because right now there are a lot of them that are not getting the supports that they need, they're just not getting it.

Anyway, that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions.

J. ABBOTT: It is in the latter, Chair, that I'm going to address.

Just a little, I'll call it, historical moment, if folks go back 20 years or so, we have the oxycontin tax force. We were alerted, I'm going to say, relatively early in the issue around the presence and prescribing, and I will use the word “overprescribing” of oxycontin in our communities. The government of the day set-up the task force and really delved into the issues and came up with some really good recommendations.

So the governments since then have been very focused on how we can minimize the misuse, overuse of opioids in the community. The Prescription Monitoring Program is an example; tamper-resistant prescriptions pads are an example; the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands references the responsibility of the prescribing physician.

I know when I was the former deputy minister of Health and Community Services we – quote, unquote – reported 10 physicians to the college because of our concern about what we felt was overprescribing, taking in all the factors that we could to say there's something not right. We measured that to the best of our ability and we presented that to the college and their job was to follow up on that, which they did.

Then just moving ahead, we've been putting in a lot of resources and we're giving good statistics. For instance, right now, we have the opioid treatment hubs right across the province in recognition that we need to make sure we have resources in the community to support individuals, we have our treatment centres and we also have naloxone kits at over 150 sites here in the province. We're taking a lot of interventions into this.

The criminal activity is all around us. My colleague for Lake Melville just alerted us that the police have just done a significant arrest for illegal activity around drugs and the like in Labrador. So it's got to be multi-pronged in how we deal with that. Education in the schools is another element.

So we're doing a lot and, obviously, this bill, went passed and that court case takes off, we'll be able to be compensated for many of the initiatives that we have undertaken and our accounting systems will allow us to pull all those pieces of information together when we need it.

Thank you, Chair.

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

P. LANE: I thank the minister for that response. I agree with you and I know there are things that have to be done. I think, perhaps, unfortunately, part of the problem is, hopefully, with the new things that are in place, the monitoring and so on, we're going to prevent, hopefully, more people from getting into that spiral. Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of damage that's been done and once people are in that spiral it's very, very difficult to get them out and that's what's causing, I think, a lot of the ongoing issues we have.

That's, basically, all I had, Madam Chair. I know it wasn't directly related but I thought it's part of the much bigger issue and I thought it was an opportunity to, at least, bring that as part of the discussion to the floor.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

L. PADDOCK: Thank you, Chair.

I understand why this bill is being done, Bill 86. We're looking out for the best interests of all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, a fiduciary responsibility, if you will.

My concern in looking at debate over the past couple of days has to be the potential defence of a producer of these opiates and in our defence to their defence.

So that brought me to (6) on page 6 with the “opioid-related wrong” and further to what the MHA for Mount Pearl - Southlands, MHA for Bonavista, with regard to follow up what was related yesterday, from the MHA for Placentia West - Bellevue with regard to potential consultants, also for the MHA for Harbour Main on medical professionals.

What about and that potential risk, if that wrong was created by our own medical professionals in one of our own institutions? So that's where producer could come back and then what is our defence to that to ensure that we are not impacting a potential settlement?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's a very good question, by the way. Thank you.

The action that we're taking as a federation is so strongly rooted, our foundation of it is on the deceit of the companies. We understand, and I'm not naïve enough to believe – although, my wife may say so – that doctors didn't play a role as this went longer term.

But the initial issue was a direct reflection of the misinformation, deceitful tactics of companies to try to peddle their products that they sold as snake oil salesmen to doctors and prescribing physicians, health care systems, as the answer to a major issue that patients are having currently and would have in the future with little to no side effects. It was just going to be rainbows and pots of gold. That's the whole premise of the federation's action of how these drugs were marketed to doctors.

I think if we start with that as the premise of what this piece of legislation is trying to do, that's our defence. There are many other angles they're going to take, materials they have, evidence they're going to put out. At the end of the day, as I've said to the MHA for Bonavista, I think yesterday, it could end up in court. It most likely will. I don't anticipate they're going to come to a financial arrangement that's going to be agreeable to all provinces or territories and the federal government without being dragged to it. That's my thoughts. Maybe I'll be wrong. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. At the end of the day, I think the court is going to look at that and deal directly with those impacts as they come up.

So I think your question is great. That's why we're here trying to strengthen our defence by making those changes to this piece of framework legislation, as your colleague from Harbour Main highlighted earlier. The foundation was set in 2019. We knew that was going to be changed. Part of the reason why it never received Royal Assent was we knew we were going to change that and we didn't need to. We just needed the framework in place so we could go start those processes.

Now we're gone far enough along in that litigation process that these are some of the highlights of problems that other jurisdictions – and we're not alone in this, that we're facing, based on the legislation we have.

The initial framework legislation came out of that same process but, as they get further into litigation, they realize, okay, here's how we're going to strengthen our defence to make sure – for lack of a better term – we're boxing the companies in to a situation that they can't try to litigate themselves out of. This is a problem they've caused. I know there are probably other things that I don't want to muddy the water in to say doctors caused some of this.

Immaterial that the doctors may have caused this after the fact. They were sold something and told something that was a mistruth. The companies are going to be held to account for hopefully hundreds and hundred and hundreds of millions of dollars that's going to help alleviate some of the problems and concerns and maybe help the health care system, in general terms, better meet the needs of the challenges that we face, that are caused – I don't want to say solely by them, but a significant portion caused by them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. DAVIS: Right.

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think what my colleague with the last question was asking is through this litigation, is it going to set up vicarious liability to our doctors or pharmacists to become agents or consultants.

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

B. DAVIS: We want the best and brightest that we have in our province to consult on things that makes sense, but what this piece of legislation is doing is those consultants that were providing misinformation to prescribing doctors here in this province and other places around the world, in Canada in particular, we don't want them to be able to get away from their responsibility either.

We have lots of smart doctors in this province, nurse practitioners, nurses and health care providers in a general sense who provide a lot of advice to, I would say, Big Pharma in many cases. Knowing the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, the way they are, they would never knowingly try to push drugs that were going to impact people in our province and if they were to do that, then this legislation would be exactly what they would get and need.

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

J. DWYER: We're also looking at changing the limitation period from two to 15 years. How did we land on 15 years?

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

B. DAVIS: I think your colleague just in front of you highlighted the fact of why when she talked about the tobacco legislation. We're using that as a strong framework for how long. We hope it doesn't take that, but we got to be prepared without having to come back to the House of Assembly to do it again.

That's not to say we're not going to come back again. We may. If legal counsel and water on the beans changes, we want to make sure we're prepared and nimble enough to make sure we put ourselves, as a province and as a people, in the best possible situation for us to receive the greatest value for the horrible work that these manufacturers and consultants did to the people, not in our province only, right across the world.

You can't tell people that there are little to no side effects when you know full well that there are side effects and those side effects are going to take your family away from you, in some cases, or your life. That is not on in this department and it's not on for us as a people in this province. Everybody in this Legislature should stand up, like we will, in support to stop manufacturers trying to take advantage at profit versus people.

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

J. DWYER: I agree with that, Minister, and I think you will get the approval from this side of the House as well.

Is there an estimate of cost that has been submitted calculated in the new formula?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you.

I think I said earlier – I just can't remember to whom – we don't have that. The cost will be paid out of the settlement. Many of the lawyers that we would have as lead counsel for us, they're not taking any money from us at this point. If we were to lose the case, maybe that would be a case, but they're taking their chances based on the settlement that we will receive as a federation from the opioid manufacturers.

Not unlike what tobacco would be. I mean, obviously, there is a cost because we've been involved in that for so long with people at the helm. There are people that started their career and are going to end their career on tobacco, getting that through the legal system.

Hopefully, that will end soon, and I'm very hopeful that this won't be as long, based on the experience that we have as a country and as a province.

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

J. DWYER: The last question there: Are the reparations for Newfoundland and Labrador more with the new formula or with the old formula?

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

B. DAVIS: Definitely any change that we would have made would have been in a positive degree in that spectrum. We want to make sure that we have the most opportunity to get the most out of this class action.

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, in one of his questions before, I think I went down the road of saying, okay, it's not just based on per capita; that's one starting point. It will also be based on geography, based on the costs associated with delivery of services. Because sometimes it's cheaper to deliver services in the 905 or the 514 than it would be to do it in 709.

Like, we all know that because we live it. I mean, MHAs, in your district is a challenge because it's from one end to the other. It's a very big geographic spread to provide health care for individuals. All of those things will factor into what the settlement will be and, at the end of the day, a judge or a court will have to approve what is submitted anyway to make sure fairness is put across the country.

We're not going to settle for less than fairness across the country; we want what we should get as a people. We're not going to get dollar-for-dollar what we spend, I'm sure, but there will be some negotiation at the end of that process.

Thank you for the question.

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

P. LANE: Thank you.

I just had another question; it just came to my mind. Just wondering, Minister, I know you indicated all provinces, territories, the country is in. Are other countries doing this, or is it just Canada? I don't know if anyone asked that or not.

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

B. DAVIS: Definitely the United States; I don't know for sure, just based on my reading there are more countries involved. I can't speak to exactly who; I do remember recently reading something that says the US is in a similar process with opioids in their country.

We're fighting based on what we know is exact here. Obviously all those cases, if they've been settled or if they're going to be settled, they will be moving along a similar path to what we will and they will all frame how we're going to do, too.

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

P. LANE: I understand, Minister. I guess it just came to my mind if opioids are not going to distinguish between what country someone's taking them in, I would think if we're successful here in Canada, countries all around the world are going to want to do the same thing.

Anyway, that's all I have.

Thanks.

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

B. DAVIS: (Inaudible) absolutely. Just like opioids don't know boundaries, where people do them, that's exactly what I think will happen. Once there's a success that's had, whether it's here in our jurisdiction in Canada, or in the US or Great Britain, wherever, that will all help in the process. And there are other countries that are not currently doing that, that will move on those as well.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers, shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 12 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 12 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 12 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Bill 86)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The title is 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: Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 83, An Act to Amend the Medical Act, 2011 No. 2.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Medical Act, 2011 No. 2.” (Bill 83)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Just to make sure I'm correct, this is clause 1, Bill 83, correct?

CHAIR: Yes.

J. BROWN: Okay, perfect. I just wanted to double check and make sure; we're doing two bills at once.

Chair, which of the groups were consulted in the drafting of this legislation? Can you give an idea of the feedback from the groups that were consulted during the designing of this legislation?

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

J. HAGGIE: Yes, thank you.

Everybody really who had a stake in this. We talked to the College of Physicians and Surgeons; the NLMA; CAPA, which is Canada Association of Physician Assistants and they were all universally supportive.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Are there any ways in which the amendments will lead to improvements in physician recruitment and retention, given the physicians helpers.

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

J. HAGGIE: Yes, the whole concept is one of physician extenders. So they are supports for physicians. The difference between them and nurse practitioners is physician assistants are trained in what is called the medical model; nurse practitioners are trained in an analogous way but in a nursing care model.

So what you will see is another range of health care providers added to the existing complement that we can't already licence and use at the moment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: The language in clarification here, it says that the NLMA may charge fees for membership.

Are you thinking that removing fees altogether for future or is it just the “may” is kind of subjective there?

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

J. HAGGIE: I'm not sure which clause, exactly, the Member is referring to, but as far as membership of the NLMA is concerned, it is entirely up to them whether or not they choose to charge membership and, if so, what level of fee they charge.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Section 2, just for clarification for the minister, as well. Are there any cases where the NLMA would hold off notifying the college of an applicant's failure to pay the membership fee? The language here, currently, leaves the discretion of the association. It doesn't make it automatic.

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

J. HAGGIE: I can't think of one because it has, in the past, been contingent on you being a member of the NLMA to actually keep your licence, but that's up to the NLMA.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: This would be under section 3. What are the considerations behind changing the language from through continuing medical education to continuing complete and quality improvement? What was the consideration there?

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

J. HAGGIE: It was to harmonize the fact that you're going to be talking about physician assistants as well. Terminology changes, you know, back in the day it was called updating, then it became continuous professional development, then it became continuous medical development and it's back to continuous professional development now. We're talking about continuous quality improvement.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Minister.

This will be under section 4. Is there any mechanism in the bylaws or elsewhere to ensure that all seven spots on a council for medical practitioners and physician assistants don't go entirely to one group or the other, to make sure there's a complement of both?

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

J. HAGGIE: I would have to check with the bylaws which are actually not part of this bill but, quite frankly, that would be the intent in terms of diversity and when we've made specific reference here to make sure there's a physician assistant on and that kind of thing. That, certainly, is the intent.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

This would be under section 4. Why is the power to nominate council members moved from the board of regents to the faculty of medicine? Wouldn't the board of regents be able to provide a broader list of competent people working in the health field in general? Why is this different, unique and, I guess, a useful perspective to share with the council?

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

J. HAGGIE: It was discussions with MUN and with the faculty of medicine. I think the focus here with this being the college is, as a professional standards body, it was felt appropriate that the academic representation, represented the academic disciplines of medicine, rather than academia, in general.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

How often does this happen that anybody comes forward to represent a region on the council in reference to the proposal 9(1.2)?

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

J. HAGGIE: The council itself, the college, actually has a fairly vigorous process for canvassing its members to seek interested parties from across the province. I still get those.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Why are they removing the stipulation that the registrar or the deputy registrar have to be a medical practitioner?

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

J. HAGGIE: The college were quite happy with this. It is consistent with other jurisdictions. There will be certainly a significant body of professional representation on any functioning portion of the college, be it the board, the council of the college, be it disciplinary panels, be it tribunals. So it was felt that maybe someone with administrative and organizational skills, at that senior leadership level, would be more of a help.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

What particular considerations led to the amendments to the quorum rules for these updates?

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

J. HAGGIE: Making sure there was an adequate number of people, representation of diversity and there was actually an ability to have a quorum. That can be a challenge in certain organizations and I think this was just felt to be a package of mechanisms to avoid that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

This would be under section 12. What are the specific problems that arose with the current system of having all licences expire on January 15?

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

J. HAGGIE: Logistics essentially, that was the main problem. Once you get beyond a certain membership, I mean, this act in 2011, there were probably, just taking from memory, be slightly more than 1,000 registrants. That number is significantly higher now because of locums and other changes. I think it's simply being logistics.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Minister.

What are the limits that will be placed on this clause of practitioner and what time limits are you looking for to place on these coming exemptions? That would section 16.

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

J. HAGGIE: That is down to the discretion, to a certain extent, of the college. If you look, the current provisional licence was set to have an expiry date, a permanent expiry date of five years. That caused significant challenges with actually keeping the health system running. There were grandfathering mechanisms as well for people of my vintage, for example, who came in on a provisional licence, where it would not expire until you did, basically, from a professional point of view.

Again, this will be an operational issue in some respects for the college, bearing in mind their job is to, (a), protect the public but, (b), part of that is actually making sure that they have adequate numbers of physicians.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: I thank the minister for that.

This would be under section 21. What was behind the 10-1 ratio chosen between medical practitioners and physician assistants on the disciplinary panel?

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

J. HAGGIE: Practicality in the first instance. There would be a desire to make sure PAs were on such a panel. Again, these are in very short supply. The only bulk producers really is the military. They've revamped their entire program through Borden as of 2013. There are two academic institutions that produce them as well.

So to be honest, we're only going to get them by poaching them from somewhere else in the first place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: This would be under section 32. What are the requirements for the peer assessment committee to publish an annual report being removed?

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

J. HAGGIE: I will double check on that.

What section was it you're referring to again?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Section 32.

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

J. HAGGIE: Section 32. Where are we? I've lost count here.

I think the answer for that was basically it was duplicative. That responsibility falls elsewhere under the council, and so it was simply to streamline the process. There is no point of having two reports on the same thing.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: This will be my second last question here. It will be under section 41. Are there any known cases where the practice of medicine is permitted to be carried out by a person under another statute on this?

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

J. HAGGIE: The Canadian Armed Forces would be the one that leaks out. Their licence is held by the Surgeon General, not by any provincial body. We have (inaudible) in Gander, a GDMO at the base, and we have had it for about seven years now. The first time for a while. So they practise on a different licence.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: I guess this is a segway to my next question about the military, given that the physician assistants, you said, Borden would have been a place where they were being trained. Have you spoken to the military or any of those things about these practitioners coming into the provincial system?

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

J. HAGGIE: Well, going back a long time, I've certainly spoken to at least two, three Surgeons General about stealing them; they weren't exactly ecstatic. But we, on this occasion, have not. It's a bit of a difficult conversation to have. I mean, the military aren't necessarily going to want to supply that.

Indirectly, they do, because I've had a lot of inquiries over the years from serving members who are about to be released, who are PAs, who want to go into civilian practice and they can't. With this, they will be able to, so we'll keep them home.

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Chair.

I have a few questions. How many active physician assistants are in the province currently?

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

J. HAGGIE: Well, I don't know. I think there is one at the CFB Gander, but they're practising on federal licences with military only.

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

B. PETTEN: How will implementing physician assistants increase access to health care in the province?

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

J. HAGGIE: More bodies able to provide primary care, more bodies able to provide secondary care and maybe even tertiary care, depending on the level of expertise of the PA concerned.

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

B. PETTEN: Minister, due to overlapping in duties, has the Registered Nurses' Union or the college been consulted on these changes?

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

J. HAGGIE: They're not necessarily overlapping duties; they are parallel and they work a different model. The physician assistant works in a medical model under the supervision of an identified physician. Nurse practitioners are autonomous and practise through a scope of practice arrangement set out in bylaws by the College of Registered Nurses.

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

B. PETTEN: Was the College of Physicians and Surgeons consulted on this legislation?

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

J. HAGGIE: It was mostly their idea, once we got the discussions about PA under way.

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you.

Were medical students and medical residents consulted?

CHAIR: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The Association of Interns and Residents, I couldn't speak to whether they were consulted directly. They certainly would have a voice through their seats on the NLMA.

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

B. PETTEN: Will there be access to physician assistant training or education in the province?

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

J. HAGGIE: We've got to walk before we can run. So if you look nationally, I think there are two civilian sites that are training physician assistants, both in fairly large, populous provinces. There has been some discussion at a very early level with the Atlantic provinces, who may be between them.

Just for clarity, both the RNU and the Professional Association of Interns and Residents, provincial, were consulted. In actual fact, there's an amendment coming to clarify that in a minute and I'll get that right by the time we get to it.

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

B. PETTEN: Acronyms – it's all about acronyms.

What other provinces use physician assistants, Minister? Can you give an example of the scope of their work?

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

J. HAGGIE: I do have a jurisdictional scan. If memory serves me right you can start at BC and move in four provinces. So BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have them in civilian practice.

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

B. PETTEN: Can you give any examples also of the scope of work? What are some examples?

J. HAGGIE: You can have various. You can them do primary care, which is family medicine, for want of a better word. So they would see patients, assess, diagnose, treat, prescribe in a way that physicians would do within an agreed limit set between them and their physician. In other practices, you can see them in the OR in a first assist role. You can see them do preoperative anaesthetic care clinics. You can see them as anaesthesia extenders.

Really, the range of use of a physician assistant is really limited by the discussions between the physician who supervises them and the PA. Military have been happy to do all sorts of things with PAs in the field and there are some really interesting tales of advanced scope of practice from Helmand Province, for example, of Afghanistan.

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you.

The legislation gives the definition of practice of medicine. Is it the same definition for doctors and for nurse practitioners or would the definition change between these two types of health care providers?

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

J. HAGGIE: The definition in law and the definition in practice is determined by two different things. The definition of clinical practice is determined in physician assistants via a different mechanism than via nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners' scope of practice is defined by the College of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador in a scopes of practice document. It is a more informal arrangement for physician assistants and, again, reflects the difference in training in terms of theory and nursing. Their scopes overlap but their methodologies differ.

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

B. PETTEN: How will the IAC be involved in the appointments of the council?

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

J. HAGGIE: I don't think the IAC is involved in that but I will check about the public representatives. I think that's LGIC but I will check.

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

B. PETTEN: Under clause 10: Is there a list of acceptable post-secondary programs?

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

J. HAGGIE: It's the Public Service Commission for recommendations for public reps and they're appointed by the minister. Just to answer the previous question.

That would be up to the college to determine. It determines standards in the same way as it would determine what's an acceptable medical school for an IMG.

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

B. PETTEN: What about qualifications or requirements, is that also the responsibility of the college?

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

J. HAGGIE: Yes, the idea is to turn this group into a regulated profession and that is the job of the regulator.

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

B. PETTEN: What would be the scope of practice and role of physician assistants?

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

J. HAGGIE: That would be determined by regulations through the college and by negotiation with the physician concerned.

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

B. PETTEN: Under clause 16, the exemption: Will this apply when highly specialized doctors travel in the province to perform specific procedures that they are experts in?

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

J. HAGGIE: Yes.

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

B. PETTEN: Will this apply to a doctor who comes into the province for less than a month to cover ER in a rural hospital?

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

J. HAGGIE: I think that is more in the realm of a locum rather than, necessarily, a one-off visiting expert. It will be up to the college to determine whether, you know, your coming here as an expert to do something that nobody else in the province can do or you're coming here to provide a service that would normally be provided by a physician in this province. It would be up to them to determine whether or not you're a locum or an expert.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Will PAs just work specifically with one individual doctor or will they work in a hospital setting?

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

J. HAGGIE: I would envisage they would be in any setting where physician assistants were felt to be a benefit. How that would work, precisely, would be determined by regulation of the college.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Will there be situations where they work by themselves?

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

J. HAGGIE: They do in other places.

AN HON. MEMBER: Supervising.

J. HAGGIE: My colleague said about supervision. Having said that, CAF have pushed it because the only medical on a ship, a frigate, a destroyer of the Canadian Navy is a PA, under normal circumstances. They do have supervision but it's done through high bandwidth remote tech.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Will physician assistants be able to bill MCP?

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

J. HAGGIE: Currently, the thinking is that they would be salaried employees of the health care system and that's to be determined, but that's where our heads are at the moment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Will there be situations where PAs work for nurse practitioners or with?

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

J. HAGGIE: They are parrel not joint. My understanding is that it would be an exceptional situation where that would happen because they have different scopes of practice and different reporting lines. I couldn't think of a situation where that would happen.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So through military standards, it's a QL6B individual who goes from being a medic into physician assistant and part of that training includes regular medics that are advanced paramedics, training in hospitals. Will there be a situation where advanced paramedics in the province will have an opportunity to do that?

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

J. HAGGIE: The military did go through a significant revamp, or were going to, back in my day in Borden where they were going to make a degree level program pretty much like nursing. Prior to that, it had been master warrant officer, X years and level five or six or whatever it was in those days, before you could enter and the dropout rate was phenomenal. That's why they decided to change it.

I think the nature of their training and qualifications is a matter for the college to determine. How much in parallel it will be with the military one, I'm sure they would be quite happy to take a military trained PA, but that's the next stage down. If you were ever to set up a training program here, what will be the relevant piece for the college will be currency. What is it you have to do to keep your ticket?

Physicians have certain stuff they have to do. We, in Gander, help recertify SAR techs but that's a military requirement and we're civilian sign-offs for it, but I'm sure that the college will have a view, best practices from other jurisdictions about how you keep PAs fresh.

CHAIR: Anymore questions?

Seeing no further speakers, shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

Oh, sorry.

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

J. HAGGIE: I have two corrections, as much as amendments, to the bill. I have a clean copy for you here. Both of them refer to clause 2.

The one I've got on clause 2.6(1) the words “shall be” are removed and the word “are” is substituted, A-R-E.

CHAIR: Okay, we're going to recess to examine the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment as presented is in order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I trust the Members on the opposite side will support it.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment, as presented, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

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

J. HAGGIE: There is an error in clause 4.

AN HON. MEMBER: Typo, not an error.

J. HAGGIE: Well, yes, paragraph 9(1)(f) the word “Provincial” is incorrect. It should be “Professional” Association of Residents.

Moved by me and seconded by the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

CHAIR: We have to recess now to look at the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: The amendment, as presented, is in order.

Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 4, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 5 through 62 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 5 through 62 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 5 through 62 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: A bill, An Act to Amend the Medical Act, 2011 No. 2. (Bill 83)

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 amendments?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 86, An Act to Amend the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, passed without amendment.

I further move that the Committee rise and report Bill 83, An Act to Amend the Medical Act, 2011 No. 2, carried with amendments.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 86, An Act to Amend the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act without amendment and the Committee rise and report Bill 83, An Act to Amend the Medical Act, 2011 No. 2, with amendments.

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 Placentia - St. Mary's and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 86 without amendment and Bill 83 with amendments.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed that Bill 86 be carried without amendment and Bill 83 be carried with amendment.

When shall the reports be received?

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

L. DEMPSTER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 11, second reading of Bill 68, An Act to Amend the Lands Act No. 2.

Speaker, that's seconded by the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

It's moved and seconded that Bill 68, An Act to Amend Lands Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Lands Act No. 2.” (Bill 68)

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

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

This is an important occasion for the House, but I think more importantly it's an important occasion for many, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that have been looking to see changes with the administration and the legislation surrounding our Crown lands and our land process.

I am very proud to introduce this legislation on behalf of our government and with our government that will see, for the very first time in over 48 years significant, substantial amendments to the Lands Act. But, more in particular, a serious amendment, a recasting of the intent of our lands administration.

I say that very deliberately, because in June of 1976 – June 1, I believe, in particular – the Lands Act was amended, and amended with a particular purpose in mind. It was to abolish adverse possession. In fact, the legislation as it reads today, section 36, is entitled the abolishment of squatters' rights, of adverse possession.

Since 1977, when the act came into force on January 1 of 1977, it has been the intent of every legislature, every premier and every government since to abolish squatters' rights. Frank Moores of the day decided this. For those who care to examine Hansard, it was very deliberate, very intentional, and it was to end opportunities for citizens to pursue claims against the Crown for squatters' rights, for adverse possession.

Squatters' rights must be squashed. Squatters' rights must die. Frank Moores upheld that, Brian Peckford upheld that, Clyde Wells upheld that, Brian Tobin upheld that. I can go through a series of them. Beaton Tulk upheld that, Roger Grimes upheld that, Danny Williams upheld that, Kathy Dunderdale upheld that, Paul Dicks upheld that.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm going to ask the minister to refer to them as former premiers, just for the title for clarity for Hansard and those listening.

G. BYRNE: Because that's what they were, former premiers. Thank you very much for the clarification, Mr. Speaker.

But the point being is that government after government after government took the position that squatters' rights, adverse possession must die.

So with that said, this is the first administration that says we must do something to allow adverse possession to be enacted, reasonably for those who can benefit from it, but, again, there is an expectation of a limitation period for this.

So the previous limitation period, the previous exception was that one must prove to a reasonable standard that a piece of land was occupied openly, notoriously, consecutively and exclusively for a period of 60 years. This was the case prior to the '77 amendment.

The purpose of the '77 amendment was to put in place a very specific limitation period, an exclusionary exemption period to move that period from 60 years to 20 years. That 20 years was defined in legislation as being from January 1, 1957, to December 31, 1976. For all practical purposes from '57 to '77.

I try to maintain a dignity to what I'm about to say but I have to say it as it was described at the time. Squatters' rights, adverse possession would die as the knowledgeable affiants died. As the pool of affiants diminished because of age, that the ability for one to successfully claim squatters' rights would also end.

So to put it into perspective, if one were 18 years old in 1957, you were of age, you had an ability and you could be expected to understand in some detail how someone occupied a piece of land, someone other than yourself, someone in the community. You were 18 years of age and you could describe with certainty and could sign an affidavit knowing that to sign an affidavit falsely would be a criminal offence. You could sign an affidavit saying I know the history of this property and I know it from 1957 onwards to 1977. If you were 18 years of age at that point in time in 1957, you would be in your late 80s now.

With that said, that was the intention of the Legislature of that time, that squatters' rights would end when that pool of affiants was no longer available.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'll speak further about that. We have taken a decision that we would like people to be able to avail of a squatters' rights opportunity, if they have met the test in law to dispose the Crown, because they occupied a piece of land openly, notoriously, consecutively and exclusively, we would like people to be able to fulfill that promise.

We do so knowing that by reducing the evidentiary period from 20 years to 10, it makes it easier because you do not have to provide 20 years of evidence; you now have to provide 10. The availability, the pool of affiants is now available again.

With that said, it was always the intention of every government that squatters' rights, adverse possession should die, that it should end and enforcement actions to remove people who are illegally occupying land, land without title, that they should be removed from that land. That was the intention of this Legislature 48 years ago, 47 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago. So we want to make an opportunity to be able for people to get good title to their land.

With that said, I'll address this further. This is a story, this is an initiative which is both vested in legislation and in policy. We're here tonight to talk about legislation. The conversation undoubtedly will move into the direction of policy as well. The legislation does enable certain policy initiatives. We have amended legislation because using legislation as an instrument to respond to claims and to respond to circumstances sets a very, very rigid standard. You cannot interfere or violate legislation. The flexibility has been removed when, for example, dates are established in legislation or certain courses of actions are dictated by the word “shall” instead of “may.” This is all important.

So we're dealing with a situation, a total rework or reimagination of Crown lands that is both legislation and policy based. So I do expect we'll get a lot of questions on policy. I'll be happy to take those at Committee of the Whole.

But we are doing several things, not just allowing adverse possession applications an opportunity to succeed. We're also creating an independent tribunal, because that evidence of adverse possession, evidence of occupation that is open, notorious, exclusive and consecutive, it is a subjective examination as to whether or not that test of evidence has been met.

The evidence is not arbitrary. The test is not arbitrary. It is founded. The concepts of adverse possession through open, notorious, consecutive and exclusive occupation are well rooted in common law. They're accepted throughout the Commonwealth. They're accepted through first world democracies throughout the world and it's a standard common term. But the evidence around that is indeed subject to interpretation, interpretation by Crown Lands officials.

They can get it wrong. They can not necessarily interpret the facts correctly and can get it wrong. We have all seen it. There has been a frustration within our constituents who come to us about whether or not the officials got it right and interpreted it correctly.

Of course, the only course of action up until, hopefully, the passage of this bill, if someone is determined not to have met the test, there can be an appeal, but the appeal is done largely by the same officials who made the original decision. So there is a confidence issue about the appeal that has to be sorted out. The only other alternative is to go to a quieting of titles trial, which is expensive.

That's expensive; let's call it as it is. You got to get a lawyer; you got all sorts of evidence that you have to bring. That's not a great way to do things, in my opinion, if there's an alternative way.

With that said, we are doing something which, quickly frankly, I don't think has ever been thought of before or I'm not aware that it's ever appeared in any consultation, any recommendation, anything that was brought forward previously. That is to implement a quasi-judicial appeal board to hear cases of where people may feel as though they have not been heard correctly and would like to have that adjudicated.

So, Speaker, our intentions are that we'll make that readily accessible. We'll have regional boards: one for West Labrador, one for Central, one for Eastern. They'll be constituted by lawyers, members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Law Society, members of the bar, as well as other credible professionals: members from the surveying community, professional engineers, others and a citizens' rep that will operate to be able to hear those appeals.

I think that's a smart innovation, to be honest with you. That will go over very well. There will be a nominal fee to be able to file an appeal before the appeal board. If someone is successful in getting their appeal and getting their decision overturned, that fee will be refunded to them.

We want to make sure that people have reasonable access to this appeal board. We want to make sure that frivolous claims don't come forward; that people honestly, genuinely believe that they have a strong case; that time is not overly consumed by cases which maybe even the applicant doesn't necessarily believe that they may meet but, what the heck, we might as well try.

With that said, we'll give natural justice its fair due. We'll provide this appeal system and if you are successful, full refund and you get your section 36 grant.

The other thing we're doing is we're creating a process by we recognize that there is a significant volume of land. The act of dispossession of the Crown is a common law axiom, a principle. There are very large areas of land in our province, especially in historic legacy communities such as Bonavista or St. John's, which clearly the Crown has been dispossessed from. We know that the Crown has been dispossessed from Prescott Street and the entire area, just to use that as an example. But we can't say with precision who is the current owner because that will have to be an evidentiary test. There has to be a test of good title and chain of good title.

But we know that Prescott Street and that entire area, the Crown has been dispossessed from this property. That is where we are going to create, basically, a quitclaim. The Crown will quit, will basically provide a certificate of disposition that area has been dispossessed. So there is no opportunity for the Crown to come back and say you owe us money, or you have to get off this land. Because the Crown has acknowledged and stated out loud, stated to the world, the Crown does not own your property so the Crown cannot take action against you.

That is very important. So areas of historic Bonavista, for example, or historic Trinity, St. John's, areas of Corner Brook, that is clear that the Crown has been dispossessed, we will work with communities to be able to establish what exactly that boundary is. It is not to take in the entire municipal planning and development regulatory area of the community. It's to take the area to which the Crown has been clearly dispossessed from. We will offer a certificate of dispossession for that area to make sure that there is no ambiguity that the Crown is expecting in all this.

The other thing that we are doing is we're creating a pathway for home title ownership, to get clarity that the land that has been possessed for a period of time, to which a home has been built on, and the home is the primary residence of someone today. It does not necessarily have to mean that the person who is in that home today was the original builder of that house. That house could have been conveyed through a family estate or purchased without good title.

What we will do is say, for the purposes of housing security, recognizing that this individual who occupies that land today could, if they had all the evidence to support an adverse claim against His Majesty, against the Crown, could get that land and own it in good title through adverse possession. But this is someone who has not been able to establish, in law and in evidence, that they have access to a claim of good title through squatters' rights, even though the possessory period of squatters' rights has been cut in half, has been made easier. This is for someone who cannot meet that test but still has a home that they live in that sits on land which they cannot establish as being theirs.

We can get into a discussion about the fact they paid for the land and so they felt they owned the land and we could talk about how the legal community, the real estate community has a role in that. That will be an important conversation but, at the end of the day, every lawyer who certifies a piece of property has to truthfully believe that when a certificate of title is issued, that they would not meet their opinion of what good title is; they meet the test of law of what good title is. When they offer a lawyer's certificate of title to that individual, that representative has to believe that the test of law has been met.

So we'll talk a little bit more about that later, but that is something that is, I think, very, very important. If they cannot then meet that test of law – lawyers themselves don't actually agree that often about a lawyer's certificate. Lawyers are the ones who actually challenge – in a sale of a piece of property, one lawyer representing the seller, for example, may offer a lawyer's certificate of title. The lawyer representing the buyer, however, may say I don't agree. This certificate that you're offering does not meet the test of black letter law. Because, in my interpretation, you do not have the evidence to meet the adverse possession test. So what ends up happening often in those cases, is that the lawyer for the buyer will then go through the adverse possession test themselves or they will recommend to their client: Go ahead and buy the property from the Crown and then you can sell it to the buyer. That's what the seller will do.

I hope I made that distinction correct in my – the lawyer for the seller, may either do one of two things, go through the adverse possession test and establish good title, or he or she may recommend to their client, what you really need to do is just go ahead and buy the land from the Crown, get title through the Crown and then you can sell it.

So lawyers often do not agree with lawyers about what lawyer certificates are. So what this is, the Primary Residence Property Title Program provides a means for those who live on a piece of land, to be able to get security for that land. We will offer a quick-claim deed in reply. If you meet the test of primary occupancy in the community and you show that you genuinely believe that you own the land because you paid taxes and it's your primary residence, it's not a seasonal cottage, it's your home, then nobody will have to pay fair market value for that land.

Let me just emphasize a point here. You may say, well, why would they have to pay anything if they already paid for it, for example? The answer to that question is very simple. They don't have to pay anything for it, if they meet the test of adverse possession in law because they could simply go and get an adverse possession grant, a section 36 grant. But these are for cases where people do not have that ability, because they operated outside of the statutory limitation period, the exemption period for squatters' rights.

There's no evidence that anyone occupied the property in full and in title between 1967 and '77, so there's a gap. Common law is very clear about this. If you have a 10-year gap, or a significant gap in occupation, then there is no adverse possession.

With that said, this says, do you know what? We could simply say, we're done here; you don't own it, too bad. I am not going to take that advice. So we're going to create a pathway to be able to allow for individuals to be able to get confidence in the property that they own.

In that process, there is no evaluation going to be made of the structure of the house or the barn or anything that's built on it. It's purely of the land itself and seniors in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement will pay absolutely nothing except for standard processing fees.

Then we have a Schedule that I can talk about at Committee or otherwise, but I want to keep going here because we have a lot of things to talk about, but we can talk about the fact that no one will pay what would otherwise be considered the fair market value. It will be a very, very moderate, fair-minded result. Bearing in mind that if the Lands Act had stayed the same, the same as it was for 48 consecutive years, 48 years where every government since before 1976 had said: Get off that land, it's not yours. You're done. Get off and we're going to put a court order against you if you don't get off. That's the difference between this strategy and that strategy. I think I like our strategy better.

One of the things you may say is that, maybe there are people left out about this. The truth is yes, because I think the reason why no government acted for 48 consecutive years was because governments took the position that if you can't solve everybody's problem, solve nobody's problem. That's a choice. I think we have a responsibility to do what's right, do what's fair, to recognize that there were some people, many people, who just simply bought the land underneath their house because they needed that security and they paid full market value for it.

That's the balance we strike here. There are people who said prior to this: I've got my home. I believed that I bought it in good faith. I paid money for it. I honestly believe that the person selling it owned it or I believe that I own the land because I inherited from my ancestors or various circumstances. But the reality is, they bought the land at full price. Now, that does not tell me that we should be rigid to this, but there is a balance of fairness to all of this.

So that's why I offer the solution that we do. If a lawyer's certificate was issued saying that the test of squatters' rights have been met, if somebody bought a piece of land or has a certificate in their hands from a lawyer that says the test of squatters' rights has been met, I would encourage them to take that certificate and the evidence that is attached to it and apply for squatters' rights because the lawyer has said that is the case.

If it's not available to them because the lawyer has not necessarily interpreted the evidence correctly or the evidence the lawyer provides is not being interpreted correctly by the Crown Lands officials, we have the independent quasi-judicial tribunal to assist in this so that we can get to the bottom of this and we can get a fair-minded decision.

That's where we are in most cases, but I do want to touch on the fact that regular Crown lands applications – before I do that, I want to say I am guided in the strategies that I have deployed and in the legislative amendments that we have crafted by the advice from Members from this House. Your lived experiences with your constituents, you providing the circumstances, the situations that have been problematic, frustrating, they are the oxygen to which this fire burns. They are the cause. They are the source of the real-world situations that we must try to resolve, so I thank hon. Members.

As frustrating as it sometimes is to drink from the firehose of Crown lands issues because they are many, but they do provide the source of how this bill was constructed. The balance of trying to do something for as many people as you reasonably can. Don't take the approach: if you can't solve everybody's problems, solve nobody's problems. Try to respect the fact that there are those that paid full market value when they could not get a good chain of title for their property; try to respect the fact that there are those who have faced housing insecurity, regardless, that need their confidence; try to make sure that the process is fair. It is fed by the experience of our constituents.

Finally, we do need a smoother application process for regular Crown lands applications. Those applications for land for which there is no dispute the Crown owns the land and we would like to buy or lease the land. Those applications need to be streamlined, the process needs to be improved to a faster answer and a better answer.

One of the ways we're doing that is an online portal. We'll have applications online that can be paid online. That will be going up very, very shortly. The work is already done there. I got that done. We're also going to make sure that the referral process – nobody wants to have a septic tank in the middle of a municipal water system. That's one of the reasons why Crown Lands refers applications out to other departments. We don't want to have somebody build a piece of property on a flood plain. There are all sorts of different reasons why it's important to ask other departments to reflect on whether or not this is a good use of Crown lands.

But the problem has always been that sometimes these referrals sit for a long time without reply. That's one of the reasons why many people have issues with Crown Lands, but the truth is what the real issue sometimes is, is Transportation and Infrastructure, Water Resources, Environment and Conservation, you name it, it's a whole bunch of other departments that may be part of the issue.

How we're going to deal with that is a specific referral period. Instead of sitting on a desk forever or for a long period of time, every department, once referred, will have 30 days to reply to a Crown Lands referral. If they need an extra seven days and ask for another seven days, we'll give it to them. But it will not be any longer than 37 days to which they must reply.

We don't know what the reply will be, but they must reply within 30 days, with a possible extension of seven days. And if they do not reply, the answer is deemed accepted. So if they do not reply, we are just going to assume and deem the application supported by that department and we move forward. That's how we can shorten application processing times and getting people to a faster final decision.

That's it in a nutshell. I want to take a moment to thank, so, so sincerely the amazing people at Crown Lands led by Tara Morgan, our director, supported by our new assistant deputy minister in that branch, Steve Balsom. But the director of Land Management, the managers within the department, everybody involved, they do an amazing job and their heart is always with the applicant. It's a frustrating and difficult job. We're going to get them more resources to be able to do those jobs.

But I truly want to thank the imagination and the integrity of the people within Crown Lands who work so hard on our behalf. The challenge has been theirs and they've risen to the challenge each and every time and their work is helping us to get a better outcome today.

So with that said, Mr. Speaker, thank you very, very much. I hope that we can get resolution to this bill quickly so that we can get people with answers before Christmas of this year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It is good to be up here to speak on Bill 68, An Act to Amend the Crown Lands. We've been asking for this. We've been looking for this for the past number of years, couple of years especially.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: We saw some problems within the Crown land issues. There are a lot of problems that were plaguing Crown lands, so we've brought in PMRs. We brought in questions, looking for changes to Crown land to help alleviate some of the problems that are affecting Crown lands. We did so in May of 2023. We brought in a PMR and the other side decided there's no problem with Crown lands. We're going to deny the PMR. They defeated it.

Th following year we brought it in again, because we couldn't get no satisfaction to get some legislation brought in for Crown lands. All of a sudden, after I guess they had so many problems issued to them from other constituents of their own that they finally realized, well, we do have a problem with Crown lands.

Here today, we do see some sort of legislation coming in to try to do something with the legislation, but that leads to many questions, many unanswered issues here as well. This is something we've been lobbying, of course, and listening to people. The minister says it's been five decades this has been happening. True, but back in 2015, there was a review done, never adopted by the government – one decade. Five decades, they wasted one already.

That is also stated in the AG's report of Crown lands, it' says: The Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture had not implemented the 2015 recommendation of the Lands Act Review. Even the Auditor General says you should have done it – 10 years, one decade, and says you should have done it.

There were 134 recommendations in there, you couldn't find one to bring in. So now, they've did some pieces of legislation, which is going to take a long time to get this implemented. It's going to take a long time to do something with it. The minister did state of the quieting of titles, 20 years to prove, that stuff. But there's a five-year time period there to have this done. What happens after the five-year time period, that's one thing.

But again, I'll refer to the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General said that she has serious concerns with the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture's ability to effectively manage Crown lands administration. That's the Auditor General. We've heard lots of stories from constituents and individuals but that's the Auditor General.

So to put in a five-year time period, I don't know what they're going to do about that one. I mean, the minister has said that they're going to have appeal boards – independent by the way – that's going to be picked by the minister. So there are going to be appeal boards there, four or five appeal boards, so that they're going to be able to review this.

Within five years, you have to get the appeal boards together, get all this done. You're looking at more applications coming in from individuals within those five-year time periods. The Auditor General has already said in her report again that there was only person doing appraisals in Crown lands, which takes a lot of time to get those appraisals done.

So with more applications, more approvals to be done, it's going to take a long time period to get all this implemented and done. Then we have the approvals themselves. The minister said, they've said that they got a 90-day time window. The minister always did get up and tout 90 days. At one point, he said he had it down to 60. He was really doing well. Not according to the Auditor General – not according to the Auditor General. She's had concerns that wait times and approvals by the minister's department was a turnaround of 90 days. They've alluded to 60 days.

The Auditor General found that it has been 172 day and, in some cases, up to 615 days. Yet, they've always been 90 days. The minister, when he was minister before for the fisheries and lands, always said 90 days. Like I say, he touted 60 days in the Auditor General report.

So we're looking at a five-year time period to have this done. There's a lot of work in that department to do, from the government here, to have this done in five years. They had 10 years to pick up the review back in 2015, which is 10 years gone. So they couldn't do it in 10, now they're going to do it in 5.

There are a lot of questions to ask here. We've already been through the five-year time period. Again, that seems like it's going to be a big one. Legislation has to be implemented. Surveys have to be done to acquire those land applications. There will be surveys and after 30 days, you know, if the different departments are not back, the minister is going to challenge them. You take Service NL with septic tanks, even though they're going to approve that septic tank, when the time comes to get it done, will that septic tank get approved?

You know that septic tank still got to be done, still got to be approved, even though they are going to accept 37 days and they're going to do it. It still got to be done by that department, whether it's accepted by Crown Lands or not. So there's some communication going to have to be done there to verify who's going to accept that approval. So there's a lot there to look at.

Establish appeal boards: we went through that one. So if the minister needs to look at the time period on that and probably needs to change the time period on that to have this done, with the Auditor General's scathing report on the Crown lands alone, and to have this done within a five-year time period, it seems virtually impossible, is the honest truth, to have this all implemented and done within five years. If it's not done within the five years for some individuals, what happens? Really, what happens after five years? All this is abolished, just like they abolished squatters' rights, so all this is going to be abolished. Will they extend it? We don't know. That's some of the questions we don't know. That's where we're to on some of this.

The minister has also mentioned the time period for squatters' rights, taking it back 20 years from '76 to '66, instead of going back to '56, approving it after 20 years. That time period will help somewhat in regard to people trying to prove that they had their lands back in those times. Because we've certainly heard stories of Crown lands of people trying to prove their land and what they need to have their land titles given to them. We've had some horror stories, actually.

I guess we'll use the most recent one that we've always alluded to and it only finished up a couple of years ago, of course, the Diamonds in Bonavista. That was the most notorious case I think we've seen through Crown Lands through somebody trying to sell their home to move into a senior's cottage.

AN HON. MEMBER: Catalina.

P. FORSEY: In Catalina apparently the Diamonds were. My mistake on that one, but it was Catalina.

They wanted to move into a senior's cottage. They couldn't sell their home. Why? Because Crown Lands interfered. They owned that home for years and years, maintained the land, paid the taxes on the land. Did whatever they thought they were doing right, until they wanted to sell. There's a lot more Diamonds out there, unfortunately.

Will is that time period of 10 years going to solve a lot of that problem? I doubt it. It'll solve some. It'll give some people an option to get it done within that period and that time frame.

But to have those people pay to have that done and the stress and the strife that they caused them is really terrible, but hopefully we can get something done. We do need some legislation and, again, I'm glad to see there's legislation coming in, but does it go far enough?

The quitclaim: What warrants a quitclaim? What's going to warrant a quitclaim? We know what warrants a quitclaim, but what will they accept for proof of the quitclaim? Are the town taxes going to be enough? Are deeds going to be enough? Will ownership, long-term affidavits, long-term occupancy, is that what's going to be in the quitclaim that you'll accept to give those people their land?

I say give, because they've occupied that land – if it comes to long occupancy – for over 50 years. They've paid taxes on that land. They've already bought that land. They've paid taxes on the land. They've kept that land clear. They've kept that land occupied. They did well on that land. They raised families on that land.

So are they going to be forced to buy that land again to some sort of price? That's what the government is alluding here. But in those cases, if they can prove that and have that, then they should acquire the land.

The minister also speaks about, again, primary properties, primary estates, what qualifies their residence? Somebody who now lives in urban areas, had a relative who lived in a rural area, again, owned their land same as the Diamonds, we'll say, back then, but in this case, somebody passes, leaves their estate to their son, daughter, some relative who's living in an urban area, now owns that house back in the rural area, yet you're only going to accept the primary residence for someone. I guess that would be now the one in the rural area. What kind of price does he have to pay for that land then in the rural area that was left by that person?

There are a lot of questions, fair questions I think, but it's something that's got to be settled, something that's got to be done because we've been beating this down the road for a long time. It's going to take some real good discussion here; it's going to take some time to debate this piece of legislation.

In some sense, there are some things that can happen here, but with the time periods that are there, very few will avail of the actual legislation and be able to get their properties done in a manner of time that the government is expecting to have this time period done.

There are lots of things there. Again, the 20-year time period from 1977. I'm sure when this was done in 1977 nobody really wanted to say, we're going to come in and take your land, we're going to drive you off the land and that kind of stuff. I'm sure there would have been some reasonable solution. Back then, they did give the opportunity, after the squatters' rights, to come in and avail of their lands, not that anybody was going to take it on them; they gave them the opportunity to avail of their lands for free.

So that's some of the questions that we'll be posing in the Committee stage; we do have a lot of questions. I look forward to the Committee stage so that we can ask those questions, but I also look forward to a healthy debate on this.

It deserves a lot of debate, but the big one for me right now is that five-year period and with the scathing report of the Auditor General, what happens after five years? What happens after five years? With all this to be implemented, failure on government to have it implemented, failure on government to adopt a review that was done in 2015, which we are still kicking the can down the road. What are we going to do after five years, kick it down the road some more? Is this where we're going? Just give us time to kick it down the road another little ways.

Anyway, the overview of the bill is to implement the process to obtain a quitclaim and being referred to as the primary residence or property or title program; authorize additional structures, which can be issued in a shoreline reservation. That's another one that we don't see, the minister didn't mention, but it's structures in a shoreline reservation. What does that actually mean?

That's some of the questions that we'll be asking in Committee, of course, some of the structures that are in the shoreline. In policy there now, there are some structures listed. There may be some other structures listed, so we'll have to see what's really in the legislation or going to be in the legislation for the shoreline reservation.

This will remove time frames from legislation and move them to policy. You're going to move them from legislation – legislation is the rule, but you're going to leave them to the policy, which policy can be tweaked and changed any time. So what are the time frames from legislation to policy?

Allow people whose claim to land was previously rejected to apply again within five years. Again, we just went through that five-year period. There are going to be problems coming. The time period on that is going to be, certainly, exclusive. Just to implement all this, get it ready and get it out the door and get this moving, to see a five-year period done, I don't see it. I really don't see it happening; I don't think it's long enough.

Changing the timeline of adverse possession, of course, from 20 years to 10 years from 1977. Yes, it helps a bit, no doubt it helps a bit, but that should be extended to the other side of '77. From '77 right now, that's not going to help a big deal. People still have the recollection of who owned that land, who lived on that land, what they've done. They will find somebody in the age group, but it's like, back in 2015 that was already there. The quitclaim was already there to do this. That was 10 years ago.

So the age groups then, if they did it, if they adopted it, then they would have had a better time of doing that time period. They would have had a lot better time doing that time period. So now they've got a decade gone, plus another five years, now you're going to go into 15 years. So it's going to be the same sort of kerfuffle, we'll say, in five to 10 years' time; five years' time especially, because we don't know where we're going.

We are going to create appeal boards again; the appeal board got to be done, so it's going to take a long time to do this.

Allow the minister is to issue certificates saying what is or what is not Crown lands. So the minister is still going to have the option of saying what is Crown lands and what is not Crown lands. Will they accept the decision of the boards and have it done and give the certificates to the individual?

Quitclaim is going to be a new policy; government will relinquish the right to Crown lands by issuing quitclaim deeds to title seekers who have occupied their lands for a long time. This would enable title seekers to resolve challenges associated with securing the title. So that just takes government's right to that land, they don't want anything else to do with that land, they have no further interest in the land. Here's your title, here's your quitclaim; it's yours, go to the lawyers and get the lawyers to do up documents to say that it's yours. That gives up the right to that land.

Again, Speaker, we do have a lot of questions in Committee. There are going to be a lot of things to talk about. There are some things we'd like to see, but for that five-year time frame that the minister speaks about, the 20 years to 10 years will help some, but it's not going to make a big lot of difference for that to get done with regard to the time period of trying to prove the land from 10 years to 20 years and beyond.

We need to be looking further ahead and if we're going to do this, if we're going to make changes to Crown lands, which we wanted to see, which we wanted brought in, and we see some really big substance to this Lands Act, to really do due diligence to this act, we needed that 20 years extended a little bit more on the other side of '77.

We certainly need a longer time frame than five years. The minister says he's going to bring in some approvals. We said that one on the approvals. So there are a lot of things there that we can do and do right if we were really meant to do justice to this Lands Act right now. So there are going to be some questions and some more debate, of course, of what's happening here because there are a lot of things that we need to do and probably more things we could do to bring in good legislation to help with this Lands Act.

So with that, Speaker, I'll adjourn debate.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House recess until 6:30 p.m.

SPEAKER: This House do stand in recess until 6:30 p.m. this evening.

The House resumed at 6:30 p.m.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

We're going to get back to debate on Bill 68, An Act to Amend the Lands Act No. 2.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It is certainly great to be able to get back to the debate on the Crown lands, Bill 68, to discuss and debate this important piece of legislation that really needs to be brought to the House of Assembly because we all know that there are individuals out there that's been asking for this for time and time again. We've been asking for it for a number of years.

Again, individuals have called us relaying stories of Crown lands through different situations that they've had, trying to acquire their homes and trying to acquire their land to sell, of course, to move on into different properties, or pass it off to other individuals in their families and that sort of stuff. So it's a piece of legislation that needs to be discussed and debated in the House of Assembly. We've been waiting a long, long time and certainly it's good to be able to stand here today and debate this Bill 68.

Speaker, there were a couple of points that I did miss when I was looking at the Auditor General's report. I did miss that right in the beginning of that report, the Auditor General, of course, mentioned that the government did not have a land system title and lacked a unified land system title. After all this time, the government still don't have a land system title.

Obviously we have the Registry of Deeds, we have the registry of titles and none of them seems to correspond with each other. We need one set of land titles to be in the registry so that can be followed from now on, that when we get down the road in another 50 years, we're not back to this 50-year debate again, that we can't find documents, can't find deeds, can't find titles.

Certainly, the Auditor General saw that, and again that was unfortunately in the 2015 review to set up one. Not done, again, of course. Ten years later, now we're back to discuss it again, and we certainly need that done. The only thing is with that land title, there's a module there, mobile-friendly. In a specific case, the minister said there would be a new mobile-friendly online portal that will improve Crown lands application process.

It's fine to have an online portal, but we know what the situation is today of the outlying areas with regard to cellphones and service and all that sort of thing. We're talking about it every day of the services and online services, that we have to be able to utilize those online services. That's something else that the government will have to look at while putting in those application processes on the mobile-friendly online service is to make sure that everybody can utilize it, especially some of our seniors in our rural communities.

The seniors in our rural communities now, we know how much trouble they get into because they want to acquire their land. Now they're going to try to do it online. How much trouble is that going to create? Will this be a purely online service? Will the minister bring back counter service so that people can walk into those areas –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: – and get the information that they need? If we're going to help people get this done right, let's get it done right. Let's open up the services that people can walk in to, especially those seniors. Let's get in there so they can talk to somebody and be able to get the application done. That's all they want: I want to do this, but I don't know how to do it. I just don't know how to do it. They might not have the means to do it.

So can we provide the service to those people, especially in the offices to help those people, guide them through, make their application process a little bit easier instead of inflicting the pain on them and more pain that we've created to them over the past 50 years? Let's make things easier. Let's get at this. Let's do it right, especially that online service.

With that, that's another issue that's been brought to my attention. Again, the long wait times of approvals, that has always been a challenge, the long wait times. I know the minister says he wants to address it with a 30-day turnaround to each referral to the departments, which is good if that's adhered to and enforcement is done.

Again, I'll refer back to the Auditor General's report of the enforcement within Crown Lands. Enforcement was very challenging there. So having those situations dealt with within 30 days so that the minister can tout his 90-day turnaround, so that he can tout it, I'd like to see him be able to do that so we can get it done. Move this, streamline it, and get it done faster, with all the departments that he has to do, Service NL, the Department of Transportation, other departments that he has to go through.

There are six or seven departments that it has to go through that lands process. So streamlining that somehow, maybe it can be collaborated into a Crown Lands department to get this done. Maybe they can put some staff into that area, you know, restructure staff on that so that Crown Lands themselves can do it, rather than all the details that – especially Service NL. Service NL got a lot to deal with. Maybe there's something that can be done there.

Again, just help streamline the process of the applications, especially with all the applications that are going to be coming in within the next little while, especially if we expect to get it done within five years, you're going to have numerous amounts of applications that you're going to need done. So to have the staff in place, the committees in place, the boards in place and all that, to get this done within five years, there's a lot of work to do.

So that's some of the things we wanted to look at. The five-year period, obviously, to get this done within five years, that's going to be a big challenge – big, big challenge. In the squatter's rights, 20 years from 10, we already discussed that. It will alleviate some of the pain. It will help get some through in a timely manner, probably, in order to prove that somebody has owned their land, that kind of stuff, to be able to go back in those communities and be able to show that they own their land. So that's going to be a little alleviation.

Quitclaim, again, what will the minister accept to – because it's going to be up to the minister, of course, if the land is Crown land or not, so what the minister's going to accept for a quitclaim; if he's going to accept the deeds, if he's going to accept long-standing occupancy, if he's going to accept the municipality's tax rolls and that sort of stuff. So what are specifics in the quitclaim, in regard to what he will accept.

Again, it's good to see that the minister and the government has finally accepted the challenge of getting in there and trying to do a little something with the Crown lands situation. Finally, they've adopted our PMR, I guess, and some of the 2015 review. I mean, back two years ago, we recognized these problems. We recognized these problems, fully. So much so that we put in a PMR and we asked for those solutions to be done back then.

We asked at the time: WHEREAS Crown Lands enforcement of the provision of the Lands Act abolishing squatters' rights against the Crown has created undue hardship for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who honestly, and in good faith, have occupied their lands for years. We brought this in in a PMR back in 2023.

WHEREAS historical titles in Newfoundland and Labrador trace back centuries, and are relied upon by the public but not by the Crown. We said this back in 2023.

WHEREAS people have occupied their lands for generations based on informal title, without interference from the Crown – another issue. We brought all this forward.

WHEREAS people have strong local community's support for their claim of title and face opposition from the Crown Lands Division. We knew this back then, two years ago. We asked the government to do something about it. We knew that local supports from communities would help resolve some of this. They didn't act on it.

WHEREAS municipalities maintain comprehensive records of land ownerships and are not considered by the Crown in determining title claims. They didn't accept the municipal documents for a title claim.

We also said: WHEREAS applicants for the Crown lands access are frustrated by inordinately long waits of months and years of their applications to be resolved, even for the land that has gone unoccupied for a long time. Crown Lands ignored that. We knew there were challenges. We knew all of this back in 2023.

WHREAS the policies and practices of the province's Crown Lands Division are impeding economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador and imposing high costs upon the public. Again, another issue that we brought up in our PMR back in 2023.

WHEREAS this issue of impacts potentially thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, many of whom may not even know it.

We knew that people had problems back then. People knew that they had problems back then. The only ones that didn't know they had problems back in 2023 was the government, of course, and they challenged it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: So we put in a resolution that this hon. House urge the government to move expeditiously to bring forward legislative amendments to ensure fair reconciliation of existing claims for people seeking title to the land they have occupied in good faith for generations and which is recognized within their communities, and to take steps, in the interim, to address Crown Land actions against occupied properties in the province.

We asked to bring this back in in 2023. There wasn't a thing done then. Actually, the government got up and said there was no problem, that PMR is no good. There are no problems. They got up and they knocked it down. Knocked it down, voted against it. Now he's going to bring in some examples of where he can try to make a difference of Crown Lands.

So we just stated some of the facts of what will happen, especially in that five years. Again, last year, 2024, almost the same PMR. Then they finally realized that we better get something done here. We better listen to not only the Opposition, we better start listening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know there are challenges out there. People have spoken. We hear it every day.

At that time, you listened to open lines – and still do. You listened to the open-line shows, you listened to the news, people are frustrated with the Crown lands system and it needs to be changed and needs to be done. But it needs to be done in a way that it's going to effectively, appropriately and adequately service the challenges that every individual faces. We need legislation, not policy – we need legislation done so that it fits every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and it fits the criteria of what we need to do in going ahead, going further so that in five year's time – again, who knows what in five years' time, if there are going to be extensions. Somebody shows up in six years that when half-way through in the fifth year they started to get this done, but all of a sudden the fifth year is over, we're into half of the sixth year now, no b'y, too bad, five years are over. We're not accepting that application. Is that what happens? Is that where they're going to be challenged?

That is the sort of stuff that needs to be done and looked at. I'm glad to see that the government has finally recognized that we've seen those challenges, we've asked for those challenges through legislation. It took us two more years to get there. Every time we asked the former minister it was always stay tuned, stay tuned. Are we going to see it? Stay tuned. Will we see some legislation this fall? Stay tuned.

Anyway, we did stay tuned. We did stay tuned. We stay tuned to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: We stayed tuned to the people that we knew that had challenges. That's why we brought this PMR forward once, that's why we brought this PMR forward twice, because we know there was challenges we need to fix. We need the legislation brought in.

I'm looking forward to the debate on this bill, Speaker, and we'll continue debate on this issue.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's always a pleasure to stand in this House and speak on any legislation. I believe Crown lands is probably one of the most talked about legislative pieces in quite some time. It's been kicked around this Legislature for a long, long time. There are questions that come up every sitting. The last number of years has been: When are you going to bring in the new legislation? In one form, yes, it's good to see government are making that move.

Now, whether we all agree with the changes that's in place, we will debate that and continue to debate that, and all my colleagues here will carry on the debate. There are a lot of concerns, as my colleague from Exploits has pointed out. I mean, him, along with my colleague from Bonavista, have probably been our two in-house Crown lands – I don't know if you'd call experts, but they've been pretty well briefed on it and they are very focused on it. They are the go-to people within our caucus that do a lot of heavy lifting in the Crown lands file.

But when you do a lot of this heavy lifting, you deal with a lot of families, you deal with a lot of people out there in all of our districts. More so probably even outside the metro area. When you get in rural Newfoundland, it's a huge issue. Crown lands comes up more often than not. I've witnessed that first-hand, going out off the Avalon, when doing some campaigning. You think you're going to hear the hot-button topic of today, the cost-of-living issues and that.

Yet, ironically – and it was good. For me, it was anyway. My colleagues from rural Newfoundland told me that it was a big issue. But when I knocked on doors in those areas, it was a big issue because in Newfoundland, we haven't got a mandatory land registry. We've been operating this way for hundreds of years and it was you can build your house here and this other son can build a house there, or they can build their house here, and then it went down through generations. That was your garden you planted, you farmed, you cut wood, you cut hay, you had a barn. Never any questions.

As time went on, as more and more development approached – back in the time when there was not a lot of development, municipalities were a lot of small towns, small LSDs, no one really paid attention. Nobody understood. It was never an issue. No one went to Crown Lands; they just went and built their house.

As time went on and we evolved into where we are now, that became more of an issue. That's when lawyers got involved. That's when we got into title searches. I know if you were to ask my father, who's been dead for 30 years, if you were to ask him about a title search, he would not know what you were talking about.

Someone used to go out to lands and registry and try to look something up, these search companies, and that wasn't a big thing. Lawyers used to try to figure out stuff themselves but there was no real, I guess, requirement.

I go back in Crown lands a long time because back in 2011 to 2013, I worked with the former minister responsible for Crown lands. I used to always say, I had a pile of files on your desk and the pile never got any lower than that and they were all Crown lands issues. They were all important issues. Every day, you went in, you dealt with a new file, but you never moved those files. You just moved them around sometimes because they're so complicated – every one of them were so complicated.

This issue comes to me every time. It was out in your district, Speaker, and you may know who I'm talking about but I'll leave it at that, but there was a developer out there and he did a big development, nice homes and he sold all the homes. When he sold all the homes, a few years later somebody decided they were going to sell their home, but as things progressed and where they were a decade ago – I see you nodding your head – they went to a lawyer, the homeowner did, and they went to sell their land and lo and behold they went to do a title search and when the title search came back, you don't own the land your house is on and this is what it's going to cost you because it's Crown land.

The developer didn't own a portion of the land that went through the centre of the development. Half the homes were fine; there was a portion of homes that wasn't fine. So the Crown were imposing themselves – and I was working with the minister of the day, boxed in by legislation. Crown Lands is very prescriptive. You couldn't move off the legislation. So this person was coming in, at the time, and pleading with the current minister of the day, how do we get around this.

That case in particular, over time, was one of the most eyeopeners for me. But as time went on, I heard story after story after story after story of similar issues, similar concerns. The most recent one that got a lot of air play and I think it played a big role in getting this legislation probably fast-tracked because it should have been done years ago, obviously, was the Diamond case.

That was a heart-wrenching story. You have a senior couple and they were told they didn't own the property. They lived there for 60 years, I think, it was. It hit everybody, everyone heard their story and it registered, but the Diamond story epitomized the problems with Crown land throughout the entire province.

Those cases I mentioned out in the Lewisporte area, right through the province, we all experienced it. I've seen it in my district; on a smaller level obviously, because where CBS has been more developed over the years and with proper planning, a lot of these things have not happened. People are more aware, I guess, and it's more (inaudible) and it's less land. There's a lot less land. I tell everyone there's not a lot of Crown land in my district. We used to be always agricultural land, and there is even less agricultural land than what it used to be, but that's what the community is built on.

Again, it's not a CBS problem, but it's a huge problem throughout. So when you get legislation such as this and they adjust – one issue I have is possession of your land on this '57 to '77 – there was a time when it was called an amnesty, I believe. They called it this amnesty period. It was that period of time, to claim possession, you had to have continuous use of the land from '57 to '77.

So you go to get land straightened up, they'll want an affidavit. You've got to find somebody who was alive at that period of time. Forget about this move they had to '67, that period of time, so say it's 1970. Now you've got to look at that is 54 years ago. When you're five years old or 10 years old, you do not know who owns the land or you don't know what someone's farming; you're more interested in being out playing ball and a game of street hockey with your friends. I know I was.

You're probably 20 years old before you have any real affiliation or understanding of who owns what, and most times you probably don't know then, but you may know. That gets you to '74 – I'm going from 1970, now. That brings you to at least a 74-year-old where you can say that such-and-such and such-and-such used this land, and their family used it, and what have you. That's required in an affidavit.

You see the problem they're coming up with now. Lifespans are lifespans. That's Mother Nature. We can't deal with that; we can't fix that. I went through a similar problem three years ago. There's a gentleman that's 86 in our community, and when he passes on, there's going to be a big void in the Foxtrap area of Conception Bay South. I tell you now, he used to go-to a person for a lot of lawyers that come up looking at land ownership and clearing up titles in that area. He does have a great memory. He lived in the community, he lived on the land and he knows the area. When he goes, I don't know where else people will go.

That's a real problem. I've talked to people around the community about that, and I've referred them to this person, he's the go-to, and he's good. So now you've moved that '57 to '67, but you've moved the post by 10 years. So now you've got to find a 76-year-old. Why?

I guess the question I'm asking – and I haven't had nowhere near into the legislation and the debate that my two colleagues have from Bonavista and Exploits, nowhere near it. But we've all been affected by Crown lands issues and I've had a personal experience with it, I spent almost three years in Crown lands with the former minister and these issues were there then. But they're not going away.

One of the many things that I used to talk to many constituents about is that period of time. I wondered, why are we not going to do away with '77? We have to come up with a better plan. You have to remove that barrier. That's a huge barrier. That barrier is not changing. So to move from '57 to '67, to me, it looks nice. It looks like we've dealt with it but you're not dealing with nothing. Why do you have to have that at '77? Why do we still have 1977 there? I don't understand it.

What I'm starting to piece together – and I've been reading here this evening and I probably should have been reading them for a while. As you can tell, it's full disclosure; I don't hide behind anything. Five years, why do we have five years on quitclaim? One thing before, previously, we had this cut off at '77 but there was no deadline on quitclaim. You could go and apply for quitclaim down the road. Why is the five-year window there? Why not expand that? You could call it in a court case or someone could be sick. It could mean lack of understanding. There are a whole variety of issues that could go on to cause that to go outside. So after five years, you have to go, I'm done. I'm no longer entitled to this land. Five years is up, you're done and it's over.

Personally speaking, I think that's really unfair. A lot of these areas, when you go out around rural Newfoundland, a lot of seniors, a lot of older families, it could be estates. I think it's unfair and I don't get, whatever government is in, how that five-year window helps anybody. It's not fair to the public because really the Crown land belongs to the people of this province. It doesn't belong to any government. It belongs to me and you and everyone out there. It's our land. I keep saying this – and it's fair and it should be said. Government administers, government looks after Crown lands for the people of this province. It's our land. Everything in this province is ours. Everything in this House we are standing in now is ours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: The question I ask is, why do we seem like we're punishing our own people for whatever variety of reasons? You can give me a hundred reasons why you should do that in the first five years. Probably the vast majority of people will, when the legislation passes, rush to get it done in that five years. I assume they will and so they probably should, but not everyone will. When the five-year window is up, the door shuts, it's over, no longer, end of story.

I guess my question is – and the minister will get up at the end of debate and I'm sure there'll be lots of time in Committee. I'd like to hear the minister give an explanation of that, that makes sense to the Diamonds in Bonavista and every other family around this province. That's what they really require. That's what they look for. In simple terms, why do you only have a five-year window?

Speaker, in section 39 of the legislation, something else interestingly jumps out. It's under Certificate of minister. It says: The minister may issue a certificate stating that the lands are (a) Crown Lands, where – this is an important point – in the opinion of the minister – just think about that – the lands are Crown lands; or (b) not Crown lands, where – and get this one – in the opinion of the minister, the lands are not Crown lands.

Just think about that. I don't care what party is in power when this legislation comes in now. It could be the PC Party there in a few years' time. It could be the one in a few months' time. We don't know. The voters know that. But, still, what minister has that right? That's unfettered powers.

Why isn't that in the Cabinet? Why isn't the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the LGIC, responsible to do that? Why does the minister have that unfettered authority? I guess, when you go back, people talk about the Crown lands and the market value: Oh, the minister can give you that. That's too pricy. They've got that quoted for $10,000 an acre. I'm going up to see the minister.

When I was there, the minister had no control. It was legislated. Market value rules. Hopefully it still do. I haven't got to that part of the bill. I'll get through there in Committee. That should stay there. Market value has to be there. It's the people's land. No minister of government should cut deals on the price of Crown land. I hope that stays in place and it's the way it should be.

To go back and the point I'm trying to make, the minister is one of 520,000 or 530,000 – I don't know what number our population is anymore because that can change day to day but it's 500,000 plus. He's one of us right now today, and it could be a female one of us. Right now, today, it's him. Why does he have that ability to decide if any one of the rest of the population's land is Crown and or not?

That's all I'm reading. I know there are all kinds of stuff going to come up in regulations but, ultimately, the minister has that power. I would hazard to guess you go right throughout government and find me where else – and it's something as important as the Crown lands and the land your house is on, which is a huge investment, the biggest investment you'll make in your life for most people and the minister has the ability to say that's Crown land or that's not Crown land.

I'm not being facetious. I'm trying to be as sincere and genuine about this as possible because when I saw this, I was like, wow. The question then was, where else does this apply? Who decided this? Are we going a step forward or are we going a step back? Now, back at the time when we were at the Colonial Building, when Richard Squires was there, I could see something like that being put in place because that's the way things were then. But not 2024, not this day and age. That's not progressive legislation, Speaker, having a clause in there like that. To me, I find that offensive. I think anyone should find that offensive.

So to go with your cap in hand, knock on the minister's door and lay your papers down in front of him – you go back in time – and let him determine if that's Crown land or not. If he says it's not Crown land, put your cap on your head and walk out. If he determines it is Crown land, you better get it done before five years is up or you won't get it.

To me, it's offensive, it's wrong, it needs to be changed, and hopefully through the good debate in this House and hopefully through Committee, we'll probably get around to getting that changed. Hopefully government will find it that it should be changed.

Speaker, in 2015 there was a review done in Crown lands, and I scanned the review. I think there were lots of problems with that review. That review had lots of issues, probably worse issues than what we're seeing now.

So almost 10 years later – we're entering the 10th year – government decided after that collected dust forever and ever, to finally move ahead and do their own Crown lands legislation. I might add it's this side of the House that done a lot of the debate on Crown lands. We had two PMRs. Government couldn't go along with that. It's come time it's counterproductive in this House. We'll get up and debate a lot and we'll go through a lot of stuff in the House that can be valuable and sometimes it can't. But some of these debates get lost in the fact that it was bought in by that crowd.

In 2015 we had a review done – and I'm telling you, I'm not just standing behind that review for a second. There are problems with that review. There are parts of that review I don't agree with. But the problem I seen was when they come in – I was the shadow critic back in, I don't know, maybe 2016-2017. I remember getting up in the House here and asking questions about the 2015 review. Why haven't you implemented it? You're not going to implement every change.

There are parts of it that we would probably argue should have been changed back then, but why not move forward with it? Get it going. What's wrong with that? No, but it was brought in by this side. We're going to do things our way. So 10 years, almost, the clock ticks by almost a full 10 years, and we finally get the change. But that has collected dust. And again, I'm not sold on that review, but I do believe this is a fundamental problem sometimes with a lot of things in this House and the to and fro and the us and them mentality.

No one was going to look down on government for taking the 2015 review and making adjustments to it and make some fixes that we all probably could have agreed on and passed it through – nobody. But I guarantee you, the Diamonds would have probably appreciated and all the other families out there would have appreciated that are left in this scenario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: And this comes back to what I keep saying all the time, if anyone ever hears me say it in this House, I say it a lot of times, it is the people's. I don't say that for a cliché, I say that every opportunity I get. This $10 billion that government manages every year and we try to hold government to account, it is the people's money, not their money. This is the people's land, not government's, not ours; it is the people's land.

It is incumbent upon me and it is incumbent upon all of us here and my colleagues in the NDP to do just that: to hold government to account, to ask those questions, to improve legislation. Because ultimately there will be no elections – in rural Newfoundland it is a big issue – but there are no elections or wars fought on Crown land – back in the day, it was – but you solve a lot of issues out there, you take a lot of stress off people but ultimately you will do us right. I have always said and I've always been by the guise and I was always taught that if you do right, Speaker, you'll never go wrong. Be honest, upfront and do right and people will appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The hon. Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, Bill 68 amends the Lands Act to remove barriers to apply for and secure property title to Crown lands. I guess, in some ways, it would suggest that it would simply the process. Well, the devil is always going to be in the details and just how that process translates from paper into an actual service.

I don't know, I made the mistake I guess when I was listening to debate earlier to check out the Land Use Atlas, and if I am reading it correctly and my colour blindness is not playing me false, it looks like the land I'm on is Crown land, in the middle of the city. So I don't know if I should be worried. I've been living there for 35 years and it seems now that I've got to wonder if indeed I do own it or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) five years.

J. DINN: I've got five years, apparently.

But having said that, the question is, when I bought that house, that was 35 years ago, there was no Land Use Atlas and certainly no online Land Use Atlas. Even now, I've got to wonder, okay, is the online Land Use Atlas even accurate for that matter?

So there are already, I guess, some problems. If, as an individual – and this has been brought up by the Official Opposition – you're a person who may not have access to a computer, if you're not savvy enough with it, this is going to present other problems for them and you're going to depend on other people with that knowledge to intercede and do that work.

A few years – well, no, I should say a good 20 years ago, we went through the process to secure title of family land in Carbonear where the Dinns are from. I remember that process, the difficulty with it in terms of it, it was not once, but twice, two processes to obtain or to clarify ownership. Now, we had a Queen Victoria grant which clearly showed the property had been assigned to the Dinns who came at that time, but there was no clear indication or paper trail linkage to show how it ended up in our hands.

It was done once by my aunt and when it was passed over to the children, the siblings, then we went through the process yet again. It was a significant expense and a significant process. The question remains, of course, is whether what's being detailed here is actually going to simplify it and make it more streamlined.

Background: All land in Newfoundland and Labrador is presumptively considered to be Crown land and the root title is in the indication of how the Crown became divested of a particular plot of land; hence, the Queen Victoria grant. Again, for landowners to have a legally recognized claim to their properties, they must be able to show good title, which consists of root title and an acceptable chain of title from the root to, or satisfactory proof of adverse possession from the root.

So the question is then, if all those measures are in place and somehow it's still considered a Crown land, is this another expense that land owners must go through?

In the past, many people settled and built on plots of land that they did not actually own, especially in rural areas. This especially becomes a problem when homeowners try to sell their properties since they cannot have good title and must go through the adverse possession channel to gain title. Again, that may not apply necessarily to the city, but certainly to people who live outside and look at the land that belonged to my family. That presents a significant challenge.

Currently, the act requires applicants to prove adverse possession for 20 years prior to January 1, 1977; however, as people age and older residents move away or die, adverse possession applicants are facing greater difficulties proving their claim.

Now, it's interesting, the Member for Conception Bay South raised a good point: What were you doing when you were 10 years old? I knew my grandparents Dinn out in Carbonear. I wasn't even aware that there was land further down that we owned. The piece I knew was where the house was. So even at that time, I would be a very poor, I guess, witness in trying to determine title.

Applicants often complain of long wait times for possessing claims, red tape and other barriers for timely settlement of good title. Now, as we see on this paper, it looks pretty simple, a lot more simple than what it is. The devil is going to be in the details. Will the times be any shorter? Will the barriers be removed? I think it would be a shock, certainly, for many people to find out that they do not own the land that they live on when they attempt to sell their homes. That's going to be a major hurdle. Who are they going to consult? Do they call the department? Do they call a lawyer? I would say for the most part, it's going to be a lawyer.

I remember when I bought my house where I live now from Louis Ferman. Louie and Grunia were survivors of Auschwitz and they spent a lot of their time in the war blowing up German railway tracks and so on and so forth. But I always remember when I met them, shook his hand and as far as he was concerned the deal was done and we had purchased the house. Of course, that's not the way we do it here. It came down to, there was a legal aspect of it. It would much simpler if we could have just settled on a handshake, but we all know the reality is, in any of this, there's going to be some legal implications and ramifications.

If you look at what this bill does, it amends the Lands Act to make it easier for applicants to prove adverse possession against the Crown by changing the required land possession period from the current 20 continuous years, immediately prior to January 1, 1977, to a period of 10 continuous years, immediately prior to January 1, 1977; it enables the provincial government to issue a certificate declaring it claims no interest in a parcel of land; it allows the minister the option to approve additional structures under section 7 of the Lands Act; it creates a regional appeal board to appeal decisions based on adverse possession; it extends legal protection from liability to those acting in good faith; more flexibility for applicants by allowing the removal of time frames currently required under the act, namely for registering a plan, publishing information, paying the fees and apparently now, even when it comes to paying fees and returning the signed title document, the minister is going to be able to set the time frame.

So let's take a look at that: Enable the provincial government to issue a certificate declaring it claims no interest in a parcel of land. Well, just how simple will that process be? Many constituents call my office because they can't get access to the government department, trying to track down answers, even from Motor Registration it can be a significant challenge.

What's going to be involved in allowing the minister the option to approve additional structures related to shoreline reservations? How simple is that process going to be? The minute we talk about a regional appeals board, if I know anything about a board of any kind, this is going to be a significant process. This is not going to be a short process. There's going to be some time involved with that because we're going to want to make sure it's done right.

I've heard some of my colleagues from the Official Opposition speak about the fact that maybe this is not going to solve the problem the way it's laid out and maybe it isn't, as the devil will be in the details. Under this legislation, there are no proactive enforcement mechanisms for forcing people off land that they decide to squat, unknowing that they are occupying Crown land. Now the minister says, well, we're going to embrace that. We're not trying to do away with squatters' rights. But, I guess, how do we stop that from going forward?

This was a problem flagged by the Auditor General in her report on Crown lands in October 2024, Speaker. It was noted that the department did not enforce removal of illegal structures when its occupier did not comply. In four examples, there's nothing to indicate the follow-up had been completed to see if the structure had been removed. Illegal occupancy of Crown lands continues to be an issue due to the lack of proactive monitoring, inspections and enforcements.

In the meantime, Speaker, government has brought in legislation to prohibit people from camping, loitering or anything else on government property. Yet, it seems here that this is still a problem. We'll remove homeless from the Colonial Building, but here, there's still nothing to enforce squatters and the whole issue of illegally squatting on land. So I don't know. Will this solve the problem?

As I said, I made the mistake, probably, of making use of the Land Use Atlas and if I'm reading it correctly, I've got my own problems to deal with. So the question becomes then, how accurate is the Land Use Atlas, especially if it can be clearly shown that there is clear title how this house ended up in my possession?

According to the Auditor General's report in October 2024, roughly 15,000 grants were absent from the records management system because they had not been digitized. What's the progress on that?

About 2,000 grants were also destroyed in the St. John's Great Fire of 1892. So how do we know which grants were destroyed? When will this digitization take place? How is this going to impact the progress and the enforcement of this act?

These inconsistencies have created a number of legal problems. According to one lawyer, the province claimed in court that a given property was located on Crown land, only to find out that the plot indeed had been granted based on unmapped documents. So I guess for me then – and this is the key piece because if it's online, if it's about simplifying the process, what are the plans to, first of all, solve these problems? Because if there are still 15,000 grants that have not been digitized, I'm wondering if indeed the land grants or the property titles or whatever else for my own place, have they been digitized? Where are they? Why is it that it's not showing that somehow that land is in the possession of someone else?

I notice there, and I heard my colleagues in the Official Opposition again speak of the power of the minister. It talks about, in section 23, the bill is meant to deal with the unmapped documents and so on and so forth. The new power of the minister to issue certificates for places like Downtown St. John's, which have been occupied for long times, stating that the government has no claim to them. But this only applies to obvious cases and is still up to the discretion of the minister.

Now, if you've talked to anyone who's applied for a vulnerable sector check or a certificate of conduct, they're not turned around in a week. You're lucky if they get turned around in a month sometimes. So I'm assuming here that there is a plan, because I'm assuming there's going to be an awful lot of people who are going to try to get this reconciled, how do we make sure that it's expedited and not get bogged down? Will we have enough people to deal with this, or is the minister going to be busy reading cases individually and approving them? I would suggest not. Each one of them is going to require some input, meetings and so on and so forth and research.

The bill also provides the minister with the ability to charge a sliding scale of fees based on income for granting Crown lands to residents. Will there be a minimum? Will there be a maximum? What are the guard rails there?

There are issues, no doubt about it. I understand the fact that it's meant to simplify, maybe to address a situation that – I don't know if it's particular to Newfoundland, Speaker, but I remember talking to a lawyer years ago that Newfoundland was a little bit of an odd place in that a father might say to his son or daughter here's the deed to the property; it's now yours. So it was passed on that way, with no clear paper trail, and that's an issue.

But certainly I would be concerned then if indeed the property I thought I had been living on for the last 30-plus years indeed wasn't mine. I can't say I'm overly worried, but it's now something that I will check into to make sure, but this is the City of St. John's and records are probably a little bit easier to prove but my fear is that for seniors, people who are maybe wanting to move back to their family land and now are looking to go through this process, that it may not be as easy, as simple and as efficient as laid out in the legislation.

I certainly look forward to asking questions in Committee and to hearing the minister's response to these and other concerns that have been raised.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to talk this evening, but not just about Crown lands, about a lifestyle. About the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for all of us in this House of Assembly because I am sure Members opposite have lots of people that they know personally or that live in their districts that also have issues and concerns about Crown lands over the years.

I know when my folks bought their house in Placentia, they didn't buy it from government or a developer. They actually bought it from the church. So there's a long history in Newfoundland and Labrador of ownership of land and who owned the land and how it developed and all of that.

But I go back to the point that Crown lands is probably the biggest asset that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has. We are the largest land owner in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Think about that. Think about how much that Crown land is worth to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and why it's so, so important for us to make decisions on allocations of Crown land and be sure about title of Crown land, because it impacts so many people and impacts the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Whether that's in mining, whether that's in forestry, but it's critical that we make sure that we have a great Crown lands policy in place to do that.

What's really disappointing for me is the fact that we're here in this House and we're still debating and talking about revitalizing and redoing Crown lands legislation when we've had several opportunities to do this and it was not dealt with.

I heard the minister earlier in his speech talk about successive governments who didn't do it or didn't do what. Well, unfortunately, I would have to say to the minister, there are not too many people in this House who were actually in the position as minister of Crown Lands, responsible for Crown Lands in the last nine years who actually had a chance to do something and didn't do it. So we're here, back, and why? What happened because of that?

We can all talk about the legislation didn't get passed or we didn't get it through or we didn't get anything. But what it did was it significantly impacted the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have been waiting and wondering, and the only one disputing their land claim is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I think about all of these people around communities all over this province who have reached out, I'm sure to all of us, and talked about the challenges they have to only find out when they go to sell their land that they don't own the land, or when they go to gift the land to another family member, they don't own the land. So all of these issues have happened on this government's watch. We have had ample opportunity; we were promised legislation in the last session of the House that never materialized, that never happened.

Again, you go back and ask yourself how long? And now we have legislation in front of us which is incomplete. It's a good start, but it's incomplete. We will have lots of changes or perhaps opportunity in Question Period to talk about it. A lot of my colleagues have brought forward concerns about this proposed legislation. Again, it all comes back to people of Newfoundland and Labrador and why has it taken us so long? Why were these changes not done sooner in this mandate? Why? That's a fundamental question that a lot of people who have spent thousands of dollars on legal fees, thousands of dollars and still don't have an answer to: Why? I don't think these people will get their answers from this legislation that's currently proposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I want to read into the record a PMR that was brought forward by the PC Party on Wednesday, May 3, 2023. I think it's important that we read it into the record, along with some others. We, at that time, had said: “WHEREAS Crown Lands' enforcement of the provision of the Lands Act abolishing squatters' rights against the Crown has created undue hardship for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who honestly, and in good faith, have occupied and developed their lands; and

“WHEREAS historical titles in Newfoundland and Labrador trace back centuries, and are relied upon by the public but not by the Crown; and

“WHEREAS people have occupied their lands for generations based on informal title, without interference from the Crown; and

“WHEREAS people have strong local community support for their claims of title and face opposition only from the Crown Lands division; and

“WHEREAS municipalities maintain comprehensive records of land ownership which are not considered by the Crown in determining title claims; and

“WHEREAS applicants for Crown lands access are frustrated by inordinately long waits of months or years for their applications to be resolved, even for land which has long been occupied, and

“WHEREAS the policies and practices of the province's Crown Lands Division are impeding economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador and imposing high costs upon the public; and

“WHEREAS this issue impacts potentially thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, many of whom may not yet know it.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call urge the government to move expeditiously to bring forward legislative amendments to ensure fair reconciliation of existing claims for people seeking title to the land they have occupied in good faith for generations and which is recognized within their communities, and to take steps, in the interim, to address Crown Land actions against occupied properties in the province.”

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: That was our PMR in May of 2023. May of 2023, we put forward this PMR to the House of Assembly. Here we are now, November 2024 and we're talking finally about legislative changes. This should have been done, could have been done and we ought to have it done for all those people out there who have been struggling with ownership brought on by the Crown.

But, again, we didn't give up. We didn't give up. We did this PMR in May of 2023 and we followed that up, because we didn't get the responses that we ought to have gotten. The people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador didn't get the response that they needed. The government did not move forward with legislative changes that were needed, identified, that have been on the record for years now, nothing happened.

So in May of 2024, we brought forward a second PMR, again on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So it's been the PC Party and other Members on this side who have taken up the fight for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to rectify this situation with Crown lands and we will continue to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: May 29, 2024, we again to move the following private Member's resolution – a lot of it is the same, some of the words are different: WHEREAS Crown Lands' enforcement of the provision of the Lands Act abolishing squatters' rights against the Crown has created undue hardship for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who honestly, and in good faith, have occupied and developed their lands. The same clause that we had read a year earlier. The same issues that we had talked about a year earlier, we still talked about them then.

WHEREAS historical titles in Newfoundland and Labrador trace back centuries and are relied upon by the public but not by the Crown; and

WHEREAS people have occupied their lands for generations based on informal title without interference from the Crown; and

WHEREAS some people have strong local community support for their claims of title and face opposition only from the Crown Lands Division – only from the Crown Lands Division. Imagine, we live in a province where the only one who's disputing the fact that you own your land is your own government. Not good enough, not good enough.

WHEREAS municipalities maintain comprehensive records of land ownership which are not considered by the Crown in determining title claims; and

WHEREAS applicants for Crown lands access are frustrated by inordinately long waits of months or years for their applications to be resolved, even for land which has long been occupied; and

WHEREAS the policies and practices of the province's Crown Lands Division are impeding economic development – impeding economic development – in Newfoundland and Labrador and imposing high costs upon the public; and

WHEREAS this issue impacts potentially thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, many of whom may not yet know it. Which is something that the hon. Leader of the NDP just talked about, just finding out that he may be in a situation where he doesn't even own the land his house is built on. How many more are out there that don't know about it?

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government to move expeditiously to bring forward legislative amendments to ensure fair reconciliation of existing claims for people seeking title to the land they have occupied in good faith for generations and which is recognized within their communities; and to take steps, in the interim, to address Crown Lands actions against occupied properties in the province.

Again, '23-'24, we've been talking about Crown Lands for a long, long time. We've been bringing case after case, individual after individual and talking about the challenges that people of our province have been facing, and the need for this reform to have taken place. Yet, it did not happen. So we're here now, there's an opportunity to make legislative changes. We believe there are a lot more legislative changes that need to be made. But let's talk about why it's so important again to talk about Crown lands.

I just want to tell you one thing about an issue that happened in my district. That has to do with when the government entered into an arrangement and talked about windmills and talked about the access to Crown lands for windmills, and where they would have access to Crown lands in order to build wind turbines.

This small community, Mainland on the Port au Port Peninsula, many of the residents had grave concerns about this project. What made their concerns even more was the fact that when the actual map of the Crown lands that were going to be considered by the company came out – which supposedly was a map of Crown lands provided by the Crown Lands Division – included many of the houses in that community, many of the farms in that community and a lot of land.

Imagine waking up to the fact that yes, we're bringing in a new industry and we have all the concerns around the new industry itself. But, at the same time, it looks like they're going to be able to take your land and take your home. Because all of that was on the map. It was only after that it got adjusted, obviously. And good on it for getting adjusted.

But imagine that you face that and you're that person, and you wonder why people raise concerns. For a lot of people, that is a significant issue. When you've occupied your land for so many years and you've worked the land and you've passed it down or your relative built on the same land. We have that history here in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador so it's very, very, very important that when we change this legislation, we make sure that we protect that legacy, that we protect that history and that we project the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have lived on the property for years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: I want to touch briefly on another reason why this is so important. That is the recent Auditor General's report on Crown Lands. The Auditor General's report reached a number of conclusions. I just want to talk about some of that and read from the Auditor General's report.

The conclusions of the Auditor General were: “We have serious concerns with the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture's ability to effectively manage Crown lands' administration. Systemic issues may have encouraged the misuse of, or allowed for, the extended illegal occupation of Crown lands - which may have contributed to public safety risks, negative environmental impacts, strains on the province's court system, and affected the well-being of land owners.

“The foundation of Crown lands administration has been built on an inadequate lands registration system. Policies and procedures are significantly outdated, informal, or non-existent, and the Crown Lands Division has an incomplete inventory of lands records. Processes are notably inconsistent between regions and divisional oversight of those responsible for administration is informal. Key performance indicators and risk management processes were not formally documented or clearly defined, and reporting of performance at any level was ad hoc at best. These weaknesses may have led to opportunities for instances of fraud; conflicts of interest to have influenced decision-making; and inhibited management's ability to assess how well it is meeting its objectives.

“The department had no formal policy, procedures, or guidance relating to complaints management, enforcement, and inspections. The department also did not effectively carry out its monitoring, inspection, or enforcement responsibilities. These responsibilities were poorly communicated in the department and minimal enforcement activities were performed during our audit; this may have contributed to the misuse of, or illegal occupation of, Crown lands.”

That's a pretty damning conclusion that the Auditor General has reached on the Crown Lands Division. And, again, the question I have to ask is, why? Why weren't those issues addressed earlier on? Why are they still there today?

We have a minister responsible for Crown Lands who was there before, yet none of these issues had been addressed. Now, we find that ourselves – this is why this is so important, this legislation. I'm not sure that all of the recommendations in here will be addressed in this legislation, but it's a place to start. But it's very concerning because we need to be in a place where people can rely on our Crown Lands and rely on our legislation and rely on the fact that they are going to get it right.

One of the other things the Auditor General had to say was what we expected. So the Auditor General went on to say: “We expected the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture to have a land titles system or mandatory land registration system, or a transition plan to implement one of these systems. We expected actions would have been taken, including working with other departments when necessary, to implement Crown lands related recommendations from the 2015 Lands Act Review and the 2021 Big Reset report.

“Like any other government department, we expected Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture would have complete records of all Crown lands title transactions, including accurate mapping information.” I just spoke about Mainland and the issue of the mapping. “We also expected the department would have all title records entered into the records management system to help facilitate the administration of Crown lands, which would also improve the public's ability to search for Crown land.”

So again, as my colleague had said earlier, we have the recommendations from the 2015 Lands Act Review, and here we are, nine years later, and the Auditor General says she would've expected that they would've been implemented, and they have not been implemented. Not by the current minister and not by the previous ministers since 2015.

That is a glaring omission in terms of what could have been done, what should have been done and perhaps why we're still here talking about the need to change the legislation. It should have been done so that the couple in Springdale, who built their house on their father's potato garden and now after 40 years, in getting ready to sell it, are told they don't own the land, that it's Crown land. Maybe if we had implemented the recommendations of the 2015 Lands Act Review, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Maybe if we had implemented the recommendations of the 2021 Big Reset report, that wouldn't have happened.

Again, that's why I think it's so critical important that we turn around and make sure that at the end of the day we bring in the best legislation possible we can. That's why it's so important when we go into Committee that we start talking about what we can do to make this legislation better, because that's what it has to be, it has to improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, it has to make life better and we're committed to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: In saying that, that's why I want to read one more piece from the AG's report and that's what she calls: Why It Matters. She goes on to say, “As the administrator of Crown lands, the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture has the responsibility to manage Crown lands in a manner that best serves public interests.” So exactly what we have been saying here for years, this is not about us, it's about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and how do we best serve public interest, because that's the responsibility of every Member of this House of Assembly to try and do that.

We don't always agree at times about policy or about how we might do things, but the thing is, we ought to be doing it. If we want to make changes to it, in terms of legislation, we should do that. That's why I am such a big fan of bringing in committees so that we can have legislative committees that will actually do this work for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: “Having an outdated, non-mandatory land registration system creates a disconnect between what the public understands Crown lands to be and what the government understands Crown lands to be; this means that individuals may not have individual title to land and not realize it until they attempt to sell that land.” And that is exactly what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

My colleagues have told many stories about people all over this province who are being impacted by that very sentence, and I'm sure Members opposite have heard the same stories. It's not limited to the districts that we represent. I'm sure the same issue happens in a lot of districts right across the province.

But that's a scary thought: Individuals may not have legal title to the land and not realize it until they attempt to sell that land. She goes on: “This can lead to unnecessary strains on Crown Lands Division administration, the court system, and” – most importantly – “the individuals involved.” Because that, again, I keep going back to it, is what we're talking about.

Crown Lands could be this piece of legislation and all this paper and everything else that we talk about; ultimately, it's about impacting somebody's life. It's about impacting somebody's living. It's about where they've lived, where they grew up, how long they've lived on a piece of land and their ability to have that and know that it is theirs and will always be theirs. We need to simplify that process. That's exactly what we've been talking about: simplifying the process.

The Auditor General goes on to say, “The current land registration system, and the lack of complete or accurate records in the records management system, makes the public's ability to search the system ineffective. The process to search for records or apply for and obtain land title can be extremely cumbersome. Incomplete records and the lack of a land inventory system also presents significant challenges in adverse possession cases, commonly known as 'squatter's rights,' and for related

enforcement activity.”

Again, these statements by the Auditor General are about the concerns that she has raised about our whole Crown lands process and, certainly, expressing those concerns, not only on behalf of the people who work there, but also the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who rely on Crown lands to get their answers and to get the necessary information they need.

One of the other things that we talk about in this regulation is timeline flexibility. Throughout the legislation, it appears that prescribed timelines are being removed from the act and are being moved into policy. Officials in the briefing said this was to give people flexibility and to allow Crown Lands to give extensions where there are good reasons to do so.

So we support giving individuals who are trying to apply for Crown lands some flexibility in extensions for circumstances which fall out of their control, but we don't support moving it to regulations. It should remain in legislation. We don't support giving the department of Crown Lands the ability to change timelines at their will. That is a dangerous road to go down.

We also don't support the department of Crown Lands having the ability to change their own timelines. So if they're not happy or falling behind, they can turn around and decide: Oh, well, I don't have to meet that timeline anymore, I'll set a new one. That shouldn't be left up to the department. That needs to be into the act, it should remain in legislation. That's where that needs to be.

We need to introduce legislation and be able to make sure that we don't need to try and say: If we can't meet the legislation. We ought to be able to say: This is good legislation and let's make sure that we put the mechanisms in place to get it done.

We heard earlier this week the issues with the Labour Relations Board and how we have legislation in place but they're not meeting it. Simply taking something out of legislation because you can't meet the timeline or you want to change the timeline or give you more flexibility to do it either, I don't think that should be considered. I think we ought to keep these timelines in legislation. So that's one of the things we all want to talk about.

We all know, of course, lots of instances where people have had to wait too long for action on their Crown lands. Again, based on the Auditor General's recommendations, I would suggest that the removal of timelines from legislation is not a good move and that needs to be changed. So I would look forward to having a discussion on that particular topic.

The other one that really sticks out again is called minister certificates. The minister will be able to issue a certificate that says an area is or is not Crown lands. Again, we support the minister being able to decree that an area is not Crown land, but we have concern with the minister being able to decree that something is Crown land. Again, as my colleagues have raised this issue already, what happens if a determination is wrong and the Crown takes land from someone? What recourse does someone have?

Again, right now the Auditor General has said Crown Lands is in a mess, and the last thing we need to do is turn around and say that the minister will have the ultimate authority to decide on whether it's Crown land or not Crown land. I think that's going down a road that none of us would want to see. I don't think that that should be in the hands of any one individual, or a minister, as a standalone person to do that.

As I said earlier on, Crown lands are a huge resource for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. But to simply think that we could have a Minister of the Crown, no matter what government it is, being able to decree that something is Crown land, and then once that minister decrees that, what legal recourse does anyone have to try and change that? Again, does it need to be the minister's prerogative?

But that's a huge, huge concern that I have in this whole issue with this. This legislation being proposed, is it smoke and mirrors or does it really get to the issues? That's one of the challenges we had. So is it too little, too late? We have lots of concerns about the proposed legislation. We have lots of concerns about Crown lands and we have lots of concerns for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have already been through the court system, who I'm not sure will see any benefit in their cases of this new legislation.

But had this legislation been introduced a year ago, or maybe two years ago, maybe some of those people wouldn't be out the tens of thousands of dollars that they're out now. Maybe they wouldn't have had that stress of knowing that they didn't have to worry about whether or not they were going to be able to sell their homes. Maybe they wouldn't have had to worry about whether or not they were going to be able to move into that seniors' cottage, because that's what they wanted to do. Maybe they wouldn't have to worry about whether or not they could afford to move closer to a hospital, because that's something else they needed to do.

All of those things could have been done without the extra cost to all these people, had we dealt with this in 2023, had we dealt with it earlier. But no, we did not. We failed. We failed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by not getting this done sooner. It was promised in the last sitting of the House; it didn't happen. So we have it now and we have to make sure we get it right.

We're all going to get up and have a chance to speak to it. There are lots of things to be talked about, and then we'll have a real good chance to have communication. When it gets to the third, after second reading, and gets to Committee, we'll have a real opportunity to ask those tough questions and to look to see how we can improve this legislation so we can make it, once and for all, the legislation that people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been talking about, how much they need and what they want to make it better for them.

Speaker, with that, I'll take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Trimper): Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 68.

Speaker, this is a bill that's certainly been a long time coming. I was first elected here to the House of Assembly in 2011 and one of the consistent issues that I've heard raised in this House of Assembly over the past 12½ or 13 years has been the issue around Crown lands.

I know that it was an issue long before that, as well. Looking at it from, I suppose, a positive point of view, I will say that at least something is being done – at least something is being done, finally. That doesn't mean I don't have concerns. It doesn't mean I don't share the concerns of my colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition and others because I do share some if those concerns.

I'm going to say I'm going to be optimistically hopeful that when we get to Committee of the Whole, I've got a feeling, in listening to my colleagues, that there are going to be some amendments coming forward and I look forward to seeing what those amendments are going to look like and if they're going to address some of the issues that I have and others have raised.

I do understand that the minister, when I believe he said, when he first started to speak, perfection cannot be the enemy of the good. I get that. Nothing is going to be perfect. No legislation – we should strive for perfection but the reality of it is that there will always be debate. There will always be differences of opinion as to whether any legislation totally hits the mark or if it doesn't.

One thing we know for sure that, as of today – and this is not just me saying this or feeling this way. It's not my colleague saying this. It's not just people of the province – and I've heard from a lot of people throughout the province who have absolute frustration – is not the word – for Crown lands.

There has only been a couple of entities in my time here that's really, I suppose, been sort of a lightning rod for people. One was Nalcor. We certainly took the final step, yesterday, to abolish that, thank God. Let's put that behind us but, besides that, the entity that certainly you hear all the time, which is a real lightning rod for a lot of people in this province, is Crown lands. Now, I'll be the first to say that when it comes to my district and the people who I represent in Mount Pearl - Southlands, Crown lands is not the huge issue that it would be for many of my colleagues particularly in the rural parts of the province.

Most of the frustrations I've heard from citizens I represent in this province has not really been around the titles of land in terms of some of the issues with people living on land, finding out that they didn't own the land, that type of thing, it's more been around just someone applying to try to just get a piece of Crown land out around the bay somewhere to build a cabin up in some area, up in the woods or whatever, they want to build a cabin and the arduous process that they have to go through to try to accomplish that. The extremely long wait times that they've had to experience, the red tape, the fact that, according to them, you try to call to try to straighten something out and nobody answers the phone or you send an email and nobody responds to that email, those types of issues.

Of course, as the minister said, some of the issues with Crown lands may not just be on the land, it may be because they're dealing with issues with Transportation and Infrastructure, issues with the Department of Environment and so on, there are other departments, perhaps Municipal and Provincial Affairs, down the line, that adds to the red tape. But I can tell you when you talk about Crown lands being part of the – quote, unquote – public service, a lot of people would tell you that they don't feel that they're getting good public service when it comes to dealing with Crown Lands.

Very similar to what I hear from people all the time with Motor Registration. Whereas, one time you could go in and you could get things straightened out and now it's very difficult to actually get in and talk to a real person and get your concerns addressed and so on. The push to do everything online, do everything online, which is fine if you have a computer, you're tech savvy, you have Internet connections in your community and all those other issues, it might be fine, but that doesn't work for everybody in this province, particularly a lot of seniors and there are a lot of areas in this province that are challenged when it comes to having the available Internet and so on to utilize technology. So a lot of what I would get would be those types of issues from people.

Now, I also get some people in my district as well, from time to time, that would have an issue similar to what my colleagues in the rural parts of the district would talk about. They're calling because it's family land that their mom and dad or something wanted, they're inheriting the land, they want to have a summer cabin in the old family homestead, out around the bay or whatever it might be, and they've run into some of those issues. But as a general rule, being in the St. John's metro area, I don't get the amount of calls and so on that some of my colleagues would.

But I do know it's a huge issue throughout the province. Certainly, if you're awake at all and you're listening to my colleague from Bonavista, you would know that he has raised this issue numerous times, issues around Crown land and some of the stories that you hear, where you have somebody who might have lived in their house for 50 years or whatever, perhaps they're a senior and they've reached a point where they maybe need to move into the St. John's area to be closer to services because of health issues; maybe they're moving closer to their children, their grandchildren; maybe they are just not able to look after their home anymore for health reasons. They need to go into a personal care home or some other alternate living arrangement, whether it be in or around their community or whether it be in the metro area, wherever it might be, and they go to sell their property, lo and behold to find out that they don't even own the property that they've been living on for the last 50 years.

There is something terribly wrong with that picture. I don't care what the legislation says, I understand we're legislators and that's what we're here for, we're going to try to make some changes for the good, hopefully, but there is legislation and then there is the whole concept of right and wrong, social justice, if you will, natural law, what's right and what's wrong. And I can tell you, some of the stories that I've heard in here, some of the stories I've heard from people throughout the province – because I've had people, I'm sure we all do – I've had lots of people contact my office over the years that I spoke to, that didn't live in Mount Pearl, they lived all over the Island, actually, and have had those types of issues. It's frustrating and it's heartbreaking, it really is.

It's a real sin when you have a senior who worked their whole life, now they have to sell their property because, like I say, maybe they have health issues and they need to move closer to the hospitals or services. Then at that age, probably at 70-odd years old or whatever the case might be, thinking that they could sell their house, make the move, have a bit of money, bit of a nest egg or whatever along the way and then to run into these issues. Not only not be able to sell their house and the money that would be derived from it, but actually costing money in trying to fight our own government in court.

Just think about that, that's been said, fighting our own government in court over their land that they have been on for years.

I think everybody on both sides of the House, I think we would all agree that there is an injustice. Maybe that's a good word: injustice. There's an injustice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: I would like to think we're all committed to solving that injustice.

With that said, as I indicated, I do applaud the minister for at least giving it a shot, at least doing something. Now, we could always argue that it could've been done 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, five years ago and so on, we could all make that argument, but the bottom line is it wasn't done. So now let's get it done, let's get it done right.

I can remember one of the reasons, actually, when the former minister of Fisheries, he was supposed to bring this legislation in, I think a year ago. First, it was stay tuned, it was stay tuned for the longest time. Then he was supposed to bring it in and when finally questioned on it he said: I make no apologies – because he's always talking about how he never apologizes for anything – when I bring this in, we want to get it right. That was what he said.

So in the spirit of getting it right, I would say that while this may be a start, if we are truly committed, as a Legislature and we want to take politics out of it totally and do what's right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then I would say let's continue with our debate on second reading, but let's be open.

I say to the minister, to the government Members, please, let's be open to amendments, if they are reasonable amendments. If they are things that weren't thought of, if there were points raised here in this debate from this side that make sense, they ring true, and maybe there was things that weren't thought of at the time or maybe now there's a different way of looking at it, if reasonable amendments come forward through Committee of the Whole, I ask government Members to please be open minded. Don't be afraid to adopt some amendments.

What we've seen in this House of Assembly over the years – and I'm not tagging this particular administration. I've seen it with the past one and the one before that, too, where if it wasn't our idea, we're not going to amend anything. All you were doing was political theatre, just being able to say, hey, we tried to make an amendment. But very, very rarely have I seen amendments pass through this House of Assembly. Anyone who's been here now a while, I'd say you can count on one hand or less the times that we've seen amendments that actually went through.

I believe, more often than not, the reason why they don't pass is not necessarily because they don't make sense, that they're not well thought out, that it wasn't an oversight, but the fact of the matter that the government of the day could not suck it up, could not say that's a good idea. Do you know what? We never thought of this. Do you know what? What that Member there says is actually making sense. Do you know what? This is actually going to strengthen legislation and, ultimately, we're all on the same side. We all agree we want to do it. We're all singing from the same hymn book.

So I really do ask the minister and the Members opposite that should amendments come forward – I don't have amendments and I haven't seen any amendments over here. But just listening to the debate, I'm hearing intuitively that there are some amendments or there are some that are going to be coming. I've got a feeling. If they make sense, I'll support them. If they don't make sense, by the way, I got no problem saying, on that amendment, I disagree with you – no problem. But I'll listen to them.

A couple of things that do come to mind – a lot of it has been raised already – but on this appeal board, I think it's a good idea. If we can have an appeal board that's going to speed these things up, that, to me, would seem to make sense, assuming that the people that are on the appeal board obviously are qualified and they understand what they're doing, and they're appointed properly and all that, I don't have an issue with it. But the only thing I would say, and this where the devil is in the details, this is where it all can sound great on the piece of legislation but regulations, policies and execution, that's where those things kick in whether it will be successful or it won't be successful.

You take an appeal board – I have a feeling that when this passes, in some form, you're going to be inundated with applications. There are going to be a lot of them. That's just a sense I get. So knowing that, what kind of resources are we going to have for this appeal board? Because I've dealt with appeal boards in the past in other venues, on other issues and a lot of times you have an appeal board and you might have three people on the appeal board and they'll say, okay, we're going to hear appeal X. Now, b'ys, anyone available for next week? I'm available. Oh gees, no b'y, I'm going to be out of town next week. Okay, how about the week after that? The week after that, b'y, I'm going to be going. What about the next week or the week after that? Such-and-such have that on the go.

So with these appeal boards, when you're trying to match schedules and stuff like that to get stuff done, you could be waiting two or three months before you can get all hands together to hear your appeal. That's just the kind of stuff that happens. Now if you said, because we know we're going to be inundated with this stuff, we're going have this appeal board and it will be put in place and they're going to be working full-time for the next year or two years, however long it takes, Monday to Friday every single day, they're going to do an appeal Monday morning and they're going to do another one Monday afternoon, another one Tuesday morning and another one Tuesday, but if we're going to be into, oh well, let's get three or four people, appoint them and they'll get together when their schedules get together to do one appeal here and one appeal there, my God, the people will be dead by the time they ever hear of their appeal.

So that's one thing that sort of jumps out at me. The concept is great, but unless you're going to have the resources and everything in place that this can be done in an expeditious manner, then it's not worth the paper its written on. That would be a concern I would have.

Of course, we can have all the systems in place we want but, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Official Opposition in reading the Auditor General's report, it is no good to have systems if we have a land registration system that's useless, that's not managed properly and doesn't have all the updated information and so on. That's a huge job in itself, the registry.

So again, this all sounds great but if you don't have a proper registry, if you don't have proper mapping, if you don't have enough staff to do the job and so on, then everything that we're talking about here that looks good on paper but all it is really is smoke and mirrors.

I'm not suggesting that that's the minister's plan, that he wants it to be smoke and mirrors. I want to be optimistic and believe he really wants to fix this but, again, I've got to go back to the facts. Passing a bit of legislation on paper, unless you're going to back that up with appropriate regulations, policy, resources and a solid plan to execute – that's always the big one I see lacking all the time on different issues in this House: execution – a plan to execute it, then this is a waste of time.

I would hope that all of things are part of the plan, that there's an actual plan to execute. That involves policies, that involves regulations, that involves proper resourcing and that involves having a proper land registration system and all the staff and resources required to make this work. I hope that's part of it. I'm sure that's what the minister envisions. I can see he's nodding his head, agreeing with me, which is great. I appreciate that. That's definitely a big part of it.

Anyway, with that said, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take my seat. As I said, I'm glad that the legislation has come forward. I support much-needed changes to the legislation. The devil will be in the details. There are concerns that I have that I share with my colleagues and I certainly hope that perhaps some amendments will be coming forward in Committee that I will consider and vote for accordingly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure to stand in here, a little later in the evening, and discuss such an important topic to many people right across the province of Bill 68, which is our Lands Act. Like I say, it touches so many communities right across Newfoundland and Labrador which go back generations upon generations. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve the best legislation that they can possibly get. There's no sense in bringing in a piece of legislation that's going to need to be revised later on down the road, next year, two years from now, three years from now if we take the time and get it right.

I'm very pleased to stand in here this evening and, no matter how late it takes, no matter how many days it takes, to ensure that we do get this right as we do work on behalf of the people of the province and that's why we're here tonight.

Quick story: When I was younger, about 10 or 11 years – and this is a true story and it just popped into my head in the past 10 minutes, some of those memories just pop up I guess – my dad bought land up in Blackhead on the other side of the harbour there. I remember he was taking myself and my brother and my two sisters and my mother up. He's proud of the land he bought, himself and a partner.

When we got up there and we got out and he looked at the survey and stuff like that, he was only too proud to do it once again, a couple of neighbours started to come around and started to have an argument with my dad and said, you know, so and so owns that land. My dad said, no, no, I bought this. This was Crown land and I bought it, sort of thing, and it started to get pretty heated. It got heated to the point, and I'll never forget it, where somebody threatened to go get their shotgun. I'll never forget those words. I'll never forget thinking to myself: Wow, a piece of land now is going to come to this extreme because there was confusion about who owned it at the time. That's what we're trying to clear up.

The older I got, sort of thing, I thought to myself: Newfoundland and Labrador, the greatest province in Canada. One of the greatest things about this province is our abundance of land and how majestic and how great our land actually is and how it can work for the people of the province, but it only does that if this confusion is cleared up.

Again, we've heard it before, it is a great start. Of course, it is, any legislation that comes in, it is a great start, but we need more beef in this. We need more resolution because people are not going to be confident about this. They're just not. They're not.

Again, I appreciate the work that the minister's department has done on it, of course, we do, but there needs to be more to this because the resolutions are not going to be there in their entirety. There are going to be so many more questions at the end of this. We are going to get some answers, of course, but there are going to be still some questions at the end of it. We were hoping for a little bit more and, hopefully, we can get through the process and get a little bit more before this legislation actually passes.

I've heard it before around the Chamber tonight: hardships in Newfoundland and Labrador. We faced a lot of hardships throughout our generations, throughout our history, but, God, the past five and six years feels a little bit different, doesn't it? The hardships that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have faced has taken on a different entity altogether, whether it be financial or sickness within their families, whatnot, and we see it.

When we look back – and the Member for Mount Pearl just said it – the fact that our own people in the province are having to fight their government for a piece of land that they may have been on for 50 years, I mean, it sounds absolutely ridiculous when you actually say it out loud. Nobody else has been fighting them for this land. I mean, that's a different situation altogether that needs to be addressed, but if somebody sat on a piece of land for so long, and on top of the rising prices and whatnot, inflation, food, travel, everything else, travel back and forth to Labrador, we heard earlier today, when you have to actually fight your government and then take on lawyers of tens of thousands of dollars, dipping into your pockets, that's not something that should be done.

We all know that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador works for the people. It's not the other way around. Now, listen, I know there are standards as well and we can't go outside the boundaries of those standards, but we need to make those standards work for the people; not work for us in the Opposition, not work for the governing party of the day, work for the people of the province. At the end of the day, that's what any piece of legislation should do, is work for the people of the province.

The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands also said there could be possible amendments to this bill. Who knows, there might be. But I would go a step further and ask government why some of the rural MHAs probably weren't asked about their opinion. We have a lot of rural places on this side, that reside on this side, whether it be Bonavista, Terra Nova, Exploits, Green Bay, Placentia West - Bellevue, there are a lot of rural MHAs on this side that have a lot to say and there's not one person in this Chamber that has all the answers. There's not one bureaucrat outside this Chamber to have all the answers, not at all.

You know, growing up, when it came to a team effort and trying to get it right, I've always thought to myself, more heads around the table, the better. You never know what you're going to find out from a personal story or something that may have happened to a constituent along the way. Maybe that could have been added to this conversation, but it wasn't. Maybe it was an opportunity to do it.

I'm not green to this job by no means, it's been six years now, but I'll never get over that. I'll never get over why a bureaucrat or a minister can't reach out to the Member for Bonavista and say: What have you heard? What's the biggest problem when it comes to Crown lands out your way, or the Member for Exploits, who have been great champions on this, by the way, I think they deserve a round of applause, because they've been fighting on behalf of the people for quite some time now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: But that's something that I could never understand.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes to just talk about a few specific things when it comes to Crown lands in my area. They may not be addressed in this legislation; they might be, but they may not be, so we can put a different lens on some of this.

I have a constituent that has a cabin, one of probably six cabins on Dowd Pond. It's this humungous lake in Central – absolutely humungous lake in Central. There's not a whole lot of cabins on it at all, but you can't get a vehicle in there. You need to go in by Side by Side or Ski-Doo, whatever it takes. I remember he came to me about five years ago and he said: Chris, I don't understand what this is, how they can ask me to do this? We talked about shoreline reservations as well, and I get why it's there, I get it, but sometimes we need to use common sense and common sense should override policy. I truly believe that.

They asked this man to move his cabin back four feet, pick up his cabin in this remote area and move it back four feet. We appealed it and we went after them, sort of thing, and no way would the department budge on that. Four feet, that's it. That's what they wanted to ask this man in 2020, at the height of COVID, everybody was hurting, and they wanted him to move his cabin back four feet.

I thought to myself: That makes no sense to me at all. There must be somebody within government that can say no. Again, it's a policy, but if it was a busy lake and whatnot, it had to do with nature, it had to do with waterline reservations. But, no, it didn't. It was just a policy that was written in black and white. He was four feet too close to the shoreline and he had to move his cabin and he had to pay for that. It just blew my mind that he had to do that.

When we talk about the resources within the department – and, of course, we're all very thankful for the department's work, there's no doubt about that – but they are under-resourced. They truly are. So I can't imagine what's going to happen after this. There's no doubt they need more resources and I hope that government sees that and puts more resources into it.

I have another constituent who had a cottage about 15 minutes east of Grand Falls-Windsor and he wanted to add on to that cottage, build more onto it. Economic growth, the hardware stores would have gotten money out if it and whatnot, and that's what he wanted to do.

The department wanted a measurement. They said we don't know how far you are away from the shoreline, so they wanted a measurement. So he said, okay, not a problem. Come in and measure it. I guarantee you I am the right distance from the shoreline with probably five or six feet to spare. Perfect. We waited a year to get somebody in there to measure that. That man could not pay for his Crown land because they wanted that measurement to be taken. We waited a year and nobody went in there.

So do you know what we did? Myself and Travis went in with a yard tape on video, measured it ourselves and sent that video in to the department. It wasn't good enough. Eventually it got sorted out.

Again, it's not a knock on the people that work in the department. It's a knock to whoever is under resourcing that department because obviously it's under-resourced. If somebody can't get in there for a year and let this man have his cabin, let this man do whatever additions he wants to do, that's an under-resourced department and we need to look at that moving forward if we're going to pass any legislation when it comes to this here.

I know it doesn't have anything to do with this right now, but I wanted to take a quick moment and just touch on agricultural land. Fred Card, up in Badger, is 82 years old. He had a piece of agricultural land for years, grew potatoes on it, sold them to the people in Badger and gave a lot of them away to the people in Badger. It was absolutely fantastic.

COVID hit. He had some sickness in his family. He didn't plant anything for two years – two years – and the Crown took it back. He begged and pleaded and said he was ready to plant again. Unfortunately, the Crown took it back. We appealed it, we went after it, we did everything we could and it was just a sin, at the end of the day. I felt so bad for him because that's all he wanted to do.

Right now that land is up there sitting barren. It makes no sense. We produce less than 10 per cent of our own food here and, unfortunately, Fred Card, his potatoes were taken away because he didn't grow anything for two years. Again, a policy in black and white that any human being can look at and say this does not make sense. We need to veto this. We need to change this. We need to do it on an individual basis, maybe. Nobody would have argued that. There's not one person in my district anyway – I don't think any person in Newfoundland and Labrador would have argued to let Fred Card have his land for his potatoes.

Something else that I don't see in here but maybe it's something that government can take a look at moving forward with legislation, and that's a disclosure for when people actually do buy Crown land. I'll bring it up now. Rocky Brook Bridge, just west of Gander, a lot of beautiful cottages in there, lots were sold. They had a roundabout way that would have taken about 40 minutes to get their cottage off the Trans-Canada Highway. People live there. It's not just cottages; that's their primary residence for a lot of people. Or they had the bridge, which is right off the highway, right into the cottages. You're home and you're sat on your couch within five minutes.

The people using Rocky Brook Bridge depended on that bridge. When they bought that land they were told the bridge obviously is with the land, yadda, yadda. You can use it, 100 per cent. A couple of years later, fast-forward, Rocky Brook Bridge is deemed unsafe. You cannot use that bridge anymore and what's more, the government, we don't need it anymore now because we used it for forestry, so we're going to block it out. We're not going to do anything with it. We're not going to fix it. We're not going to repair it. We're not going to switch it out with a new bridge – nothing.

So what are they left with? That's exactly what they're left with now, a 45-minute drive right around the lake to get back to their cottages, when I believe a disclosure should have been made when you're buying Crown land. Our leader brought it up a couple of minutes ago about the wind turbines. Some people agree with them and some people don't agree with them, but in Exploits, down in New Bay, we are hearing tell of some people who may have bought land down there and cottages overlapping with the time government knew they were going to put the wind turbines down there and didn't disclose it. Some people love it; some people just don't like it. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong; it's just people's preferences. But maybe they should've been told about that before they were sold the Crown land.

That's just a disclosure issue that I want to bring up here today on behalf of the constituents of Central. I know we have a few of them our there and I just wanted to make sure that we got that out there.

The piece that says allow the minister to issue certificates saying what is and what is not Crown lands – and I can't wait to dig in a little bit deeper to that and see where it goes exactly. To me, that just seems very subjective. Anything with Crown lands shouldn't be built on a subjective point of view. It should be an objective criterion for any Crown land, whether you're going to say it is Crown land or it isn't. I can't imagine in the future a decision is going to be made by any one person – and our leader once again just said it a couple of minutes ago – on whether that can be a piece of Crown land and this is not a piece of Crown land. One person to take that upon themselves is too subjective for my liking. And it's not to bring in any ministers, the value of themselves or what they may be thinking or their character by no means.

But the fact of the matter is one person up on the Northern Peninsula could be given Crown land or it be called Crown land and somebody in Placentia West - Bellevue could be told it's not Crown land. And it could be the exact same circumstances but why? At that point, we won't be able to question it anyway.

So any subjection in any legislation to be put on one minister without any clarification, it just doesn't sound right to me. It just doesn't sound right. Again, it's not calling into character of any minister by no means. It's just it's too subjective and you could really get into some grey areas that aren't going to work for a lot of people. Then what? We're back in the lawyer's office?

We can't do that to people. We need to treat people with the respect that they deserve. Again, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they've seen some hardships over the years, but we should not have to fight our own government to get a piece of land that we've been on for so long.

If this is indeed only for primary residency then what about the case where a long-standing family home is now used as a secondary residency? Again, we work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. How many people enjoy living in an urban area and on the weekend or on a holiday they go out to a rural area? It happens all over Newfoundland and Labrador. It's what we've enjoyed for years. I remember being a kid and going out to Central, out down to New Bay, to the cabin down there, to my pop's cabin, having a great time. It was absolutely fantastic.

But, to me, that shouldn't have any bearing. If it's a secondary residence, it still shouldn't matter. It's still enjoyed by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on the weekends, on holidays, whenever they get a free chance to do it. It's what we're known for. You see many people come to Newfoundland and Labrador – I have had friends lots of times and take them to the cabin for a weekend.

We want to make sure that it's not just the primaries, but the secondaries should be considered in that as well. They should be. It's no different. It's what we enjoy. Again, take that stress and aggravation off the plates of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, for God sakes. There's enough on our plates now as it is. Our government should be working for us, and we look forward to that.

The maximum lot size – that's another one. I'm looking forward to Committee when we can question this. I look forward to the legitimate answers about why. Why some of this legislation is the way it is, and that's one of them. Because that's not a very big lot. What did we say earlier, it's a half-acre lot? That's not a big lot. What difference does it make if it's a half acre, if it's an acre? Are we running out of land in Newfoundland and Labrador? What difference does it make?

And again, we get back to Fred Card. Maybe it's somebody with a cottage that has quite a bit of land for agriculture. Maybe they've got a couple of animals, maybe they've got some potatoes – isn't this something that we should be promoting in Newfoundland and Labrador? Absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: We grow less than 10 per cent of our own food. If a fellow Newfoundlander and Labradorian is going to step up to the plate and take it on to grow something in the ground, good organic food, well by God that's something that I want to support. They shouldn't be handcuffed by a lot size of half an acre. It just doesn't make sense. Let's start working for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador like we should be doing.

The appeal board will only apply to adverse possession. Why won't they hear appeals from the quitclaim process? Again, we would need more resources, there's no doubt about it. But there should be a way to appeal all of this, any of this, especially if we've already talked about it's going to be under the minister's discretion, very subjective discretion, whether he's going to say it's Crown land or if it's not Crown land. And if somebody doesn't have the ability to appeal the quitclaim, then that's going to be an issue as well.

Again, we get into a grey area where somebody is told: nope, you're done, that's our final decision and that's something that you're going to have to live with and there's no appeal for that. It just doesn't make sense.

We talk about the online portal – and I only have a minute left – listen, we've stood here over the years and talked about the Internet service in Newfoundland and Labrador, the cell service in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some people just aren't used to the online stuff yet. It is great for people that are on it. Listen, I am not saying get rid of it by no means, but don't let that be your primary outlet for people to get that service.

I think I heard somebody a little while ago say bring back the walk-in service, for God's sake. It is a sin. I have had people sit in my office and I try to navigate it for them over and over, but we should have a walk-in service for people to walk in and talk to somebody that really knows and can give them answers, not call a 1-800 number but talk to somebody one on one. That is the best way of doing things. We need to make sure that those resources are there for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians moving forward.

Speaker, I will take my seat, but I'll say it again, let's start working for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as we should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to get up and speak on Bill 68. There are certainly some issues in my district, for sure, regarding that.

The first thing I'll touch on is that people voted us all in here as 40 MHAs – 40 MHAs in here and we're all voted in. I'm sure when you ran for your district, you ran to hope to help the people in you district, to help them out and to do the best you can to help them out in their troubled areas.

As I said, 40 of us here; 22 make the decisions of what legislation is coming in, or I'd say there are three or four that are in on this at the most in MHAs involved in it, the rest sometimes are not involved. I did a chart there and I would think there are probably eight or nine that it doesn't affect, mostly in St. John's and there are places in Labrador, I spoke to the Member here as well, that it doesn't come up in her district. Everybody has different issues, but we're all voted in for the same reason, to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we haven't got together and done that, in my mind.

Yes, when it comes along you can make some amendments when all that happens. If you don't come up with the idea, it doesn't get voted on. But everybody is here for the same reason, to make Newfoundland and Labrador better. That is something that we should be looking at, together, to be able to sit down, as a Committee and make this legislation strong and robust. When you come in here and everybody can have a chance to speak on it, you wouldn't need to come in and make amendments on whatever other legislation we've done, and you'll be able to vote on it.

We're all voted here for the same reason, to make this province better, but we don't seem to get our input. We have stuff that we can offer to this legislation; unequivocally, we've got things we can offer on this legislation. We have two experts in our department, as far as I can see, when it comes to Crown lands, two fellows that know more than anybody when it comes to that, but we just don't seem to want to get there and include everybody in this whole legislation.

It happens every time. It's just so frustrating. I find it so frustrating; 40 people should come in here as a team, not as individuals trying to get something. We should come in as a team and make this better but it doesn't happen. It hasn't happened in the five or six years I have been here.

Now, I got a story here from a gentleman that lives in the Goulds. I gave it to the minister and he looked at it. I gave it to the previous ministers. So this minister has been in Crown Lands twice, there's another minister that's been here in the House that's been in Crown Lands twice and we're just getting legislation now.

So this gentleman, in 1974, bought a piece of land in the Goulds to build a house. There's a piece of land next to it, that over the years after he lived there, there was a sawmill on it. You can go back, I got pictures here, there's a sawmill that was on this piece of property. You can go back to the topographical maps and it shows that it's there in 1975 and '76, but that's not good enough for Crown Lands right now.

So he bought the land, built a house there and in 1992 they closed the sawmill and he had an opportunity to buy this full piece of land. He couldn't afford to buy the full piece of land at the time. He bought one piece that cost $18,000 and in the next year or subsequent years, he bought the second piece that cost him another $10,000. That's in 1992, so the value of that land, I mean, absolutely has soared through the roof, obviously.

He did nothing with the land for 30 years that was next to him, but he owned the land. So, you know, for the next 30 years he left the lot vacant. He said it's there for skating rinks in the winter and horseshoe pits in the summer.

In 2021, a local contractor approached him and offered to buy it to build two homes there. That's when the trouble started.

It was time for him sell now; he's in his 70s. I went to his house last Friday and sat down with him. I'm going to get into the story, try to go back and forth, but I went to his house last Friday and we sat down and discussed it. I've spoke to him on many occasions on this. He's looking to retire and, at some point, not right now, he might think that he's going to go into a home and be able afford to go to a condo or whatever he's going to decide to do. It's something that he's looking at and this land is his out for when he retires, to be able to sell this.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's his nest egg.

L. O'DRISCOLL: That's his nest egg is right.

So he applied to the city of St. John's in 2022 for the necessary approvals and building documents as requested by the contractor. They were eventually granted. So the city of St. John's gave him the approval and granted him everything that he needed to get it done.

On the day of closing, the lawyers requested that two affidavits will be required to finalize the sale. This became impossible as the requirement was that the person would have to have intimate knowledge of the property back in 1957. At this point he said, my lawyer suggested that I apply to Crown Lands to get a clear title. Now, he said, that's when his real trouble started. He did that.

This I did and waiting several months for a response from Crown Lands which claimed that I did not own the property and it was not fully occupied and in use such as farming for 1957 to '77, but a picture can show you that the mill was there.

So think back now, he paid $28,000 for that land in 1992. He paid taxes on it from 1992, when the Goulds got amalgamated in 1992, because I texted him a little while ago asking him how long he paid. He paid taxes on it for 30 years. They gave him back his tax money last year, but only gave it back from 10 years that they had a record of. They couldn't go back any further than that so he lost 20 years of paying taxes.

So now when he goes to Crown Lands, he's looking for fair-market value and it was broken up into two pieces of land. Eventually, Crown Lands made it into one piece of land – and the minister knows, I gave him a copy last week and we had a fair discussion on it. Anyway, he was getting a letter and the minister did help me with that. He had to get a certain date. It was going to say November – I'm going to say the 20 or 21, or it might have been one day last week – he had to have this money in or he would have lost the land. It would have went back to the Crown. So he had to go in to the bank and take out his savings.

When it first started, it was $94,300 that was a fair-market value for the land. So he was going in to do that. By the time all of this was done and it was amalgamated into one piece of land – and I'm sure if I missed this somewhere along the way, the gentleman when I speak to him tomorrow, he'll clarify it, if I make a mistake, I'm sure he will. But now after making it one piece of land and was going to buy it, dealing with Crown Lands, when it all came back, the fair-market value now for the land is $164,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many acres?

L. O'DRISCOLL: It's an acre of land.

So that's where it's to. It's an acre of land, a half acre each. Fair-market value for him is $164,000 for that piece of land.

So now he was going to the bank last week to get this money out and had the money out. I happened to call him when he was standing in the line for the bank and the money was done, he was getting it out. So he had the money taken out of his investments. I said, hold on one second, we have some Crown Lands legislation coming through. We're not sure how its going to work but if you can hang on. He said, it's too late, I have that done. I said, well maybe you can go back to the bank tomorrow. I think, he was home at the time when I called him. I said, maybe you can go back tomorrow and they can reverse that. No, it's too late, it's taken out of his investments.

He did go back and reinvested the money. They put it in a GIC for 100 days which gives him the extension that the minister had granted to me right now that he could do that. But he'd only make so much money on that investment for the next 100 days.

So there's $164,000 that he paid – $28,000 for two pieces of land back in 1992 and they're going to charge him fair market value of $164,000 today that he was going to retire on as his nest egg, as he said. Buying his own land back that he bought many years ago – and I'm not making this up. I'm after dealing with four ministers. I'm not making this story up. This is a true story. It's sad. It's just so sad to think about that.

Here we are that they can give him a fair market value when he calls in to Crown Lands in a week and we're trying to find out how much the land is worth up on Kenmount Road and we can't find out. That's unbelievable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: That is unbelievable. It's incredible that it can happen.

So here we are, he asked of that and this is where it stands for him today. Now, anybody in their right mind, in this House, should be able to sit down and get this legislation and let's get it done and let's get it done right for this gentleman.

Now my question would be, and we get into Committee, how can we help this gentleman? What would be the fair market value for this gentleman now? To me, they should grant him this land and let him walk on his way. That's what should happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: That's only $28,000 that he paid back then. That's not counting the lawyer's fees and every time you go – if he went to go look at this land a couple of years ago, to go back to the city to get these grants that he's trying to get, he had to go get a new survey. Every time he got a new survey, well they don't come for free.

He told me he spent over $100,000 on this bit of land and now they're going to ask him to pay $164,000. That's incredible. We're in here discussing and debating this – and this report is done since 2015. We can't have these people – and I'm not saying this is easy to do. There's proof here and I'm after giving this to every minister since I came in here. I'm still dealing with it and, hopefully, at some point in time that the minister – and he's got it; he knows. I've certainly spoke to him on it and it's, hopefully, something that this gentleman should be able to be granted this land and let him move on his merry way. That's common sense as the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans said, no question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: There are so many things to touch on, Speaker. Where will I go this time? The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said about registrations. You go into Motor Vehicle Registration and not dealing with people. When COVID started, people stayed at home and they tried to do it online and do whatever. That's gone. These offices should be back, filled in. Crown Lands is especially one – when you want to find out something about Crown Lands, you should be able to go into an office and deal with somebody but you can't talk to somebody.

So this person is home, sitting down, waiting about their Crown land – I dealt with one up in Fermeuse a couple of weeks ago, and hopefully will be able to help her. The house is still sitting there that she's not in. She's living in a trailer and she's been on this land for 50 or 60 years, but she's not sure she owns it. I said, get two affidavits of the people in your community that can help you prove that this is yours. Let's help prove that this is yours.

I'm giving you real-life stories. That's where it's to. Like we said, the Motor Vehicle Registration, Crown Lands should be the same way. We should have people in the offices that we can speak to, to help solve our problems or at least answer the phone. That's one thing we need, is answering the phone. You call in, you're a week before they get back to you. You're sitting here waiting to get some of this stuff solved, and it's all time sensitive most times.

Now the minister has stretched that time-sensitive issue for a little while, so hopefully we'll be able to get some of this stuff solved, but that's not going to happen very quick. I mean, that's not going to happen very quick for sure. My parents live at home. I'm 58 years old. My parents were living in their house well before that. I look older than that, I know.

So they're in the house well over 60 years. I'm frightened to death to ask them – and I hope they're not watching. I hope my mother is not watching, for sure. I'm frightened to death to ask her if they own the house. Do they own the house? They were given that house from their relatives that were next door. They were given that house. I don't know if they own it. Do you know when we're going to find out? When they're dead and gone, and that's a sad thing to say. You're frightened to death. They don't need the stress to find out if they own it right now. We'll have to deal with it. We're not going to put it on them.

Now, that is the most wrong statement in the world. It's a wrong thing that you sit here and think about. It's just not right – totally not right.

You know, that's the kind of things that people go through in life. The land that I live on, I'm there 31 years. My father gave me that land, and my brother lives next to me and my daughter lives next to him right now on the same stretch of land. Where did he get the land? I got the land. Was it ever granted to him to give to me? I have no idea.

I know that when you go get it surveyed and when you do a mortgage on your house, yes, they register it as a mortgage. There's a registry for a mortgage on your house. That's not registered as land, Crown land, or registered as your property. It's registered as a mortgage. That really means nothing when it comes to Crown land. They can come in and claim that tomorrow if they want, if it was never granted to my father or whoever gave it to him.

So even though it is registered and it is surveyed, was it ever granted to him? I have no idea. All I know is I thought I had it surveyed, I had it registered, but it's only registered for a mortgage. So people have to understand that. Even though it's registered, that don't mean you own the land. It's registered for a mortgage. It's not registered for Crown Lands. That's one thing that I'm leading to, is that we should have a registry set up in this province for Crown Lands so that when you buy your house, you should have a registry set up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: These are some of the things that the minister, he's touching on all that stuff over there and I'm sure that he's trying his best to do something. I've been in here 5½, six years, and I've always said that since I came in here. There should be a registry set up that when you buy your house, that it is the first step – the first step. Then that goes away.

So imagine people today if there are people listening – if they are – if not, there are people that own their homes and the only time they find out is when somebody passes and the land is passed on to someone else. That's when they find out they don't own the land, and that is incredible. So if you're there 60 years – my parents are definitely there 60 years and the house is 100 years old. They don't know if they own it or not. I don't know if they own it or not and I'm certainly not going to ask the question again. I hope she's not listening, because that'd be another stress on her for sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Phone will ring any minute now.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, as soon as I leave here, she'd be calling me.

I agree with the minister, I've certainly dealt with a lot of Crown land issues here over the last five years. Really, I have to be truthful, I knew nothing about Crown lands until I started at this. I still ask my two Members that are here that know so much about it, because there's still a lot of information that you need to know when you're trying to iron this stuff out. But there are a lot of things.

Quieting of titles is something that's going to be very expensive for the people for sure. That is something that is going to cost a lot of money for people to do. There are going to be lawyers involved. I had a friend who used to work in Crown Lands. He's still working in another department in government, and he's a wizard when it comes to Crown Lands. I said, b'y, you have to get back in Crown Lands, because he's great at it. But he just hasn't had the opportunity. He didn't want to go out west when they moved the office out there. That's something else. But he is a wizard when it comes to this and he can answer all the questions; he knows a lot about it. Hopefully, that's something that, in time, he will be able to get. Because that's where his niche is. He really does enjoy it.

Like I said, I've been here five years, I've gone through five ministers since I've been here, in Crown Lands, Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. I have been through five ministers in TI as well. So a lot of these issues, you go around and around. As soon as they change in government, soon as they change your ministerial role, then we've basically got to start all over again to get our story out there. That's exactly what happens.

Now, I wouldn't expect that minister to know of the person I'm dealing with here in Goulds until I've given it to him. So I turn around, go get all the copies. I've done that copy at least four times, and I've had it in my briefcase since I started and I carry it around with me. Because it's very important that we get these stories out there and get them done.

But every time they change a minister, the work starts all over again for all MHAs. Not only on this side, I am sure there are Members on that side that have the same issues. I'm positive they do, there's no question. I'm looking at the Speaker and you're nodding your head. You certainly have the same issues. If you're in a rural community you have these issues, there's no question, absolutely no question, and it's time consuming. Because of all the people here, I have one story that I can tell you that was finished and done since I've started that the person got his land. We had it here on a sheet of paper. Let me see if this is the one. Yes, this is the one here, and I've read it out before.

This gentleman owned Crown land in 1979 – I might be taking some of his information from him, but it was mine originally. Someone in the community complained at that time that it was church land. So this is one that was solved. Crown Lands sent out an investigator and after his investigation, he recommended that it was church land and it was recognized as such by Crown Lands. So the gentleman was reimbursed for his expenses and his survey costs. At this point, he was fed up with it and he just walked away from it, but he had a brother who applied for it.

He went to the Grand Falls archdiocese – I got it right that time – to buy the land. His aim was to build a cabin on it and eventually did. He said he requested it by the parish council of King's Cove that they agreed to sell it to them. So he purchased the land in 1992. Once he received the bill of sale from the council and the priest, he built the cabin.

A few years ago, he applied to have it registered and two lawyers from Clarenville handled the process. During the process, it appears that Crown Lands, once again, considered that this land is belonging to the Crown after all that time. After designating it to the church back in the '80s, they came back and said it was Crown land again.

It did get settled and it's one of those cases that I can sit here and say that there was a good ending to it, but that is one of the cases that happened to this gentleman in my area. It was over in the Bonavista area that he had the land, but he did get it ironed out.

It's something that we have to be looking at. This is people's money, their lives are in turmoil and we have to get this ironed out, and let's do it right. We have to get the legislation right. That is what we're all asking over here. There are so many loopholes in this.

Yes, we'll certainly want to have this part through that can take care of people through quit titles. Absolutely, we'd love to see that through and we want to see that done. As he said before, that will take some people off this list. Is it going to take care of everybody? No, but our job in here is to take care of everybody.

So we have to try to make this legislation foolproof. Let's get it done and let's get it through this Legislature here so that we can all be happy when it's done. It'll help every single person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure that it's done and it's done properly.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

In listening to my colleagues, especially from the more rural parts of the Island and with historic communities in their towns, the issues and stuff that faces Crown Lands, especially seniors living in houses. They thought they owned the land and they had title to it, then to find out later when they go and try to sell the house or they go and try to do something like that, many people don't even find out that the land wasn't theirs until they go to sell it, sell it to a family member or that. They are looking to move into some kind of retirement living or care and then they have the burden of this process of finding out that they no longer have the ability to do that and as well the related incurred costs.

Currently, the act requires to prove the adverse possession of 20 years prior to January 1, 1977; however, a lot of the older residents have moved away, passed away, adverse possession claimants face difficulties in proving their claims.

It's interesting that this is the situation, I know a relative of mine, his father is living out around the bay, out in Wesleyville, who was just recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's and they're looking at finding a way to move him into care. He finds out that the house that he's living in was never really on his land or he didn't think he owned the land because they found it didn't. He thought it was given to him by a relative many years ago to build a family home to raise his children in. Now they're currently going through the process of hiring lawyers to find good title and the chain of title for those kind of things, to try to get it.

This has been a multi-year project now. Unfortunately, for my relative, his father is in declining health. So it's becoming quite the cumbersome challenge to find out and get this straightened out so they can sell the home and be able to take care of that, so his father can have something when he goes into care.

We want to see these things. I look at my own family. My grandfather, when he left Labrador, he went back to a family piece of land around Centreville and the same thing. The land was owned by his grandfather who left it to him and then across the lane was land that was my great-grandfather's who ended up giving it to my dad who then gave it to all these people. It was a long-standing family piece of land that dated back to when they first came from England to settle in Bonavista Bay.

It became a huge quagmire of things and my grandfather spent the majority of his retired life trying to straighten all that out so that the land would be able to be divided up correctly for my father and my father's sisters. My grandfather wanted them all, when they retired, to come back together out in Centreville.

So he spent the majority of his retired years working on that and another few pieces of land that was left in the family, to try to straighten that out and, unfortunately, he passed away in July. I'm sure he's still up there trying to fill out paperwork.

It was one of those things, you know, we had an interesting way that we settled this province. It was very hectic kind of settlement and then family passed land down to each other and things like that. Now we're faced with a problem that was done many years ago and no one had the forethought that anything was going to happen. Now, here we are in 2024 trying to modernize and trying to move it into a fair way.