October 21, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 25
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Before
we begin, I’d like to welcome Mr. Dougald Russell, who is viewing our broadcast
in the Speaker’s boardroom.
Mr.
Russell is a Korean War veteran and is the subject of a Members’ statement this
afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear Members’ statements from the hon. Members for the Districts
of Placentia - St. Mary’s, Humber - Bay of Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands,
Ferryland and Bonavista.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.
S. GAMBIN WALSH:
Speaker, there are 34 Community Youth Networks throughout our province funded by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their inception resulted from a
need to decrease barriers to education and employment and increase the quality
of life for young people.
Prior to
joining the Community Youth Network’s umbrella, the Placentia CYN operated as
the P4 Youth Centre. The youth initiative was originally formed in 1994 by a
group of parent volunteers. Through fundraising efforts and volunteerism, this
centre flourished until 2001. At that time, CYNs were forming across the
province and the P4 Youth Centre became a satellite of the Splash Centre in
Harbour Grace. This allowed Placentia to have a full-time employee.
In 2012,
the P4 Youth Centre became a CYN hub. They engaged 12- to 18-year-olds, but also
include community programs for families as well as employment and career
services for young adults up age 29.
The
centre offers a number of programs such as Freedom, an educational program about
independent living. This program was developed to help ease the transition from
high school to post secondary and the workforce.
For
additional information on programs offered by the Placentia Community Youth
Network, visit their Facebook site at
www.facebook.com/cynplacentia.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
I’m very pleased today to recognize a recent recipient of the Newfoundland and
Labrador 2021 Seniors of Distinction Award, my good friend and neighbour,
Patrick W. Moore.
Pat
lives in Curling and has been a long-time volunteer in the Curling and Corner
Brook area. He has been a member of the Knights of Columbus for over 45 years
and at a young 80 years of age, he is the longest-serving member of the Bay of
Islands Search and Rescue with 29 years of service and has been instrumental in
bringing search and rescue to the level it is today.
Pat is
well known throughout the community for his contribution to his neighbours and
to families beyond his communities. Whether it be involvement with an
organization or his personal contribution, providing Christmas hampers to a
family in need or shovelling his neighbour’s driveways, Pat is always there
showing the true spirit of giving.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Pat Moore on this well-deserved
recognition and thank him for his many years of service.
Proud of
you, old buddy.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the community-minded citizens
across our province who put their names forward in the recent municipal
election. As everyone in this hon. House would know, public service is truly a
calling and it’s encouraging to see so many people step up and offer themselves
this time around.
As the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I would particularly like to congratulate
the newly elected councils in both St. John’s and Mount Pearl. In particular, I
would like to congratulate Carl Ridgeley on being elected as the new councillor
for Ward 5, which includes our shared jurisdictions of Southlands, South Brook
and Galway. I look forward to working with him in growing and enhancing this
amazing part of the capital city.
Likewise, Mount Pearl is my home, the place I dearly love and so I’m very
excited to work with our new council in advancing the goals and objectives of
our city.
Finally,
I would be remiss if I didn’t congratulate my daughter, Chelsea Lane, on being
elected to our city council in Mount Pearl. As a father, I couldn’t possibly be
more proud.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O’DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today, I
would like to recognize Charles Luther and Melvin Sutton for their work in
raising funds for Daffodil Place.
Daffodil
Place is operated by the Canadian Cancer Society and is available to clients and
their caregivers who must travel to St. John’s for cancer treatment.
September 22 to 24, Charles Luther and Melvin Sutton, two men who were born and
raised in Trepassey ran 147 kilometres to raise cancer awareness as well as
raise money for Daffodil Place. During their run, they were successful in
raising $20,000.
They
decided to run the race in memory of Charles’s friend, Jamie Hynes who passed
away June 21 at the age of 45 from multiple myeloma.
The
death of a friend or family member is always sad; however, the event had a
positive spin by raising awareness and funds which will help so many families
who are affected by cancer, as well it brought some energy and excitement back
in to the town along the Southern Shore and especially Trepassey.
Speaker,
I ask all my colleagues in this House to join me in congratulating Charles
Luther and Melvin Sutton on their successful fundraiser in support of Daffodil
Place.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is an
honour to celebrate the extensive and exemplary service of Dougald Russell,
affectionately named Doug, who has dedicated a significant portion of his life
serving his country and the community of Port Union.
Doug
joined the 3 RCR Canadian army in November 1951 and was involved with the Korean
conflict for three years, returning in November 1954. He was presented with the
Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal.
Doug is
currently the only Korean vet living in Trinity Bay North. In 1954, Doug joined
the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 16 for which he remains a member today, 67
years of service and counting.
Doug was
a member of the Port Union Council for several years, working to assure historic
Port Union remains prosperous. As deputy mayor in 1986, he was instrumental in
seeing the Sir William F. Coaker bridge was replaced. His legendary meeting
underneath the bridge with then MHA Charlie Brett was a determining factor, a
story which I look forward to telling to this House when the opportunity
presents. Masterfully orchestrated by Mr. Russell.
I ask
the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the
outstanding lifetime of service from Mr. Doug Russell of Port Union.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today at
Dalhousie University Faculty of Agriculture, two farmers from this province are
being inducted into the Atlantic Agriculture Hall of Fame to recognize their
contributions to this industry. Gerard Cormier of Codroy Valley is the inductee
for 2021, and the late Raymond Eveleigh of Comfort Cove is the honoree for 2020.
Gerard
is a fifth-generation farmer working the farm his great-grandfather established
in 1852. The family business expanded in 1963 to include a dairy operation and,
in 2004, the dairy farm merged with Chaffey Farm to become one of the largest
dairy operations in Eastern Canada.
Speaker,
along with his work on the farm, Gerard has been a dedicated advocate for
Newfoundland and Labrador farmers and producers. Among his many achievements, he
helped form the NL Milk Marketing Board, and served on the Crop and Livestock
Insurance Board, Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Milk Supply Management
Committee. His guidance and support continue to be valuable resources to the
farming community.
The late
Raymond Eveleigh of Comfort Cove cleared his first piece of land in Burn Cove at
the age of 18. Under his leadership, the farm expanded from vegetable production
to include fruit, sheep and cows. Triple E Farms carries the logo “Pride of the
Burn,” a nod to the place where Raymond cleared his first patch of land. Nearly
a century later, Triple E Farms is one of the largest vegetable farms in the
province, and Mr. Eveleigh and his family hold a well-earned reputation for
excellence in agriculture.
Speaker,
please join me in thanking these trailblazers, and all farmers, for their
dedication to building Newfoundland and Labrador’s agriculture sector.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
We, the
Official Opposition, congratulate Mr. Gerard Cormier of the Codroy Valley and
the late Raymond Eveleigh of Comfort Cove on their induction into the Atlantic
Agricultural Hall of Fame.
Mr.
Cormier was an advocate for dairy farms in this province and was instrumental in
founding of the NL Milk Marketing Board. His dedication to dairy farming in our
province is unheralded. His guidance is still valued in the farming community
today. He is the voice of growth of dairy farming in our province.
Mr.
Eveleigh spent his life in farming, growing a vegetable farm to include fruit,
sheep and cows. Raymond is known for excellence in farming and his family
carries on this strong tradition today.
We
salute these two legends of the agriculture industry in our province and we
salute the families of those men who continue their legacies.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
We join
in commending trailblazers such as Mr. Cormier and Mr. Eveleigh, as well as all
food producers in our province, for helping getting food on our store shelves
and tables. They are truly indispensable in this effort and farming is not an
easy job to take on.
However,
government can go one step further in getting that food on tables of families
and building demand for local products by legislating a livable minimum wage so
that all people – all people – of this province can enjoy healthy, local food.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, our offices continue
to hear of lengthy delays for cardiac surgery in our province. The Premier
responded yesterday by talking about how much health care costs. He’s putting a
price on people’s lives.
Does the
Premier now know how many people have died while awaiting cardiac surgery in our
province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of
all, let me express sincere condolences to anyone who’s passed away as a result
of long wait-lists in any capacity. Unfortunately, I know they’re not isolated.
But what
I do know is that we need to use situations like these, Mr. Speaker, and not
ignore them, but to own them; to try to reconcile them to the best of our
abilities; but, more importantly, to create a collective, pluralistic empathy
throughout this House, to harness that empathy and change it to energy that
drives and fuels us to have the courage to create the system that we need to
ensure, above all else, that we are creating a system for a healthier
Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We
totally agree that the House needs to have empathy, but also we need to have
solutions to ensure that the people are safe in our province and have access to
proper health care.
Yesterday the Premier did not have any idea of how many people were on the
wait-list for cardiac surgery. Has he been able to find out what the wait-list
is now for surgery?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I’d like
to echo, from my own personal experience in a previous career, how difficult it
can be for patients and their families when they are waiting for procedures, no
matter what the reason.
In
response to the Member’s question, I can inform the House that there are 193
people on the cardiac surgery wait-list; currently, 121 of those are within the
benchmark period of time. For the further benefit of the House, over the course
of recent months, we have lost 107 procedures due to COVID. We are in a much
better position than other provinces where their wait-list and backlog is 3½
years, Mr. Speaker. I have a meeting again with Eastern Health on Monday to
address these and some other concerns.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Better
than other provinces doesn’t help the patients who are now waiting for those
interventions that are life saving for them.
Yesterday the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development said, and I
quote: I’m not aware of any reported cases where ER personnel cannot respond.
And further said, and I quote: If there was a crisis, it certainly doesn’t
prevail now.
Does the
Premier agree with this statement?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I’ve
said before in this House earlier this week, it is a crisis for those who don’t
have a family doctor, it is a crisis for those who can’t find an ambulance and
it is a crisis for those who are struggling on long wait-lists. Believe me; I’ve
had to deliver that news to people. It’s a crisis for the front-line providers
who are working extra shifts and pulling their hair out. We recognize it’s a
crisis.
I’m not
caught up with semantics; I’m caught up with solutions. That’s why we created
the Health Accord NL to drive those long-term solutions. But we recognize,
equally, that it’s important for short-term solutions for those people in
crisis, which is why the Minister of Health and Community Services just earlier
this week provided some short-term plans to help while we’re waiting for the
report.
By the
way, we’re ahead of the rest of the provinces in recognizing this and launching
the Health Accord NL to come up with long-term solutions, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development disagreed that emergency responders
cannot respond to calls saying: They can always respond, eventually. I suggest
the minister speak to the Member for Cape St. Francis who had a constituent wait
45 minutes for private ambulance to travel from one side of the Northeast Avalon
to the other because no ambulance was available from Eastern Health.
Premier,
why do you continue to support your minister who is choosing to ignore the
crisis facing the people of this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, the government has recognized that there are problems in the health
care system and we’re not ignoring them, we’ve come up a really robust plan to
come up with long-term solutions. We can’t revert to the mean, I recognize that
there are significant individualistic crisis throughout the system.
What we
have been tasked with in this House is to have the courage to change the system
long term, that is not going to happen overnight, Mr. Speaker. We also recognize
– as specific in the preamble – there are issues with the ambulance services.
That is part of the Health Accord NL, but, in addition, we recognize that there
are short-term implications for patients waiting for ambulances, which is why
the Minister of Health and Community Services attempted to address that in the
short term by adding new ambulances to the road, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, I do have to
acknowledge that you can’t solve and issue if you don’t acknowledge it exists.
If you have ministers that don’t acknowledge an issue exists, it’s going to be
very hard to solve that issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Premier, this same minister,
while Deputy Minister of Health, said, and I quote: We don’t have as productive
of a nursing workforce as we should.
I ask
the Premier: Does he agree with the minister that our nursing crisis can be
fixed if our nurses just work harder?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
have said on the floor of this House and in public many times before nurses are
the heart and soul of our health care system, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
I’ve worked alongside them
and they are some of the finest individuals I’ve ever worked with in my entire
career. We recognize the value they bring to the system but we equally recognize
how stressed they are.
We’ve
sat down with the Registered Nurses’ Union, with Ms. Yvette Coffee, and we’ve
had discussions about how to fix some of the issues they’re facing.
The
reality is there is no short-term fix. We need to be looking at strategies to
elevate the conversation so that we’re not continuing to have these
conversations over and over again, Mr. Speaker. They recognize that a
collaborative approach is an appropriate one, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, we all agree –
particularly on this side of the House – the value and the importance of nurses
and all of our health professionals in our health care system.
Yesterday, your minister ignored the fact that doctors are leaving over the
crisis here saying doctors have always left, suggesting this systemic problem
does not need attention. This is the same minister, while Deputy Minister of
Health, who said that there are too many nurses and doctors in the province.
Premier,
do you agree with your minister that the province has too many doctors and
nurses?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
I can tell you one thing, Mr.
Speaker, this doctor hasn’t left and he is staying here to address the problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
D. BRAZIL:
We acknowledge that this
doctor has taken on a new role. Now, we ask this doctor to use his skillset to
solve the problems that are facing the people of this province when it comes to
health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, we have a health
care system facing crisis. At the same time, we have a Health Minister in
denial. We have a Finance Minister threatening doctors. We have a CSSD Minister
spreading misinformation about the doctors concerned. All while we have a
Premier with his hands tied.
I ask
the Premier: Why do you allow such dysfunction in your Cabinet on the most
critical issue in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr. Speaker, my hands are not
tied. We’ve launched the Health Accord NL last year, ahead of all provinces,
recognizing the significant issues facing the health care system. That’s not in
denial at all. In fact, that’s recognizing the problem; that’s looking for
solutions to the problem.
Recognizing the problem is only part one. Driving solutions is part two, three
and four. Those are the sentences that come next. The Opposition has easy
questions but no solutions, Mr. Speaker. We have solutions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Justice told reporters the workplace review of the RNC will be
taking place virtually, with the consultant not expected to travel to
Newfoundland and Labrador, with interviews taking place over Zoom or Skype.
I ask
the minister: How can interpersonal trust between the reviewer and the
interviewees be built without even a face-to-face meeting?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you for the question,
Speaker.
The
Member opposite does have it correct, that is what I said to the media
yesterday. Unfortunately, she left out the second part of what I said to the
media yesterday is that if the people and the individuals who are speaking to
the reviewer feel that it’s necessary to do a face-to-face meeting, of course,
that reviewer will come to Newfoundland and Labrador, meet with them
face-to-face to have these serious discussions to ensure that the public is safe
and that the public has trust in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. That’s
what’s important here.
We do
have technology to assist people to do meetings nowadays and there’s a reason
for that, it’s COVID. We want to make sure everybody is safe, but, if it’s
necessary, she will travel to Newfoundland and Labrador, the department will
fund her travel here and her stay.
We will
make sure we get this right because it’s in the interest of the public.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, if the minister
truly wants a review that gets to the bottom of these serious issues this has to
be right, I agree.
I thank
the Minister of Justice for releasing the terms of reference but these terms of
reference for the review are really nothing more than four sentences. There’s no
specific timeline. There’s no reference to any of the allegations that have come
forward over the last number of months.
While I
agree we shouldn’t force victims to testify, does the minister believe these
allegations can be taken seriously and dealt with if this review does not have
even a mandate to consider them?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the question.
First of
all, I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I will not force any woman who
has an allegation that she’s been sexually harassed or sexually mistreated to
come forward, publicly, and discuss that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN:
I’m not interested in forcing people to be re-victimized if they don’t want to
do that. It’s a personal choice, an individual choice, and I leave it to that
individual to deal with that through mechanisms that are available to him and
her, including the Serious Incident Response Team and the Public Complaints
Commission of the RNC.
Second
of all, this is an open-ended mandate to the reviewer at the RNC because I,
again, don’t want to dictate to the officers and the civilians at the RNC about
what they can say and what they should say and limit them in any way. It’s open
ended for that reason, so any and all issues that exist at the RNC can be
discussed with the reviewer.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
Speaker,
it is no wonder the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association have suspended
negotiations. Yesterday, the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social
Development questioned the validity and integrity of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association on the doctor shortage saying: Nowhere near the
number of 99,000, no matter what way we do the math.
I ask
the minister: How can you bargain in good faith when one of your colleagues has
a blatant disrespect for the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I think
I’ll say it again; we value and appreciate the work of our health care
providers. I know the Premier said it earlier, but I think it’s worth repeating.
It’s very important to all of us to recognize the hard work of doctors, nurses,
paramedics and all of those engaged in the field.
As I’ve
said repeatedly in this House, we’re sitting down with the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association. We’ve presented payment schedule review, we’ve
presented family practice renewal funding; we’ve talked about rural retention
bonus.
Mr.
Speaker, we really do recognize and realize that we have a challenge with pay
for family doctors. We want to sit down with the NLMA and get back to the table.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, everything the minister said is wonderful, except we left out one
thing; she’s already put a cap on their salaries. She doesn’t want to talk about
any new monies, so that’s part of the problem.
Speaker,
the Minister of CSSD asked people to consider the source of the information on
the doctor shortage.
In
response, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association showed its source,
an independent polling firm commissioned by the association.
So I ask
the minister: Is the Minister of CSSD helping negotiations by spreading
misinformation?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thought I was pretty clear in my first response. We have sat down with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association on payment schedules, on blended
payment models and on rural retention. We’ve talked about family practice
retention. We’ve put forward proposals on that.
I would
ask the NLMA to come back to the table. We realize that we have a challenge with
pay for family doctors and we want to talk about it at the table.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, in response to the
comments made by the Minister of CSSD, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association has shown its homework and proven the minister wrong about the
doctors concerns.
Will the
minister stand in his place and apologize to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Medical Association?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to respond.
I
certainly want to recognize, as the Premier said, that many individuals in the
province are challenged with finding a primary care physicians, but in terms of
my contribution to the debate yesterday, I still stand behind what I said. My
source is independent, and that the NLMA also have their point of view, I stand
by what I said and that’s all I can say at this point.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It’s
unfortunate that people cannot recognize their wrongs and just simply apologize.
Speaker,
the doctors in our province are calling out for help and this government is
refusing to listen. In an article published by
The Telegram, Dr. Sarah
Tulk says she feels like a member of the orchestra on the
Titanic, and I quote “…
focusing on my job to distract from the fact that primary care in NL is slowly
slipping underneath the waves.”
I ask
the minister: Does he agree with this warning from a local doctor?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I’ll,
again, repeat myself. We have been presenting proposals to the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association to address these concerns. Blended payment models,
family practice renewal funding, rural retention bonuses, I can go on naming the
different proposals that have been put before the NLMA.
Mr.
Speaker, we realize that we have a challenge on pay for family physicians. We
recognize that. We realize it, that’s why we’re presenting these proposals.
The best
thing I can say is that we ask that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association come back to the table so that we can resume negotiations.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
appreciate the response; however, my question was specific to doctors and those
who are giving their life experiences through the media to us.
This
same doctor writes that family doctors are “burnt out and demoralized” and
facing “the worst pay in all of Canada.”
She
writes that doctors in our province are telling others to stay away and even our
family medicine graduates are not staying here due to the conditions they face.
She says she “didn’t go into medicine to tell patients, ‘I can’t help you’.”
I ask
the minister: Does this sound like the words of someone facing a crisis?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We have
been listening to our physicians. We acknowledge that some of them are
particularly stressed. Our solution is at the negotiating table, because in
there is the key. The key to burnout, the key to overload are collective,
collaborative care teams. We have seen these work. We’ve seen these
revolutionize the working conditions of all of the practitioners involved there,
because the work is shared and people work to the best and interesting end of
their spectrum. So you have family doctors; you have nurse practitioner; you
have pharmacists; you have optometrists, potentially; wound care nurse and
diabetic educators. It’s the one door, one-stop shop, the right care, right
place at the right time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
in the minister’s mandate letter it talks about listening to the lived
experiences. I’m appalled to here the words: some of them, again, which we heard
yesterday, which implies a small number.
Speaker,
the doctor says we can’t get doctors to settle in our province with – and this
is her quote – “even the most delectable of fruit baskets.” She warns that
without better compensation local doctors will be looking up the number for
recruiters in Nova Scotia. Something we on this side of the House and the
Medical Association have repeatedly warned about.
I ask
the minister: Will you stop your government from dismissing the concerns of
family doctors and finally listen to their concerns?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I do
appreciate lived experience. I think it’s important for all of us to bring our
lived experience to this House of Assembly.
I will
say that we have presented issues to address the retention and recruitment
issues that we see within our family physicians. We’ve put down plans for
payment schedule review; we’ve talked about leave benefits, rural retention
bonuses and family practice renewal funding.
Again,
I’ll say that we recognize there’s a challenge with payment for family doctors.
The best place that we can have a further discussion on this and make
improvements to it would be in negotiations with the Newfoundland and Labrador
Medical Association.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Speaker, our office is
hearing from residents all over the province who need someone to advocate for
them. They are calling us because the Liberal government is in denial. I’ve
heard from residents of St. Alban’s who are concerned that for the past two
years there are many examples of emergency services diverted to Harbour Breton
or Grand Falls-Windsor.
How can
the minister justify putting residents on the South Coast in danger because of
their emergency room being unstaffed?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Rural
family medicine, rural emergency care has always been an area of great challenge
in terms of recruitment. I sympathize with those people who are concerned that
they can’t get the care that they need when they need it, but Central Health, in
that particular example, have contingency plans in place for both locums and
virtual care.
The fix
here is recruitment. We announced a package on Monday that totalled some $30
million. In there is a provincial HR plan for health care providers, a
provincial recruitment and retention office and significant investment in new
family medicine graduates, Mr. Speaker. That’s the solution until the Health
Accord comes on stream.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
The minister seems to have
solved a lot of problems on Monday, Mr. Speaker.
Recently, the emergency room in Lewisporte moved to virtual care because of
doctor shortages. Central Health advised people to proceed to the next nearest
emergency room.
If our
emergency rooms are not open, operational and staffed with the needed medical
staff, how can the people of this province have any confidence that the help
will be there when they need it?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Emergency room care, rural family medicine is challenged at the moment with
various stresses, not least of which is COVID and not least of which is
retirement. Central Health have contingency plans in place. There are first
responders, there is virtual care and there is backup from the regional referral
hubs.
The fix
for this is recruitment and retention and, to develop my previous answer, the
provincial recruitment and retention office will be key to addressing issues
around physicians, as well as other health care providers. A needs assessment
and a physician HR plan will inform that. We’re working on it, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Liberal Members opposite know that health care is in a crisis, even if their
ministers won’t admit it.
Central
Health has hired a recruitment agency to help physicians. How many physicians
have been found for Central communities? If we’re speaking about we are ahead of
other provinces by leaps and bounds, why are our very own doctors going to those
other provinces to work?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
patchwork approach to recruitment and retention has been necessary and this is
now going to be solved, in the medium term, with the provincial Recruitment and
Retention Office. We have, in the past, used recruitment agencies to provide
locum cover.
The key
now is that all of us get together in a collaborative, team-based way to sell
our communities as places to work and places to live. It is not just about
recruiting a doctor; it is about attracting a family. The Minister of Finance
speaks about the importance of hearing what the NLMA say and them coming back to
the negotiations after they sought their members’ input.
We are
making progress, Mr. Speaker. It is slower than I would like –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member’s time has expired.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Speaker.
We see
lots of nods across the way, but it is about time that you all stand up and
speak for your own constituents as well. It isn’t just Central Newfoundland and
Labrador where we are hearing concerns from residents of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
C. TIBBS:
We have been receiving calls
from St. Anthony where residents have to resort to protesting –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
We’ve been receiving calls
from St. Anthony where residents had to resort to protesting in this last summer
about staffing shortages in health care.
I ask
the Member for St. Barbe - L’Anse aux Meadows: Is there a health care crisis in
St. Anthony? Is it a crisis as well?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Recruitment in rural areas is a challenge; that is certainly the case. We have
responded to that in the medium term by putting in place a provincial
Recruitment and Retention Office. St. Anthony has a wonderful facility. I worked
there for 4½ years and it is a great place to raise a family.
The key
is to get all the players, all the stakeholders, to approach recruitment and
retention as not simply a government initiative, not simply a regional health
authority initiative, but we need the Members opposite out there to help calm
the noise and advocate on behalf of this province, instead of running it down
every five minutes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I’m
hearing from many of my constituents who are raising concerns about the
deterioration of services and the future of the Burin Peninsula Health Care
Centre. Specifically, residents are concerned about the future of obstetrics,
surgical services and physiotherapy, in particular.
Will the
minister commit to insuring these services are not removed from the Burin
Peninsula Health Care Centre?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Health Accord NL is looking at a plan to reinvent, reboot and renovate the
health care system in this province to make it sustainable. Doing what we have
always done and expecting a different result is not going to get us anywhere. I
wait, with interest, the input from the communities involved to Health Accord NL
and really look forward to their final report.
They
have done a wealth of work. They’ve spent a lot of time, and I’d like to take
this opportunity to thank both co-chairs as well as the teams that have been
involved. We will then be in a position to do our due diligence about their
recommendations.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Health Accord’s interim report states that, since 1981, there has been a 6 per
cent increase in social spending and a 232 per cent increase in health care
spending. A 2011 study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives into the
cost of poverty in British Columbia concluded that raising the income levels of
the poorest 20 per cent would save that province’s health care system 6.7 per
cent in spending annually. In terms of our current health budget, that would
save the Newfoundland health care system almost $217 million annually.
I ask
the Premier: Will his government commit to implementing a minimum living wage
and increasing the level of income support for those who depend on it?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is
the passion of both of the co-chairs of Health Accord NL to address the broader
determinants of wellness – the so-called social determinants of health. This
phase of their consultation opens this month, and I would encourage all Members
of this House to provide input. Now the Progressive Conservative Party has a
member on the team; perhaps they will have a direct channel to be able to do
that, too, now.
From our
point of view, the wellness, the more holistic approach to making this province
the healthiest it can be by 2031 will be determined by addressing social
determinants of health, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Last
night, the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development went to great
pains to introduce an amendment to the Opposition’s private Member’s resolution
that only some individuals are experiencing a health crisis.
Would
the minister please quantify “some” for us and to the people of our province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Speaker, for the
opportunity to respond.
As I
said, I think, in the debate yesterday, we certainly recognize that there are
quite a number of people in the province now looking for a family physician. I
think the substance of the discussion was around what that quantum is. There is
a different piece of research out there that suggests a certain number of
people.
The
point is that the government addressing those issues, looking to make sure that
the services are provided and that we will bring that gap down significantly
over the next couple of years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
It sounds, Mr. Speaker, that
the minister really doesn’t have a number and doesn’t know what he’s talking
about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DINN:
The NLMA issued a press
release outlining exactly how it arrived at the figure of 98,000 – fairly
transparent.
I ask
the minister: Was his amendment and comments last night nothing more than a
blatant attempt on behalf of his government to mislead and minimize the doctor
shortage?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you once
again.
Certainly not intending and wanting to mislead, by any stretch. There is a
difference of view. The NLMA have done their work, paid by them, to produce a
report. What I relied on was independent information provided by Statistics
Canada. Consequently, there is a difference, and I stick by that research.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I ask
the minister about MTAP over and over and he continues to defend it.
But I
ask this of him, and the Premier: As health care professionals who have sworn
the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, are they okay that under this government
people in Labrador are not able to make it to appointments or receive timely
care because they cannot afford to travel to St. John’s because of such a broken
and limited program?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We do
recognize on this side of the House that medical transportation is an issue.
From our point of view, we have the two programs. We would love to be able to
revamp some of them completely, but quite frankly we have made significant
improvements to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program – the
reimbursement, the cost-defrayal mechanism that is available to everybody.
We do,
for Income Support clients, completely cover their travel. We’re also working,
for example, with provincial airlines, who have made a very good offer about
streamlining their processes for booking flights with ours for people who come
from Labrador. And I look forward to being able to make an announcement perhaps
in the not-too-distant future.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
During
Question Period, under section 49, the Leader of the Official Opposition in a
question stated that the Minister of Finance threatened doctors.
Mr.
Speaker, I find that to be inappropriate language for the Member opposite to
look at the minister and say that she threatened doctors. I would hope that the
Member would withdraw his statement.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, obviously, in this House, we try to keep decorum to the level that it
should be and set the examples here, Mr. Speaker, and we do that. This was a
comment based on – it was a quote from the Medical Association saying that they
felt threatened as part of that.
With
that being said, because I am cognizant of the decorum here and understand we
all have a responsibility, I do withdraw that statement that I presented in the
House just now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
SPEAKER:
The Speaker has one.
In
accordance with section 19, subsection 5, paragraph (a) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the minutes of the House of
Assembly Management Commission meeting for the meetings held on May 12 and May
26, 2021.
Any
further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motions.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that
this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 25, 2021.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O’DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows: The Witless Bay Line is a significant
piece of infrastructure.
Whereas
many commute to Bull Arm, Long Harbour and other areas for work as well as the
commercial and residential growth in our region has increased the volume of
traffic on this highway.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: Upgrade to this
significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic
to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.
Mr.
Speaker, I presented this petition on many occasions. We did receive some
pavement, I’m going to say a couple of years ago under a different minister and
I certainly appreciate that. We did four kilometres. The road is 22 kilometres
long and there are other sections that has been done. I think it’s time for the
department to have a look at that and finish this infrastructure.
It’s a
piece of infrastructure that is used by tourists going along the Southern Shore
Highway. I’m going to say crab trucks driving back and forth across, campers and
visitors from all over the Island. Right now, they are going back and forth down
in Placentia down to the site for work on the White Rose project. There are
people going back and forth there so it is a big piece of infrastructure.
When I
speak about it in the House and I meet someone – when I met someone the last
time they said don’t forget motorcycles travelling across. When you’re driving
on those roads – I give them credit, they fill in the potholes and there are
some huge craters. Somebody should go up and drive it and go across it.
When you
get the good section of pavement, obviously, everybody can’t have it, but this
is an important structure and should definitely be upgraded and be brought up to
standard. It’s not up to standard now.
Motorhomes, if they’re coming down the shore, what we call down the shore; it’s
probably up the shore for someone else. When they come down the shore, they go
out around and go out to the CBS area and come in around to go to the
Trans-Canada to avoid the Witless Bay Line, it’s so hard on their trailers and
campers and whatever they’re towing.
I’d love
for the department to be able to have a look at this, and I do appreciate your
time.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I will
just say to the hon. Member that we’ll certainly be considering what you have
brought forward here today in that petition in the Multi-Year Plan.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
residents on Route 350, 351A and 352 in the Exploits District are concerned of
the road conditions on these routes causing safety issues and damage to
vehicles.
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 have roadwork contracted to upgrade and
improve conditions of these routes.
Mr.
Speaker, these are Routes 350, 351A and 352 in zones of 50 to 70 kilometres.
They are in deplorable conditions, Mr. Speaker. We have children riding on
buses. We have people in towns trying to get from one place to another and the
roads are deplorable. I’ve spoken to three different ministers now on this area
and nothing has been done, Mr. Speaker; nothing has been done to address this
and it is deplorable.
I did
have a conversation with the minister, actually, last fall, and he told me
point-blank there was no funding for Exploits. Yet, when I look at the news
release that the minister put out, he got my district up to $6.4 million and
that covers Route 360 that leads to his own district going to Bay d’Espoir,
which you have to go through the Exploits District to get to Bay d’Espoir. Thank
you, Minister.
Anyway,
Minister, during the summer driving around down in the Speaker’s district,
actually, Route 340 is all cleared up, right smooth going down there. That’s on
Route 340 and Route 360 in the minister’s district that’s being done, and 350,
351A and 352, what happened to it?
SPEAKER:
I wanted to rule you out of
order there for a second.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
If there’s ever a time that a
Member for Exploits have made me happy is right now because let me clarify; let
me clarify for those who don’t know. Route 360 where there was paving done this
year was right on the verge of his district going down past –
P. FORSEY:
(Inaudible.)
E. LOVELESS:
Hold on now. I gave you the
opportunity.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
E. LOVELESS:
It passes right alongside the
Lions Max Simms camp where a lot of your constituents go. Are you telling me I
should not have done that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. LOVELESS:
So you ask for it, you got
it.
Bring it
on the MHA for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Speaker, the reason for this
petition is as follows: The road to the Town of Terra Nova is unsafe for travel
by those who use it. The road isn’t maintained on a regular basis and is the
responsibility of the Department of Transportation. The road is the only way and
out of the community and is travelled daily by students on a school bus to
Glovertown and parents are concerned for their safety.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repair the road to ensure the safety
for those who travel on it on a daily basis.
Mr.
Speaker, the road to the Town of Terra Nova is gone. Make no mistake about it.
It was voted the worst road in Atlantic Canada. By the department’s own
admission, when they look at a road from a safety standpoint for fixing they
measure from the centre line. Well, if you drive in to the Town of Terra Nova,
the only thing in existence is the centre line. There’s no asphalt on the
outsides of it. It’s shameful.
I
listened to the minister over there, they’ve gotten 1,000 pictures sent to them
and there’s been no response from the department – none – which, in itself,
speaks volumes.
Now, the
minister was questioned about the politics in paving and the work that was done
in his district and he quickly pointed out the extra work that was done in my
district. Well, it was done on a Class I highway, on the Trans-Canada Highway.
E. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
On a Class I highway, not on
Class II and III like you did in your district.
Now, I
applaud you for standing up for your constituents. I applaud you. That’s your
job as an MHA, but as a minister the role is to look after the entire province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT:
So I don’t applaud you for
that.
This
road is extremely – extremely – unsafe. Now, to top it off, there are quarries
in there that are travelled on and government money comes back from the
quarries. Logging, Nalcor, they got the road tore to pieces. When the power line
went through, Nalcor tore this road to pieces. They should have replaced it.
That road is gone, and I mean gone. It’s most likely, like AAA said, the worst
road in Atlantic Canada.
I urge
the minister – I urge the minister – not to look at the multi-year program, but
to look for a fix now before somebody dies, because they don’t have years to
wait. The road is shot. There are students in school buses and they shouldn’t be
travelling out over that road.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Let me respond to the Member
opposite to say that I don’t govern based on that survey. I don’t now and I
won’t. Because you know what I govern on, I govern on the expertise in my
department, and I did that and I will continue to do that. I rely on their
expertise in terms of determining what roads will be done.
You want
to talk about playing politics with paving. I guess if I’m going to be investing
my district I’m playing politics. But one of your colleagues, I actually visited
her district to go and view her roads because they were of a concern to me. I’ve
travelled a lot, so that’s not playing politics. As far as I’m concerned, that
is a concern, and I did that out of a concern for the roads.
Not only
that, this summer I travelled many kilometres of roads in all districts to see
and, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a good place to start in terms of planning.
I’m going to continue to – we will consider, absolutely, that road in our
multi-year plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
presented this petition earlier this week and I think it’s extremely important
that I present it again.
WHEREAS
there are many hopeful mothers and couples in this province dealing with
infertility issues and require medical assistance to conceive; and
WHEREAS
the costs associated with out-of-province fertility treatments, specifically in
vitro fertilization, are extremely cost prohibitive; and
WHEREAS
there are doctors in the province trained in in vitro fertilization and have the
desire to set up an in vitro fertilization clinic in the province; and
WHEREAS
the province is dealing with an aging population and serious population growth
challenges;
THEREFORE, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to establish a fertility treatment clinic within the province,
providing full fertility services, including in vitro fertilization, for hopeful
mothers and families and, in the interim, provide financial assistance to access
out-of-province fertility treatment and services.
Speaker,
I have received many, many inquiries, calls, emails from families and young
women who want to start a family and want to stay in this province and raise
their family. They are not getting the option to do so because they do not have
the full services available here in this province to allow them to conceive and
have a baby.
The
costs associated with it are extremely, extremely high and to have to travel out
of province is even more inappropriate for them because they can’t get seat
sales. You have to run and go when they have to go. It’s just not a conducive
environment for young mothers, young women and couples to have families.
Now, the
Premier committed during the election to enable to have those fertility services
here in the province. The Minister of Health said it’s not optimistic to do so.
The Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality said that she’s going to
commit to a review. This is not a multiple-choice question. This is a simple
question of offering the services to the young women and families in this
province who want to have a baby and start a family in this province. It has to
happen now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
certainly appreciate the hon. Member’s passion about this topic. As I said here
multiple times this week, we can all certainly be passionate about this and all
relate. Like I said before, I’m sure many MHAs – if not all MHAs in this House
of Assembly – have received calls from constituents.
Let me
be clear: This government supports women. This government supports families who
want to grow their families and to have children. As I said earlier this week as
well, based on my correspondence and my work with my colleague, the Minister for
Health and Community Services, there is currently a program being developed now
to fund residents who are eligible to travel out of province.
That
said, this Premier has campaigned on it. The Premier is passionate about it, as
am I, as a woman. As the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality, we
are committed to reviewing this service and certainly doing everything that we
can to help young women and families who want to grow their families and
ultimately grow our population.
It’s not
falling on deaf ears. I can’t be clearer than that. I will say I am very excited
and I can’t wait to finally get out and announce an update, some good news, as
soon as those updates become available. But no make no doubt about it, I
certainly will be keeping the feet to the fire with my staff and to do what we
can as a government to help these people.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
In the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there are over 75 patients who live with
cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease that causes severe damage
to the lungs, digestive system and other organs in the body. Unfortunately, as
of now, only the symptoms of CF are being treated.
In June
2021, Health Canada approved Trikafta, a triple combination precision medicine
that targets the gene defect that causes CF. Trikafta has been proven to result
in life-changing health improvements. For example, Stanojevic demonstrated that
accessing Trikafta in 2021 would result in significant improvements for those
living with CF by 2030, including: 60 per cent fewer people living with severe
lung disease; 15 per cent fewer deaths; 19 per cent fewer hospitalizations or
home intravenous courses; increase of an estimated 9.2 years for the median age
of survival for a child born with CF; and reduction in the number of double-lung
transplants.
Mr.
Speaker, once again, I have people here who are supporting this petition from
all over the province. They’re from the Shearstown, Coley’s Point, Bay Roberts
area and Conception Bay North are primarily the people here today.
I will
say that I did hear from one of the advocates last night and they were very
excited and pleased to say that they have been told, at least, that – prior to
then, Newfoundland and Labrador was the only province in the entire country not
approving this life-changing medication. But I was told last night, from an
advocate, that they were advised that our province has indeed, as of last night,
there was late-breaking news that our province was finally going to sign on and
approve this drug.
I was
told that unofficially. If that’s true, that’s fantastic news and I applaud the
government for doing so. But I would like to hear from the government, from the
minister, just to confirm in this House of Assembly from that official source
that the government is indeed going to be providing this life-altering,
life-changing drug for families who have a loved one with cystic fibrosis.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake, Bill 12, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill
12, An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake, and that the said bill be
now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.’
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.’
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation and
Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs to introduce a bill, “An Act
Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake,” carried. (Bill 12)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Renaming Of Red Indian Lake. (Bill 12)
SPEAKER:
This bill has been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 4.
Speaker,
I moved, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing
Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, October 21,
2021.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
Is the
House ready for the question?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.’
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.’
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 7, Bill 22, An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that Bill 22, An Act
Respecting Off-Road Vehicles, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and second that Bill 22, An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles, now be
read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles.” (Bill 22)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I’m very
pleased today to speak to Bill 22, the
Off-Road Vehicles Act.
Let me
start by saying off-road vehicle accidents are not rare. They happen all too
often in this province and I can’t stress enough the importance of safety. I
would ask all Members of the House to reflect on your use of all-terrain
vehicles as well as your constituents’ use of off-road vehicles and how can we
change the culture of safety in the province around the use of off-road
vehicles.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need to understand the risks associated with
the use of such vehicles and what we can all do collectively to ensure our
children, partners, friends and family members get to enjoy using their off-road
vehicles and live to tell their stories.
We have
all seen and heard media stories regarding off-road vehicle safety and the
increasing number of accidents, injuries and fatalities involving such vehicles.
According to the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency, since 2014 there
has been 68 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have lost their lives in
off-road vehicle accidents. We’re still counting statistics very sadly, Speaker.
Since January of this year, we have had an additional four fatalities. That’s
four too many and many of these are preventable.
We
recognize that for many people in rural and remote communities vehicles such as
ATVs and snowmobiles are their primary means of transportation.
Mr.
Speaker, I grew up in Grand Falls-Windsor, I rode on Ski-Doo’s and ATVs. When I
was six I had a minor mishap on a Ski-Doo, I don’t really accept responsibility
because I was six. Someone allowed me to operate a Ski-Doo when I was six, which
I don’t think was appropriate at the time, but maybe since then I haven’t really
been comfortable on Ski-Doo’s. I also can’t get my feet warm enough, actually.
I’ve had different kinds of boots but I can’t get warm enough on a Ski-Doo.
They’re not my favourite. I prefer an ATV at my parent’s cabin; I enjoy using
the ATVs there.
I guess
I’m not an expert but I am kind of a user of ATVs and snowmobiles. Over the last
six months I have spent a ridiculous amount of time reading and learning and
debating everything to do with off-road vehicle safety. I have learned a lot and
I am very pleased to bring these changes to the House today.
I’d also
like to chat about some of the consultations that we’ve done because our
department has concluded extensive consultations. We’ve done a jurisdictional
scan throughout the country in consultations with stakeholders; for example: the
Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation, snowmobile clubs, the T’Railway
Council, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Off-Highway
Vehicle Distributors Council, the medical community, Indigenous governments,
Indigenous organizations and enforcement partners.
I’ve
received many letters from physicians and from medical organizations pleading
with us to have, for example, things like mandatory helmets.
I’d also
like to highlight an opinion survey that was done by the Newfoundland and
Labrador Statistics Agency in 2018, I guess at the earliest stages of this,
which was before my time. They did a survey that was geographically
representative across the province, with 96.2 per cent of respondents supporting
mandatory helmets in the province. That was for snowmobiling in particular.
Respondents also indicated a desire for increased enforcement and expanding the
legislation to include other motorized vehicles, for example, Side By Sides in
these changes, Speaker.
The
changes we’re proposing addresses the feedback of what we heard from our
stakeholder consultations and also presents an opportunity for residents to
renew their commitment to safe and responsible off-road vehicle use.
I’d also
like to recognize the power of the Nunatsiavut Government as well as the Inuit
communities of Nain, Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik and Rigolet to make their own
laws regarding the operation and use of recreational vehicles. Under the
Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, the Nunatsiavut Government can make laws
for use on Labrador Inuit lands outside the communities, while the Inuit
community governments can make by-laws for use within community boundaries.
Where there is a conflict with provincial law, the Inuit law or community by-law
prevails.
Additionally, under the federal Indian Act,
the regulation of off-road vehicle traffic on reserves is a by-law-making power
of a band, exercisable by the band councils of Natuashish, Sheshatshiu and Conne
River. Under section 88 of the federal
Indian Act, the band by-law will prevail over a provincial law in the event
of a conflict.
There is
opportunity, Speaker, for any Indigenous organization that I’ve listed here
today – they can create their own by-laws so if there’s something that we’ve put
in this legislation that they feel shouldn’t apply to them or if they would like
to, you know, increase safety a bit further or make an exemption, they’re
certainly legally permitted to do that.
The act
that we’re proposing modernizes language to help users understand the
requirements of the legislation and clearly recognizes Side By Sides as being
subject to the law. At the moment, in our current legislation, the word Side By
Side is not really accounted for. The wording is not there. So we’re trying to
make this very clear to users that Side By Sides, where they apply and where
they don’t apply. When in doubt, they apply everywhere. The rules to Side By
Sides apply to the other rules of off-road vehicles.
In terms
of some of the specifics that we’re proposing, for example, a person must not
operate a dirt bike unless they are able to sit astride the bike with both feet
touching the ground and a person will not be able to operate a Side By Side
unless they’re able to sit with their seat belt fastened and both feet on the
floor.
Speaker,
we’ve reviewed many owners manuals in coming up with some of these. I have some
here with me today. The changes we’re proposing in legislation align with the
manufacturers’ recommendations for these machines as well. The act also makes
allowances for approved disability-related modifications based on manufacturer
recommendations in respect of those requirements.
In an
effort to help reduce the number of brain injuries and fatalities, under the
Off-Road Vehicles Act it will be
mandatory to wear helmets on all off-road vehicles unless exempted under
regulations. I think it’s important for Members and anyone watching to
understand that today we’re debating the act and changes in the act, and then
the specific exemptions to the mandatory helmet clause, those come in
regulations. We’re being transparent about what our proposed policy is for the
regulations because I understand this is very important to the people of the
province. But the regulations come later; they don’t come back to the House. So
we’re happy to chat about those today and get feedback, as well as get feedback
from the general public, and I know I’ve received lots of communications from
people on those as well.
Just to
be transparent, if you look across the country, there’s a range of different
types of exemptions. The two that we’re kind of going to review further and get
more information on: one is hunting and trapping activities for less than 20
kilometres an hour and having that being an exemption to mandatory helmets; and
the other one that we’re going to seek further evidence on and investigate
further is factory-enclosed Side By Sides. So when you buy a Side By Side from
the factory that is fully enclosed, the requirement to wear helmets for that.
These are two ones in particular that we’re going to be looking for additional
information on and considering further but if others come up in debate, we’re
happy to consider those as well.
Speaker,
we’re proposing in the regulations to enforce the use of seat belts on any
off-road vehicle equipped with them. I’m extremely pleased that the amendments
to the act will protect the province’s youth by clarifying rules regarding age
limitations. Proposed amendments will also require mandatory operators’ safety
training for anyone under 16 years of age, anyone registering an off-road
vehicle for the first time and anyone convicted of an offence under the act or
regulations who has had their registration cancelled or suspended. The training
provisions will be brought into force once we have made training widely
available.
Speaker,
we thought a lot about training and in the effort of improving our safety
culture here in the province: How can we, I guess, roll out mandatory training
to have the most effect? But we also recognize that many people of our province
are very experienced users. So we believe, Speaker, that we’ve come up with a
good compromise in terms of long term, dramatically increasing the safety
competence of our off-road vehicle users and operators while recognizing the
experience that many of our owners and operators currently have.
So, just
to reiterate that, we are proposing mandatory safety training for anyone under
16 years of age, so 15 or below; anyone registering an off-road vehicle for the
first time – so if you’ve registered a vehicle in the past, you wouldn’t have to
do training again. If someone comes in from another province with their off-road
vehicle, they would have to do the training; and anyone who is convicted of an
offence under the act or regulations who’s had their registration cancelled or
suspended. They would also have to do training, Speaker, because they’ve
demonstrated to Motor Registration that they don’t have a good handle on the
rules or that they are not following the rules.
In terms
of training, we are looking at online training. The specifics are still to be
worked out with our safety partners, Speaker. When we’re looking at when
different parts of this act could be proclaimed depending on how the debate goes
today, Speaker, we’re looking at potentially the training provisions coming into
force later. Some of the other provisions where we don’t need to work out
additional details, they could come into force earlier and things such as the
training would come into force later.
We’ve
also added provisions, Speaker, so those under 13 years of age will not be
permitted to operate off-road vehicles with an engine size greater than 125 cc.
The act also requires individuals under 16 years of age to be supervised by a
licensed driver who is at least 18 years of age.
Speaker,
we’ve looked across the country and each province, I guess, has slightly
different nuances in terms of the age and which types of vehicles you can
operate, and we’ve listed and consulted with many different organizations.
There’s no perfect solution here. We think that this is a reasonable option that
protects very young riders and that the restrictions here would not be too
onerous, but we are happy to debate those further.
When
operating off-road vehicles near highways, operators will be permitted to cross
a highway where the minimum visibility is not less than 150 metres in both
directions. Crossing a highway on an off-road vehicle also requires a driver’s
licence issued under the Highway Traffic
Act. Speaker, we’ve seen a lot of accidents, especially lately, where
operators have been crossing highways which lead to both incidents for the
off-road vehicle operators but also for motoring members of the public who are
on the highway.
The
current regulations, I think it talks about 100 yards. Myself, I have no concept
of how far a yard is, so we’ve changed it to be 150 metres, visibility in both
directions. I think, Speaker, this is where the culture element comes into
effect. I think it’s important that riders and operators plan their routes and
plan where you’re going to cross a highway for your journey and make sure that
you have 150 metres, in both directions, visibility. If you’re not sure and if
the visibility is low – when in doubt, don’t cross the highway. This is very
serious. We’ve seen this year and in the past years incidents of people crossing
the highway and the high speeds that motor vehicles are travelling. When in
doubt, you shouldn’t cross the highway. This is where the safety culture I think
is important. People should be thinking safety first.
Speaker,
operators will be also permitted to travel along a highway to access a trail
where the off-vehicles operated on the shoulder of the highway for a maximum
distance of 1 kilometre and the vehicle is operated at speed of not more than 20
kilometres per hour.
Speaker,
we recognize that as people enjoy their off-road vehicles across the province,
they often have to ride along side a highway. I believe currently that’s not
contemplated in the legislation. We understand that sometimes they have to, but
operators shouldn’t be doing that for extended amounts.
Based on
our consultations, we believe 1 kilometre is an appropriate amount to be
travelling along side the highway, but the vehicle cannot be operated at a speed
of more than 20 kilometres per hour. They have to be going relatively slow, or
we certainly encourage slower than that as well.
Speaker,
when towing trailers, hitches or attachments, they must meet specific safety
requirements that we’re proposing and operators are not permitted to tow
passengers on or across a highway unless there is an exemption for a
non-ambulatory situation. To me, that kind of wording didn’t really make sense
the first time I heard it. You think an ambulance and ambulatory but when you’re
referring to someone who’s being transported in that kind of emergency
situation, that’s referred to as non-ambulatory and so that’s kind of the
wording in our proposed legislation. If there was an emergency and someone was
bringing someone on a Ski-Doo in a trailer to a local hospital in a snowstorm
that would certainly be permitted, Speaker.
Another
thing we’ve done is had a serious look at the fines. Previously, there was one
set of fines for snowmobiles, one set of fines for ATVs, so we’ve kind of
amalgamated them together and we’ve since checked the varying severity that
someone might contravene one of the stipulations. So the new fines range from
$100 to $2,500 for all vehicle types and we also have increased fines for second
and subsequent offences, Speaker.
The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes the value of outdoor
activities but safety really has to be a top priority in the minds of the owners
and operators of off-road vehicles. I think the culture of safety is important
to keep in mind; also I think the role of supervisors. If people own and operate
these off-road vehicles, it’s very important that anyone, their children or a
friend or colleagues, who might be operating these vehicles really understand
the power of the machines. I have read through multiple manuals myself now of
different types of ATVs and snowmobiles and dirt bikes and we have to take heed
to what the manufacturers recommend.
They
know best and following those safety rules outlined that we’re proposing today,
but also that the manufacturer recommends, are very important in making sure
that these machines are operated safely and also that there aren’t any
unintended consequences. We’ve heard a lot of stories where people are not
physically able to handle certain vehicles. So I think that’s also something
very important that supervisors need to keep in mind when they are supervising
other activities on off-road vehicles.
In terms
of enforcement, I’d just like to thank the collective effort of those who
enforce the legislation to ensure the law is upheld. I commend the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, resources
enforcement officers with the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture
and other peace officers who work tirelessly to enforce and education the public
on off-road vehicle safety.
I look
forward to the debate today, Speaker. I’m not sure that we’re going to get to
Committee today but whenever we’re ready, we have lots of – I’m sure it will be
a long session of lots of Q & A’s because we have a very substantial piece of
legislation.
I guess
I would just stress that safety is everyone’s responsibility and I think our
rules are only as good as people follow. I would implore everyone across the
province to follow our rules and even go above and beyond that to think about
safety when they are operating and enjoying their off-road vehicles.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland,
L. O’DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
First of
all, I’d like to say it’s an honour to speak in this House today to represent
the beautiful District of Ferryland and certainly a great honour to do that.
First of
all, let me start by thanking the officials in the department for providing us
with – and my colleagues that were there – a briefing on the legislation. I
would certainly like to thank them for that.
Speaker,
this legislation will repeal the Motorized
Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act and replace it with the new act
entitled, the Off-Road Vehicles Act.
In implementing a new act, it is important and the hope of the minister and of
the department that off-road vehicles such as ATVs, Side By Sides, dirt bikes
and others will be used to increase safety and provisions.
I heard
the minister say: Think about your own use. I don’t know if I want to go back
and look at my own use on an ATV when I was young; I don’t know if I want to
even speak about it. Some of the stuff that we did, I don’t know if it would be
so safe today. You learn over time how it should be handled and how they all
should be taken care of and driven with respect. Sometimes that’s what we have
to teach our kids and, hopefully, pass that on to our grandkids and so on. But
sometimes speaking of your own use might not be so good sometimes, so just to
touch on that.
Speaker,
we support the safe use of off-road vehicles. We recognize that these machines
are, in fact, motorized vehicles and if not used properly they can result in
serious injury and death. We encourage all residents and visitors to this
province who use, ride and drive off-road vehicles to do so in a safe manner.
Before I
talk about the specific legislation, I do want to take a moment to express my
sympathies to those individuals who had loved ones die from accidents and
collisions involving off-road vehicles in our province. I also wish to give my
best wishes to individuals who have been injured by these vehicles and wish
everyone who is dealing with an injury a speedy recovery and a full recovery.
Speaker,
while recent history has shown that ATVs, Side By Sides, dirt bikes and other
off-road vehicles can be dangerous, they can also be valuable tools. Many people
in our province use them as tools for woodcutting, transportation, hunting,
trapping and so on and all kinds of recreational use. It’s important that the
legislation and regulatory framework, which the province puts in place, allows
for practical and safe utilization of off-road vehicles. I believe all MHAs will
agree to this point.
As a
caucus, we are supportive of safety; however, we do have some questions about
some of the elements contained in the legislation and we’ll be bringing those
specific questions into Committee. I look forward to this as it takes place in
the next phase of debate; however, given this is not started yet, before the
legislation, I want to talk about enforcement.
This
legislation does not increase the enforcement of the rules. How can the minister
expect safety to increase if enforcement doesn’t increase? That’s a very
important piece of this. You had the RCMP today at a briefing and the RNC and
they’re strapped as it is right now. I get calls in my district regarding this
and not being able to enforce – nothing to do with ATVs, just to be able to
answer calls with mental health and all other stuff that they respond to. To put
more onus on the police forces – obviously, enforcement is going to be a very
big factor in this and that’s something that we should be looking at.
One of
the components of this new act is that a person will not be allowed to operate a
dirt bike unless they sit on the seat with their feet touching the ground and a
person will not be allowed to operate a Side By Side unless both feet can reach
the floor. For individuals who have a disability there are modification
allowances in this legislation, but I have to wonder how the impacts of a person
who has been driving a dirt bike or a Side By Side safely for years will now be
prohibited from doing so. Is this really fair or is the height base a
discrimination? So it’s something that we have to consider for sure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O’DRISCOLL:
One of the new features of
this legislation is safety training. Safety training will be required for anyone
under the age of 16 years of age, anyone who is registering an off-road vehicle
for the first time or anyone convicted of an offence under the act.
We
support the training for people under age 16 and for people who have been
convicted of an offence under the act. However, we are concerned that the
requirements of training for people who are registering an off-road vehicle for
the first time may deter people from registering their off-road vehicles.
Presumably, a person who currently has an off-road vehicle registered does not
have to take training as recognition for their ongoing safe usage. But what
about the instance where a family owns an off-road vehicle, it’s registered in
the name of one individual, but the spouse and adult children have been using it
safely. If one of those adult children now purchases their own off-road vehicle,
do they need to take training, even though they have safely operated the vehicle
for many years?
We
haven’t been provided with enough information to determine if this training will
make a difference in encouraging the safe off-road use of vehicles. We have
questions about the training. Questions like: Who will be doing the training?
Will not-for-profit organizations be allowed to offer it? Will not
not-for-profits offer it? When will training be available? What will the
training cover? Will it be online or in-person training?
When I
think about online training I’m not so sure sometimes, because us as
Newfoundlanders have to find a way to get around to do the training. If you do
it online you can go in and do it for your kid or something like that. So I’m
not sure online training is a way that we – not saying it’s not good, just a way
that the right person is doing the right training. That’s something that I don’t
know how you police that, but I think that’s a tough one. I see your reasoning
behind it, but I’m just wondering how we get around it and how we will get
around it. Because there are always ways that we find ways to get around stuff.
We’re
also wondering if training should be mandatory for anyone regardless of age who
does have a licence to drive a motorized vehicle on a public roadway. Has the
minister considered this? Did this idea come up in consultations? What were the
findings of the consultations?
The
legislation also brings in some rules surrounding the towing of trailers. The
legislation includes a definition of trailer and hitch requirements and
indicates that persons can be towed in a trailer. But passengers cannot be
riding in the trailer if the off-road vehicle is crossing a highway. This is a
safety rule that makes sense, no question about it.
The risk
of collision is greater on the roadway, so removing passengers, walking them
across the road and resuming the ride makes sense. So no question, if you’re
towing somebody, you’d certainly look for the safest way to tow. If somebody’s
in a caboose behind that you’re going across a road – obviously, we’ve done that
when we were kids and we were in the back and they drove across a road, a good
stretch of highway, not on a turn that you could look and go across the road
safely and then go across a pond. So we’ve done that. I would say many people in
this House have done that when they were kids or as adults. You do it as safely
as you can. Accidents sometimes are accidents. You just get in a situation that
you didn’t mean to get into and it happens. But sometimes we have to use common
sense.
Under
age limits and supervision, there’s another area where the legislation makes
changes. Currently there are different age requirements for the operation of a
snowmobile and an ATV. Currently, an individual has to be 13 years of age to
operate a snowmobile, while a person under 13 can operate a snowmobile if
they’re accompanied by another person who is 19 years of age and older.
Regarding ATVs, currently the age to operate is 16, with a provision for a
person age 14 to 16 to operate a smaller ATV, if they are supervised by someone
who is 19 years and older.
I’m
going to say, one time last year, I was driving through the community of Witless
Bay, coming up the steep hill going towards Bay Bulls, my daughter was on the
passenger side, and a dirt bike just shot right across in front of me – and we
weren’t close; more than the length of this Chamber away. It wasn’t close for me
to be hitting that person. They just flew across the road, never looked and
never stopped.
Ten
seconds later, there was a police car right behind them chasing them. I didn’t
know the kid; I found out after who it was – not my concern, but he had a
passenger on the back. When they got across the road, the police officer passed
him by, went ahead of him far enough, stopped the car and the bike went, bang,
right off the back of the car. The police officer jumped out, the bike backed up
far enough – it bounced far enough back. The bike went out, hauled around the
vehicle, went down the road further toward the powerhouse, I call it; the cop
got in the car, up the hill and went the other way. That was the end of the
chase.
About an
hour later, I went back home and went down to the police station in Bay Bulls to
look at the car; a fair-size dent and I spoke to the police officer. I wasn’t
looking to get anybody in trouble and certainly never done that. At the time I
didn’t even know who it was, but their hands are tied. No different than a
high-speed chase in a car; they’re not allowed to chase them at a certain speed
and they’re not allowed to chase them on a bike.
I’m sure
they can race them in a police car, no doubt about it, but it was concerning.
When I seen him shooting across the road – and listen, I’ve met the police on my
bike and wondering if you should be driving or not. It’s only the summer that I
needed to go to my brother’s house to get a trailer. My bike is home in my yard
and there was a couple of kilometres to go along the sides the road to get up
where it was. I don’t have a truck and I wanted a trailer to use, so I stopped a
police officer and I asked him: Am I allowed to drive the bike alongside the
road to go up here to get that trailer?
He said:
Really you’re not, but it depends on who’s hauling you in and how busy they are.
I seen them in my community going along with trailers – some people are hauling
wood. They’re not going to haul those people in that are hauling wood. That’s a
source of heat for those people, but I elected not to take my bike and I’m not
going to be the MHA getting hauled in on the side of the road by the police
officer, getting a ticket. I had to go get a loan of a truck to go get the
trailer to bring out. So they were strapped to be able to do that. I wanted to
throw that in there that they’re certainly pushed to the limits in regard to
being able to enforce. That’s certainly big.
I’ll go
back to where I was. The new legislation sets age requirements for an off-road
vehicle to do the same. So individuals who are under 13 are not permitted to
operate an off-road vehicle with an engine greater than 125cc, and those under
16 years of age must be supervised by a licensed driver who is at least the age
of 18. As noted, some individuals, those under 16, will need to be supervised
when using off-road vehicles. So combining this one age group is certainly a
good start, I think, instead of wondering if you’re 13 or 16. I think it’s a
good start.
This new
act will now require that off-road vehicle operators and passengers must wear an
appropriate helmet. We have been told that there will be an exemption in the
regulations that helmets will not be required when the off-road vehicle is being
used for hunting or trapping activities and that the vehicle is travelling less
than 20 kilometres. Again, less than 20 kilometres. It’s about enforcement. They
don’t have a radar gun for 20 kilometres.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
Thank
you.
L. O’DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
certainly support wearing a helmet on ATVs, dirt bikes, snowmobiles and whatever
the motorized vehicle is. We certainly do. However, we have some questions about
wearing of helmets when the person is driving a Side-By-Side vehicle: How a
helmet will impact a driver’s line of vision when there are already roll bars
and other parts of the vehicle in the line of sight.
We also
have concerns about the practical element. Some of the Side By Sides are
enclosed and do not have air flowing. With a helmet making these uncomfortable,
probably steaming up masks if they have them on or helmets with the visors on
them, so something that should be looked at.
Seat
belts will be required to be worn in any off-road vehicle which is equipped in
off-road vehicles. We support the use of seat belts for using off-road vehicles
when they are available in an off-road vehicle.
So,
Speaker, while we want to increase the safe use of these off-road vehicles, we
do have some questions about how the legislation will be implemented. This new
legislation does not change the enforcement related to ATV, Side By Side or
snowmobile safety. It does outline the legislation regulations will be enforced
by any police officer or peace officer, including those in Wildlife Enforcement
Division. Do we have enough officers employed in this province to enforce this
legislation? I’d have to question that. Will more officers be required?
I was
also concerned about the new roles communicated to people who own and use
off-road vehicles. In a briefing we were told the safety organizations and trail
organizations would spread the word, but not everyone is a member. I don’t want
a person to learn about these rules for the first time when they get a fine or
hauled in for breaking or violating the rules.
Mr.
Speaker, I also have concerns about the consultation process with the government
to this legislation. I’m aware that a number of organizations were consulted.
But what about the average off-road user who isn’t a member of this
organization? You have to keep them in mind.
Speaker,
we are in support of making off-road vehicle use safer in the province; however,
we are concerned that there’s not enough enforcement of the legislation already
in place, and we have concerns about some of the practical implementation of
what is contained in the proposed legislation.
I’ll
also go as far as to say that when the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure is doing some roads – hopefully my roads along the way. Some of
these roads, when you’re going along some of these highways, you see there are
wood roads and hopefully, when they’re doing some of these roads, they consider
and make them safe to be able to enter these tracks, or roads or whatever
they’re called.
In my
district, I’m going to say there’s a group that are fighting or petitioning for,
or whatever you may call it, to try to upgrade our rail system where we are. I
know the trains are gone, but the rail system, the roads and the tracks, what we
call them, are still there. In Central Newfoundland, I mean, we’re envious of
the Port Blandford area, Grand Falls area. It’s a great economy that they have
there. I was out in Terra Nova the summer at a golf tournament fundraiser and I
looked at the pile of ATVs and quads that were at the hotel, having lunch and
staying there for the night; it was incredible.
In my
district – and that’s something that we’re going to work on, hopefully – I think
there’s something there that we can join all these railway tracks back up. They
did go across the Island; they did touch every community. So I think if we put
some emphasis on that, it will help. Like, I’m looking in the Town of Bay Bulls
to go to Trepassey. There are times you can’t go anywhere but on the road to get
to the next community. There are roads that you just can’t get through,
riverbeds, but the tracks were there. Listen, to say to go back and do them all,
but there got to be some funding that can help join these communities, whether
it be half a kilometre in the woods or to make trails, I think it’s something
that we could certainly look at.
The
difference between two districts – so every MHA here, I would think, would have
different angles on this ATV legislation and how it affects them. I’m looking
forward to seeing how it affects Grand Falls-Windsor and how it affects Terra
Nova. It’s certainly not going to affect St. John’s East in the middle of the
road on an ATV – I wouldn’t think. Unless you get a Snowmageddon when they got
the Ski-Doos on the roads.
Everybody will have a different spin on this and we certainly can’t touch it
all, but I’m sure there’s going to be some great points brought up, so I’d
certainly like to take the time and thank you so much.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I’m
going to have a few words on this today, and I thank the government and the
Opposition for letting me have a few words now. I have appointments later, so I
just want to thank them for that, on both sides.
Speaker,
first of all, I heard the minister and I heard the Opposition critic talk about
the families that lost people through this. It is a sad situation in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been ongoing for a while and the
regulations brought in today are fairly good regulations. There are some that I
feel needs to be a bit adjusted, but to the families that lost the loved ones, I
join everybody to say that we’re saddened that happened over the years.
Hopefully, these regulations here will help that no other families will have to
go through that.
To the
minister, for the work that’s done with that, you and the staff and reaching out
to a lot of groups, I just want to recognize that it is a fairly comprehensive
review. I’ll just bring up – because we’ll have time in Committee to ask
questions – some of the concerns that were raised to me.
I know
we heard – and I know the Opposition has raised it and I know the government has
heard it also – concerns about wearing helmets in the factory-sealed Side By
Sides. I call it factory-seals because I’m not an advocate of too much on the
ATVs. I have a Kubota, but I’m not up on it as a lot of other people across the
province are. I admit that, but the ones that I’m speaking to on the West Coast,
they always use the words factory sealed, which has a seat belt, which has
windows, which has steel doors and the frames and has roll bars and things like
that. That’s what they usually call the factory seals; it’s not the open ones
where you have canvas on the side or maybe on the roof. That’s what I mean by
that.
That’s
one of the concerns that has been brought to me is concerning wearing helmets in
one of those vehicles. I’ll just give you an example that someone tossed out to
me. As we know, we’re promoting this across the trails of Newfoundland and
Labrador. If someone left Clarenville, came towards Corner Brook for four or
five hours with four people in there, they have to have a helmet on for four
hours in a vehicle; air conditioning, you’re going to need air conditioning. If
anybody ever used one of those vehicles and put a helmet on and tried to put
your head back so that you can look properly or ensure the safety of where
you’re driving, it’s very difficult.
Most of
those vehicles – I know the information that I’m getting from a lot of people –
they’re not the speed demons like some of the other ones. These here are not the
fast ATVs that we see and these here have a lot more protection in a lot of
these vehicles.
I heard
the minister earlier – and here’s the problem I have is that we’re going to keep
it in the bill, about the helmets; we’re going to keep it in the bill, but then
we’re going to put it in the regulations: may or may not in the regulations.
Here’s the problem I have with that. Once we keep it in the act, it’s up to
someone in the department to change the regulations. It’s out of the control of
this House of Assembly. That’s the way it works. But if we can get it in the act
that these factory-sealed Side By Sides don’t have to wear helmets, they can’t
put it in the regulations.
Right
now, if we agree to this here and let this go, somewhere along the road, three,
four or five months, someone sitting in the office can change this and say,
okay, we have to wear helmets. It’s out of our control. Or they may say, no, we
don’t need helmets. Two years later, somebody can come back and review the
regulations and change it. So once that happens, this here could be a see-saw.
If someone one year wants to have it done, they can do it; they can take it out.
Because
if it’s in the act itself – and I’ll just explain it to the people – it’s out of
the control of this Legislature; it’s in the control of the minister and the
people who are making the regulations, not the act. So this is why it’s
important – and I know there may be motions put in to have this taken out. I’m
going to support that. I will say that now, Mr. Speaker, because we can’t let it
just go in regulations and depend on someone who, all of a sudden, wants to
change it.
Once you
keep it out of the act, then we can say, okay, it’s a dead issue. But if we keep
it in the act and go through the regulations, this may come up every year, year
after year. It may change back and forth on a regular basis.
I urge
the government to consider – and I understand there are going to be amendments
made – I urge the government to look at changing that amendment, because it is
an issue, the major issue that we find – that I’ve been receiving – on this
here.
A lot of
people who are family orientated, have been driving for years, they all go
across the province. They use their vehicles a lot, and they in turn feel that
this is more of a safety hazard wearing one, than not wearing one because of the
conditions that you put yourself under.
Some
part of the act that I see is that if you’re moose hunting, you don’t have to
wear one. So if I’m moose hunting, I’m drive 50 kilometres along a road, I don’t
have to wear one, because, okay, I’m moose hunting. Yet, if some family members
are taking – three or four families are in their bikes and they’re driving 30,
40 kilometres, they have to wear one.
If I’m
going turr hunting, I don’t have to wear one. I can go all day and not wear one.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I don’t know where you get
your turrs.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
But I’ll ask you a question,
though. I know people say turr hunting, how many people would say: I don’t need
any helmet because I’m going turr hunting today? That’s my point. All you have
to say is I’m going turr hunting today.
It’s
very easy; there is no one who can say that you’re not. This is the issue with
the regulations that once you start putting it in that –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Partridge hunting.
E. JOYCE:
Partridge hunting or turr
hunting, same thing. Partridge hunting is another example. This is an example,
I’m saying I’m going partridge hunting today; you don’t have to wear a helmet.
Yet, the families that are going across the province – I won’t belabour that and
I ask the minister to consider that because that is the biggest issue that I
heard on the West Coast for that. I know there are a lot of other Members
getting emails also on the West Coast about that also, because I know they’re
being sent around.
The
other part I would look at is the enforcement. It’s tough; it’s actually tough.
I know a lot of us out here, when we hear from towns about lack of enforcement;
it’s tough on the enforcement people. It’s more of an education process. It’s
hard to blame it on the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the provincial
enforcement officers or the RCMP because Newfoundland and Labrador is a large
place, very large. I just use the RCMP as an example. There is one member in the
nighttime going, say, from Pasadena out to almost Stephenville; got to go to the
North Shore, South Shore, all that area and there are a lot of times there are a
lot of people going on the roads with their bikes and it is hard to enforce.
I see in
the act that someone going along the road at less than 20 kilometres up to a
distance of one kilometre to catch the road – I agree with that – and have to
haul off if there are vehicles coming. That’s a great move, if we have that that
would stop a lot of people from accessing the roads and the woods in the
province.
Also
with the training, I know it was brought up a couple times, myself and my
colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, discussed it. The new
training under 16, that’s good. But I’ll just give an example: most vehicles are
supposed to be registered today; they’re supposed to be registered and have
insurance. What if somebody don’t have it and now they say, okay, I want to go
register my vehicle? Say they’re 60 or 70 years old, my age, and then they have
to do the mandatory training, even though they were riding the bike.
Is there
any way to grandfather in – if you had some way to look at that, to grandfather
someone in, even though they could probably be using an ATV for a number of
years around. That’s something that was brought up and discussed.
The
other thing is fines. I agree with the hefty fines. I don’t know how we can make
it any stronger with the fines because if you deter people through fines – and I
know through Service NL with the vehicles, when you impound vehicles and then
they have a cost for the storage, it is another deterrent for that.
Another
thing, I say to the minister, that was brought to my attention and will be
brought up during Committee is the trailers. There’s a size put on the trailers.
The question that was brought to my attention: The size of the trailers carrying
the wood – is that when you cross a highway or is it in a woods road? A lot of
people hauling their wood out in the wintertime but some use it in the
summertime when they come out with the Side By Sides, hook in the trailer, and
it might not be as long and some of the wood may be sticking out. It’s mainly on
a woods road and they put it aboard their truck. That’s another issue that was
brought to my attention that I’ll bring up and I’ll speak about.
I’ll
save some of the questions that I have for the Committee stage, but all in all
this is a great step to improve the safety in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Hopefully, with the education and a bit more enforcement and people
understanding the seriousness of these speed demons – some of them are very,
very fast machines. Also we need regulations, about 150 metres, the sight for a
car to cross the road; I agree with that. That is a major issue crossing any
highway. That is a very, very big issue.
All in
all, the vast majority of this bill, I will be supporting, but I just wanted to
raise those few concerns that I received from people that passed on input to me
from that. These are very responsible adults, families who travel a lot on our
systems in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Speaker, for the opportunity. I thank the government and the Opposition for
giving me an opportunity to speak on this earlier.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I
recognize the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you, Speaker.
I look
forward to my opportunity to speak on the new ATV and off-road vehicle
legislation introduced here by the minister today. Like the Member opposite, I
pretty well grew up on either an ATV, whether it be a Ski-Doo or a dirt bike, a
quad or now a Side By Side. So I guess I can speak of it from back when I was
seven years old, I probably rode my first Ski-Doo as a driver, and the first
machine we had was a 12 horsepower and you cut your lip open more times trying
to start the thing than you did of anything else. If anybody remembers
compression on that thing, it was like starting a bomb.
Like the
Member for Ferryland said, probably broke a few laws over the years because,
back when I was seven years old, no one hardly knew what a helmet was. I mean,
you go out in boat, no one knew what a life jacket was. We’ve changed so much.
The machines have changed so much, Mr. Speaker. We’re gone from a
single-cylinder machine now to multiples; sometimes a four cylinder wouldn’t be
outrageous to expect to see in some of these machines.
The
Member opposite talked about training. When we learned on what we had, it was
very small machines. I know I live in an area and I spend a lot of time in the
wintertime on my Ski-Doo and in the offseason on either the quad or the Side By
Side, in which you would see a lot of younger people.
The
minister talked about the accidents that happen out there. A lot of the
accidents and a lot of the reason it happens is anybody, and myself included
from time to time, being irresponsible on the machine. Any other way, you
probably would never have an accident. I know it’s safe if you stay home, but
the recreation and getting outdoors – and this is not meant to cripple that
industry whatsoever.
If you
go to Port aux Basques, anybody been to Port aux Basques lately, you’ll see
where there’s a diversion from the ferry that goes up by the Tim Horton’s store
because now we’ve attracted ATV users to this province and off-road vehicles. We
have a system that can take you from St. John’s to Port aux Basques and a good
many loops in between. So we have something here that we need to grow and
continue to grow and ensure that the people use it in a safe manner.
If you
look at the safety, I really get the safety aspect of it. I saw too many
accidents where people have done too many dumb things. A lot of the times you’ll
get away with a close call, but when you don’t get away with a close call is
when you become a stat, and that’s not what we need. We need to be responsible
on these machines. Big or small, it doesn’t matter.
So if
you look at towing – we’ve all did it. I can remember we had a 16 Elan. I don’t
know if you guys are old enough to remember those little plastic super sliders
that you strap onto your boots, but we basically invented water skiing on snow a
long time ago. I mean, you’d be skimming by picket fences like something half
crazy and lucky we all got our limbs to walk from it today. If you look at the
safety bit, we’ve evolved so much and where we’re are, we need to look at it.
Side By
Sides – I bought a new Side By Side last year. So I understand the Side By Side.
I understand the mentality. I understand the full-on enclosure, the rollover
protection and all that sort of thing. But it’s like anything, I guess, the
safest way you can be anytime is use all the safety equipment you got. But I
think the safest thing you can be is a very, very responsible driver out of it
all.
I’m
going to pick somewhat on the parents because sometimes – and I take
responsibility for this. I think my daughter was eight when I bought her a
Bravo. Now, I bought her the Bravo and a helmet because I did realize by that
time that she needed a helmet. They were piled on that three and four thick,
whatever they could get through and go on all day. So 20 years later, no
accidents from her, she’s evolved from a Bravo up to a bigger machine, but a
helmet is always front and centre whenever we take our snow machine – always.
Whenever we take the quad, the helmet is always there.
The
safety of this is vitally important. For those people who don’t use a machine, I
can tell you when a helmet is really unsafe. It’s when you cross a highway. If
you cross a highway with a full-face, full-fledge helmet on, you’ve lost your
vision on both sides. If you would look at any avid snowmobiler, you would see
them grab hold of it by the chin and either push up the front or wear it that it
comes down like this; that opens up their ears and their peripheral vision. It
may not be the greatest thing to do but if you look at crossing a highway, it’s
the most dangerous time you’re on a Ski-Doo because people come at you 60 miles
an hour, pretty quick.
We saw
that over the years. We hear it in the news. You cannot avoid it in this
province because we have so many crossing. That’s almost like telling a moose
don’t cross the road. I’m responsible in my department for enforcement. You have
to be realistic. It comes back again to the safety, the knowledge of the
operator.
If
someone has never purchased a snow machine before and they come in to the
dealership and you deck them out in the best of gear and the best of helmets,
with all the communication systems, without their knowledge, they are going to
do so much wrong trying to learn it’s not even going to be funny. They’re going
to endanger my life coming towards them because they’re going to think they’re
going to get on this – I know of people got on it for the first time, pinned it
in to get across the road, ended up in the trees. Took a full crew of people to
get them back out. Not saying they’re close to me, but I know them very, very
well. But it happens.
That
comes from, to be honest, the training side of it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Inexperience.
D. BRAGG:
And inexperience, 100 per
cent. That can come in all ways.
One of
the Members opposite said if Grandfather had a Ski-Doo and gave it to me, I know
what I’m doing on the Ski-Doo. I may have never registered because it was still
in Grandfather’s shed when I used it. There’s going to be some of that. I think
our target is definitely the younger people as they come up and the very, very
first-time buyer has to be a target. We need training for that.
I’m sure
the dealerships, they’ll tell you where all the gadgets are. When I got in the
Side By Side for the first time, the guy selling it to me sat in the other seat.
Not much unlike when you buy a car now, because there are that many gadgets on a
car you almost need to bring it home, sit in it, wait until it gets dark and
figure out where everything is to. That’s almost where we’re to with those new
machines.
The
technology is so much. There are that many gadgets. There are switches for this,
switches for that. When I operate mine I tell my wife, you’re in charge of the
wipers, because that switch is way over there. I’m focused on the road. Not that
I’m driving that fast – full disclosure, Mr. Speaker, but I’m not as young as I
used to be when it comes to that.
So all
the way through when we look at this, we have to agree, safety has to be the
number one thing. There’s not one of us here that one of our friends either (a)
had an accident that they hardly walked away from, or (b) had such a close call
they are so lucky to be breathing today. Every one of us.
Now,
there’s a culture that goes with this too that we’re never going to address. We
all know what that culture is in the backcountry, in the off roads. There are
things that go on there. People need to be responsible. I call it out for what
it is.
Again,
if you’ve been around it, you see it. Everybody who’s in the country would know,
we collect together, we gather together; we’re social people when it comes to
snow machines.
Out our
way now you have groomed trails. There are groomed trails in much of the
province.
The
snowmobile association is probably the most structured of the associations for
off-road vehicles, because they have a system of trail passes. They improve
trails; they cut brush. But the ATV or I guess the quad, for lack of a better
word, you can take that to the brink of wherever you can walk. But most people
on Ski-Doos today are on groomed trails or cut trails down to cabins.
So this
is vitally important. Are there going to be asterisks of this that everybody is
going to agree with? Yes, for sure, there are going to be. Everybody’s never
going to agree with everything. But this is a good start to get us where we need
to be. We need to make sure – and we need to practice this everyday. Training
and safety should be done.
You take
when the season opens up, you hear talk about early in the season a lot of
motorcycle accidents as soon as they come out. A lot of my friends drive
motorcycles – I never did – and they say cars don’t respect them, but after a
while you get used to a motorcycle as the year goes on.
You’ve
got a snowmobile in your garage that most people are only going to pull out on
the weekend. I mean, I pass it when I hit the highway to Gambo on a Friday, if
I’m going towards St. John’s, there’s a mass exodus of trucks and trailers going
to the West Coast for some of the best snowmobiling they can find. That’s people
who haven’t been on it since last year. But you need to just build yourself into
it and get used to it.
You
can’t go from zero to 60 on those things without having a feel for the machine.
It doesn’t turn like a car, let’s be fair. I go back to the 12 Elan, that didn’t
turn at all. I mean, if you didn’t put your foot down on that thing you weren’t
getting around the corner. Today, you just need to know what your machine can do
and what your abilities are. I think that’s the most important thing of all
this.
We can
never bring in legislation so that people would know exactly where that’s to. I
can’t stress safety enough. The enforcement side of it. We can all say there’s
not enough enforcement. We got to be smart enough to enforce ourselves. We’re on
the highway; we know what the speed limit is so we don’t double that. So if
we’re up in the backcountry, we should know what our ability is.
I think
the important thing to get out of this – and I direct this to the minister – is
that people understand we’re not trying to dissuade them from using their
machines. We’re encouraging them to use their machines. We’re encouraging them
to get out, but be safe and practice safety at all times.
With
that, I take my chair that I already got and I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
I echo
some of the comments made by the previous speakers with regard to safety. I’ve
seen first hand what it’s like for someone to get injured on snowmobile and ATV
and I would say it’s paramount that we enforce a lot of our actions ourselves
when we’re operating these vehicles.
Because
it’s fresh in my mind, I’ll go right to what the Member for Humber - Bay of
Islands was discussing with regard to helmets in Side By Sides. The word culture
came up and changing – having a culture of safety.
When
Bull Arm was on the go that was their catch phrase: culture of safety. One of
the first things they did was enforce mandatory hard hats for everything, as did
the Vale Inco site, actually. But it didn’t work and I’ll tell you why – I’m
putting this in preference to Side By Sides.
If you
went in on site, the minute you went through the security gates you had to have
a hard hat on in a vehicle, whether it was a pickup truck or a dump truck or a
tractor-trailer delivering goods. If it was DHL delivering or anyone, you put a
hard hat on.
What
they found was – the first thing is that there was a few very significant
injuries in some of these vehicles because of compaction, certainly in larger
vehicles. The hard hat eliminated their ability to maneuver inside the vehicle
and if they hit a bump or anything, they’d compressed and there were
neck-compression injuries, serious ones.
When I
think about a Side By Side and I look at factory-installed roll bars and either
a three- or a four-point harness, which, by the way, in most of the new
vehicles, if you don’t have your harness engaged, your vehicle is governed out,
a lot of them now. The new ones won’t do over 15 kilometres an hour unless the
seat belt is fastened. You sit back in a molded seat in a lot of these things
now and the helmet will actually impede your ability to sit in the seat in a
proper fashion and utilize your seat belt.
The next
thing I would say is that there is a significant amount of vision loss from a
peripheral standpoint if you’re inside a Side By Side with an enclosure and you
try to turn your head to look and see if you can turn left or right, and that
would concern me. I would actually think that a helmet inside of a Side By Side
– a Side By Side that meets specific regulations, with factory-installed roll
bars and three- or four-point harness where people are strapped in – may be more
dangerous. I believe that if you can do a jurisdictional scan you’ll found out
that there’s a belief out there that that’s the case.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
Yeah.
The
other note I’ll say is that inside of these vehicles, with the exception of the
very expensive ones, $40,000, $50,000, they don’t have air conditioning; all of
the heat comes up through the centre console where you change your gears. In the
summertime, which is when they’re used, they become extremely hot. I can’t
imagine being in a Side By Side with a helmet on in the summer. I just can’t
imagine how it’s a safe scenario, whatsoever.
But,
having said that, you know, education is key. I believe that we really need to
consider looking at the helmet legislation inside Side By Sides. I’m strongly
behind helmet legislation for snowmobiles, which it baffles me that it has never
been in place. It baffles me. You can go out and buy an 850 Bombardier machine
now, I think, with somewhere around 170, 169 horsepower and these machine weigh
400 pounds. Do the math, right? It’s incredible, the power behind them, and
people are doing 100 miles an hour on them and no helmets.
So I
support that strongly, and ATVs, but they’re not similar. I mean, I can get
aboard a convertible car and not wear a helmet, which I would say is as
dangerous, or more dangerous, than a Side By Side when you think about it. I can
get aboard a Jeep and take off the shroud and drive off road and not have to
wear a helmet, and not entirely dissimilar, right?
I guess
my point is – and I will be talking more about it when we get to Committee – I’m
strongly in favour of having a very close look at whether or not we enforce or
legislate mandatory helmets inside Side By Sides that have factory-installed
roll bars and three- or four-point harnesses. I strongly suggest that if any
ATV, Side By Side or snowmobile – well obviously, ATVs and snowmobiles don’t
have it – but if there are seat belts, they have to be mandatory. I strongly
believe that. But I think we have to have a closer look at the mandatory helmet
portion inside Side By Sides.
It’s a
way of life here in Newfoundland, to get outdoors and get on your snowmobiles
and your ATVs and all that good stuff. It’s great to see what so many
municipalities across the province have done when they’re broadening people’s
ability to get in and out of town. I believe that it’s important that MNL engage
the Snowmobile Federation and the ATV federation and have a close look at how
they can make that safer and better.
One of
the things I believe that we fail in as a government is signage on the scheduled
trails. What I mean by that is if we look at the rail bed that people come
across, I think that there could be more signage and that would be a great
addition to education and changing the culture. Put up some speed limit signs,
put up some directional signs and reminding signs and all that good stuff.
Ownership of an ATV, as was highlighted earlier, doesn’t necessarily mean that
there aren’t multiple people inside one family unit that use that ATV. So the
whole idea of doing courses for the first time you register an ATV, I think, has
to be looked at a little closer because the reality of it is that there are
multiple people inside a household that utilize one single machine but not all
of them have ownership on the registration. I think it’s a key component that we
need to look at.
One of
the things that I look at is 125cc regulation for, I believe, kids under 13. To
put that in perspective, a 125cc motorcycle is not at all similar to a 125cc
four-wheeler or a 125cc track vehicle. When I think about a 125cc motorcycle, I
think like a YZ, and these bikes are beasts and there’s a whole lot of power
there. But when you look at a snowmobile and you think 125ccs, they’re not out
there for kids of that size to drive. It’s just not there.
You’re
talking about Kitty Cats and the Mini Zs. You’re not even talking about a Bravo
or a Tundra, which is the size of a snowmobile that a child would drive at that
age. I believe that a Tundra is 250ccs or you can go to a 380 fan driven. It’s
something that needs to be looked at. My boy just turned 13 years old, but I can
tell you he can’t fit on a 125cc ATV or a 125cc snowmobile. They’re just not out
there to get.
So I
believe we’re missing the boat on that, but I think it’s something that we
should look at. We should differentiate between two-wheeled, four-wheeled and
tracked vehicles when we look at the 125cc ratio.
As we
all know, safety is foremost and you should understand how you’re operating this
stuff. I believe it is important for government to try and educate the people
who use ATVs, snowmobiles and Side By Sides. Enforcement is a huge part of it
and self-enforcement is a huge part of it.
I have a
Side By Side; I have snowmobiles. We use them; we love them. What I don’t see
much of is enforcement, certainly in the backcountry, and I don’t anticipate we
will. But when you get on the groomed trails and you’re going places, I do
believe that there could be a little more – if for nothing else –
educational-type checkpoints and stuff just to keep people honest, I guess, for
lack of a better way of putting it.
Because
there is a culture when you’re looking at snowmobiles and ATVs. And the reality
of it is that we all know what happens when people get out in the backcountry
and how they get to and from there are registered trails. When you have a
16-year-old kid out on snowmobile and there’s a family coming back from a cabin
or whatever, speed limits and all that good stuff, it’s not always safe.
The
whole idea of Side-By-Side legislation is the one thing I’ll go back on again.
I’ve heard so much in the last three days about it. I’m inundated with emails
and phone calls from people that are responsible and know how to operate and
understand that it could be a dangerous piece of legislation when you look at
it.
As the
Minister of Fisheries said – not Fisheries, sorry –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Forestry, fisheries and
agriculture.
L. PARROTT:
– Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture said – you lose your peripheral vision. If you’re operating a Side
By Side on a track – we’ll say, we’ll use the track – and you’re coming around a
turn and you’re doing different things, when you look to your left as a driver
and try and look out your window and you have a helmet on, you’ll quickly see
how dangerous that can be. And most of these rigs do not have mirrors on the
side. For a reason, because if you put mirrors on the side the only thing you’d
be able to pick out are headlights, because they vibrate so much. They’re never
in cue; they just don’t work. It’s just not a situation you can utilize. I’m
very, very, very concerned about that part.
So we’re
going to Committee on this next maybe today, maybe next week. Who knows? Next
week? I’ll bring up more next week when we talk, but I just wanted to get it out
there today that I think we should look very close at the helmet rule and seat
belt rule for the Side By Sides.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I
recognize the hon. the Member for St. John’s Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
You
might think that ATVs and snowmobiles are not a big issue in St. John’s Centre
until you go around Mundy Pond Road in the wintertime and you’ll see plenty of
snowmobile tracks. My cousin down in the east end met one as he was jogging
along Portugal Cove Road, so they are here.
In many
ways the legislation, I think, is accepting the fact that, look, they’re a part
of our lives. There’s no use bemoaning the fact that they cross the highways and
so on and so forth. But it’s interesting, I think several months ago – and it
was before the accident that occurred out by Paddy’s Pond. I was heading west on
the highway and pulled off the turnoff by Paddy’s Pond and, lo and behold, here
was a set of headlights coming towards me, to which I figured, okay, I’m going
down the wrong way but it was an ATV, a large one, coming up. Now, there wasn’t
a whole lot of space. Then they proceeded to move on up, onto the side of the
road but, obviously, there’s no place for them to transition there.
I think
this legislation is certainly going to improve things, but I think we need to be
working with other departments as well, and I’ll give you an example. First of
all, enforcement – I come from a teaching background and I can tell you, you can
make up all the rules you want. If you’re not prepared to enforce them, they do
not mean anything.
To the
colleague who spoke before me, it doesn’t always have to be punitive; it can be
simply a check along the way or a presence. You know yourself if you’re driving
along the highway, any place where there’s no police present, speed limits creep
up. I knew on the Southern Shore Highway, when I was driving back and forth,
that once I counted one or two RCMP cruisers, I had the rest of the highway to
myself. The fact is, human nature being what it is, we’re going to get heavy on
the foot and that’s the same thing for ATVs.
Enforcement is going to be a key piece here, especially on the highway. I do
like the idea of educational checkpoints but somewhere presence should be
enough. Secondly, I think, in many ways, when we go to construct roads. You can
tell where ATVs, especially ATVs, either drive along the road or cross the road,
the drop from the pavement to the shoulder is enormous. For anyone, a car or a
driver who has to pull off, it can cause an accident.
So I
think, in many ways, if we know where they are, why not design the roads as such
that there’s an actual – I don’t know, pavement on the road itself, on the side,
or you have it set up so that there’s a crossing. Maybe then, especially for
those at night or in the day, flashing lights that are activated when the ATV
crosses the road.
If this
is about safety – I’m taking this bill to be about safety. It’s not about, you
know, getting money or anything like that. It’s about safety. Well, then, let’s
incorporate safety measures into future road design; underpasses, overpasses,
whatever you want, so that there’s plenty of options.
If I
remember correctly, out by Deer Lake, there’s actually an underpass built in
under the highway. I don’t think –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Dozens.
J. DINN:
Dozens, right. I’m thinking in many ways we need to probably incorporate more of
those.
From my
point of view, it’s good legislation. I certainly defer to the expertise of
those who are avid ATV users about use of helmets and so on and so forth. I
think helmets are something that’s a very clear safety issue. But I think in
road design, we can mitigate and cut down on accidents by just the road design
and safety measures in place.
The only
other thing I will say is training is paramount. I heard the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture speak about the older you get, the slower
you get and you realize, do you know what? There are better things than being in
traction in a hospital.
But
young people, I can tell you, you just got to know the neurological development.
The forward part of the brain is not developed. That’s the whole thinking, hey,
I probably shouldn’t do this because – that develops much later; not until
you’re 25, in many cases. So that’s why you get stupid actions being done mostly
by young males, okay? Mostly by young males. We’ve all been there and you do
stupid things, which you say after I shouldn’t have done that, but repent later.
That’s
my only comment on it. I applaud the legislation and I look forward to hearing
the further discussion on it.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity.
The
Member for St. John’s Centre just brought my attention to the fact that I happen
to have two of what he just described as under-25-year-old males. So thanks for
the reminder.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. First of all, to the
minister and the department, this has taken a long time to develop. It’s an
important piece of legislation in many ways, so I am going to try and be
succinct.
One of
the first things I want to start off doing, just because I have it here in front
of me, is we talk about the jurisdictional scan. I’ll tie this into where I’m
going to go from a tourism side.
If you
look at the provinces of Canada: Nova Scotia – I’m primarily going to talk about
helmets, at this point. Nova Scotia: it is mandatory helmets, no exemptions.
This is specifically around Side By Sides, the information I have here. Nova
Scotia: there are no exemptions; New Brunswick: it’s mandatory with no
exemptions; Prince Edward Island: mandatory with no exemptions; Ontario: it’s
mandatory unless you’re the land occupier – it’s private property. That would
be, I guess, more just around jurisdictions with large farmland as an issue. So,
again, in public it would be mandatory in Ontario.
Quebec
is a little different, it is mandatory except for around trapping activities. I
believe that’s one of the things that the minister has said that we will review
in the regulation is trapping activities, but it’s important to recognize that
it is mandatory in Quebec. I would note Quebec is a leader in
recreational-vehicle tourism in Canada. Quebec is where we would want to be when
it comes to tourism for recreation in Canada.
The
Alberta policy is a little different; I think it is somewhat closer to what I
have heard here today: rollover protected structures and properly fastened seat
belts. So this does exist in Canadian jurisdictions.
We go to
British Columbia: it is mandatory; Saskatchewan: it’s mandatory and eye
protection is also mandatory in Saskatchewan; Manitoba: it is mandatory, there
are some exemptions again around hunting and commercial fishing; Northwest
Territories: it is mandatory only on highways; the Yukon: it is mandatory on
highways and for anybody under 16.
So there
are some discrepancies throughout the country when we look at this. I apologize
to any province I might have omitted, but there is a consistency. A lot of times
when we think about cross-jurisdictional scans, the first thing we do is we look
at the other four Atlantic provinces.
The
Member for St. John’s Centre just raised an important point about highway
construction and the building of tourism.
ATV
tourism has become very – it is a very large growing market in our province and
something we’re working towards. We’ve seen alterations in Port aux Basques,
actually, for safety reason to ease vehicles coming off the boat.
I had
the opportunity this summer to cross the Gulf and coming back I was astonished.
I think I counted 13 machines coming over. It’s because we have an awesome
product in this province because you can get off a boat in Port aux Basques and
get back on a boat in Argentia, so you haven’t got to backtrack. That’s a very
attractive tourism product in the province.
I guess
the thing is somebody coming here from our primary markets for ATV; they’re used
to mandatory helmets. Because if you’re coming from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Ontario, we’re only bringing in legislation that
would be consistent to what they are used to in their jurisdiction. I think
that’s an important thing to point out.
In my
former role as Transportation minister, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to Rick
Noseworthy on a couple of occasions. Rick is certainly a provincial activist
when it comes to tourism, trail development and developing our trail product.
It’s good today to see Rick come out and, as head of the Newfoundland and
Labrador T’Railway Council, indorse the use of helmets in all-terrain vehicles
and snowmobiles in this province.
Just to
flick back – sorry, because I missed a point – to the roads discussion that the
Member for St. John’s Centre brought up. I do know that maybe three or four
years back when we were developing or designing a new bridge for the north side
of Humber - Bay of Islands, one of the considerations that was taken in, and
that new bridge design actually has an ATV lane because there’s no way off the
upper part of the Humber - Bay of Islands, the north side, I guess, there’s no
way only using the main highway. So the bridge design does have an ATV lane. We
worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation on that.
I agree
totally. Any time we’re designing roads or building roads – I know in my time in
Transportation and Works it was often something that was brought up. I guess in
a lot of cases, primarily, it was the Snowmobile Federation because, to an
earlier Member’s comments, they were and probably still are one of the more
formalized groups. But, again, Rick Noseworthy and his group are quickly
becoming a voice for responsible ATV users in this province.
I’m
going to clue up now, but I’m going to read something first, because anybody
who’s familiar with the Conception Bay North, Trinity Bay area over the last
couple of years, or three or four years, a young man, Adam Hindy, has taken it
upon himself to organize many, many events. He’s actually re-establishing the
T’Railway – the branch actually – from Brigus Junction to Bay de Verde, the old
railway bed. Not only him, but his group. He and his family have been large
proponents of this. He would be who I would go to for advice in my region of the
province when it comes to ATV usage and what we should be doing.
I’m just
going to read his comment. I have his permission to do this. This was issued on
Monday when there was some social media discussion around this – my phone is
failing me. But, Mr. Speaker, it’s important that we make sure that, as we go
forward, we consult these groups. We do, as legislators, have to take our own
messages and we have to be flexible. These things change over time. If you go
back a lot of years, I can remember getting my father to adjust to wearing a
seat belt. It was something that people didn’t do. I can remember as a young kid
running around in the back of a car. We changed that.
I can
remember playing hockey. It was never good at it, but I didn’t wear a helmet.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
S. CROCKER:
Yeah, the Leader of the
Official Opposition just caught on to some of my issues in life.
Mr.
Speaker, that is how we’ve moved with changes. I have now learned how to access
my technology and I’m going to share the comments to conclude from Adam Hindy.
This was on Monday.
“You
know what? This can help!
“It’s
not a bad idea nor is it hard to put one on. We certainly struggle with this as
it’s new and always that initial response to kick up against new ideas.
“Many
examples of where a lid can greatly change the outcome even in the cage.
“You hit
an unexpected rock, dip patch of ice, etc., while travelling along a body of
water. You whack your head off the cage, now you’re unconscious heading for
water. This could be your last ride. Much like riding along an area with an
embankment.
“We put
them on our kids and our kids are continuously watching our movements. Mom and
Dad doesn’t wear one so the next time they jump on their bike they feel they
don’t really need this on, like Mom or Dad does.
“Maybe
it’s time to think deeper than the tiny inconvenience of actually wearing a
helmet. I sure do wish I was able to still ride with my buddy now instead of
making a memorial in his name.” A helmet that day would have saved his life.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I’m just
going to take a couple of minutes here now and have a few comments. I guess
having been a safety practitioner for most of my working life, much of this for
me is a no-brainer. Certainly if I was implementing a safety program at the
workplace – and I have implemented many – one of the first things you go back to
is you always talk about manufacturers’ specifications. It is in the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and
so on. Any type of machinery, equipment and so on that you would use, there is a
reference in the health and safety regulations in the act of abiding by what the
best practices are, as recommended by the manufacturer.
I don’t
think it is any secret to anybody. We all know these machines are very powerful,
more powerful now than ever before. This is not something that is sort of
fictitious, a what-if. Sadly, we have seen a number of people in this province,
even in the last few months, who have lost their life needlessly perhaps,
obviously, on an all-terrain vehicle.
I think
we have a responsibility, no different than a responsibility that legislatures
have taken when it comes to driving a regular automobile. There was a time that
people didn’t wear seat belts. I’m not sure if all cars had seat belts. I can
remember, when we were younger, the cars didn’t have seat belts.
Of
course, as they did and the laws came in and the legislation came in that you
had to wear seat belts, there was a lot of people who were very resistant to it;
there is no doubt. I think a lot of what got people into it was the enforcement
piece: getting hauled over by the police and getting a ticket. Then, even people
who were resistant, once that was enforced and they had to pay that fine, they
thought twice. So a lot of people begrudgingly, I would say, put on their seat
belt.
Now,
this day and age, for the most part, people get in their car and it is just like
a natural thing; you get in, you put on the seat belt. That’s what the majority
of people do. They don’t even think twice about it.
We can
look at things like, as was mentioned, hockey. There was a time when you didn’t
have to wear a helmet when you played hockey. My God, when you go back far
enough, back in the old Gump Worsley days and Johnny Bower – they were the
goalies and here are pucks getting shot at them. They’re ducking and getting
shot at their head and everything. They didn’t even wear a mask.
So you
can see where things have gone, of course, when mandatory helmet use – I can
remember I was on Mount Pearl city council, as well as my colleague from Mount
Pearl North, I do believe when we put in mandatory use of a helmet at the
Glacier. If you wanted to go skating at the Glacier, you had to put on a helmet.
That’s not that many years ago. But most people now, they wouldn’t even think
about getting on the ice without putting on a helmet.
We can
say the same thing for bicycles and everything else: people wear helmets.
Because the statistics tell us that if you don’t do those things and if you
don’t encourage your children to do those things – and you have to lead by
example, of course – there have been serious injuries and fatalities as a result
of people not wearing helmets.
When we
talk about bringing in legislation and making it mandatory for helmets on
Ski-Doos and ATVs and everything, it’s hard to argue those statistics. It’s hard
to argue the rationale. Now, there are people out there that would say who are
you to tell me I have to do this. If I don’t wear a helmet and I get in an
accident and I kill myself, well that’s my choice, my freedom to do what I want.
I suppose, in the United States, you don’t have to wear a helmet on a
motorcycle; I guess, because of that premise, that idea of personal choice and
so on.
But
certainly in our country and in our society, it’s about the greater protection
of the whole. It’s sort of a different philosophy. It’s about protecting the
whole, as opposed to the individual right to do whatever you feel like doing.
So we
have these laws and if we were to say yeah, you don’t want to wear a helmet so
you shouldn’t have to, well then I guess we should be saying the same thing if
you don’t want to wear a helmet skating, you shouldn’t have to; if you don’t
want to wear your seat belt, you shouldn’t have to. But we’ve done all these
things, it’s been accepted and it’s just the way it is.
It comes
down to a cultural thing. It really comes down to a cultural thing. Even after
this legislation is put in place, as my colleague from St. John’s Centre has
said, and others have said as well, that unless this is enforced, it’s not worth
the paper it’s written on. This legislation is going to be passed and there are
going to be thousands of people out there in the backcountry and everything
else, and they’re still not going to wear it. They’re not wearing it now.
They’re not going to wear it tomorrow. They’re not going to wear it once this
come into effect.
These
vehicles are supposed to be registered now, I do believe. I think they’re
supposed to be registered. I think you’re supposed to have insurance, I could be
wrong on the insurance, but I know they’re supposed to be registered. But how
many ATVs are out there now – half the ATVs out there, there’s no registration,
there’s no insurance, there’s no nothing because there’s nobody enforcing those
rules.
I’ve
gone moose hunting; I go moose hunting every year. When we talk about
enforcement, and I’m not being critical of enforcement, I’m just making a point,
I’ve been out moose hunting on a few occasions over the years where we came
across a wildlife officer, or he came across us, whatever way you want to look
at it. There were ATVs, Argos, quads, whatever there and the only thing he was
interested in – and I remember one time there was an RCMP officer there as well
– is have you got your hunter’s card, got your licence, let me see your tags.
All right, good enough, have a great day. That was it. At no point did the
wildlife officer or the RCMP officer even look at the ATVs and the quads and
everything else and ask: Is this thing registered? Do you have helmets? Do you
have whatever? There was zero questions about it.
They
were actually stopping hunters and enforcing one thing and just totally ignoring
the other piece, never even questioned it. So if these things are not being
enforced – and I understand that’s who the primary enforces are probably going
to be, are going to be the wildlife people. Maybe they weren’t told they had to
enforce it or maybe they knew, oh, yeah, we can do this but really our focus is
making sure you have your moose licence. But maybe that focus needs to change
because if you’re going to put in any rules, it has to be enforced. There has to
be an effort there to enforce.
It’s
interesting one of the TV shows I like to watch every now and then – I don’t get
to watch a lot of TV – it’s called North
Woods Law, I think it’s called, something like that and they’re down in the
States, in Maine and stuff. They’re wildlife officers and they go around – maybe
they’re doing it all for TV, but, basically, when they’re going around they’re
enforcing fishing, hunting, whatever, then they’re checking out the ATVs, the
skidoos. They’re catching them speeding. They’re at it all. They’re kind of like
the full-meal deal. When they go out on the trails they’re looking for
everything: hunting violations, motorized vehicle – everything. It makes a whole
lot of sense. They’re the enforcers, so once they’re there they’re enforcing all
the laws, not just particular pieces here and there, whatever they happen to be
looking at.
I think
that’s the way it needs to be with our enforcement officers. They need to
understand the full suite of rules and regulations, whether it be the
Wild Life Regulations or the ATV and
snowmobile regulations. Then when they do a stop they need to be checking for
everything, basically. That’s what needs to happen to start enforcing this
stuff.
I do
have to say, I have received some emails, not a lot, but I got two or three. I
wouldn’t be getting as much, perhaps, as some people in the more rural areas.
But there are certainly lots of people in Mount Pearl and St. John’s that own
ATVs and Ski-Doos. They may not be able to just jump aboard their ATV and go for
a ride every evening like some who could just go in their backyard and go on in
the rural areas, but a lot of people have them and they brings them up to their
cabin or whatever the case might be.
I’ve had
a couple of people with this same issue that’s been raised here about the Side
By Side. I do hear what they’re saying and, of course, the concerns have already
been raised about the peripheral vision, about the fact that you’re inside of an
enclosed vehicle, it’s got roll bars and you got your seat belt on or whatever.
Then their argument would be: It’s no different than if I’m in a car or if I’m
in a Jeep and going off-roading in a Jeep. What’s the difference? I understand
their argument.
Now, the
counter argument, I suppose, to that, because I did speak to a gentleman
yesterday evening who’s very well versed in this stuff. He’s very pro safety;
there’s no doubt about it. Some people would say he’s too safe. Some people say
he’s overkill, perhaps; it depends on your view on this stuff. But he did point
out a couple of interesting things.
The
first thing he told me – because I don’t know, I don’t own one of these – was
that on these Side By Sides, even though it has doors, it has roll bars, a
factory roof and all that kind of stuff, he told me he has one and written right
on the – I think he said it was the steering column, or the steering wheel or
whatever, there’s a big tag on it he said, and it says: Helmet use recommended.
So the manufacturer of that vehicle, big tag right on it saying that you should
be wearing your helmet, in that particular vehicle.
The
other point that he made, which he made a couple of others; another one he made
was the fact that even though you’re in a seat with your seat belt, he said if
you’re in your car and you had an accident or something, you bang into something
(a) you have airbags in a car, which you don’t have in this and (b) the seat of
your car is a thick, plush cushion behind your head if your head snapped back,
but it’s like a hard sort of plastic type of thing. So it’s like you’d really
smack your head into the back of that could be much more dangerous.
The
other point he made is that if you roll the thing over – roof or not – on its
side, according to him – I’m only going by what he told me – there have been
fatalities where someone rolled it over. But when that rolled over, you rolled
over like on top of a big stump and someone ends up with a stump coming through
their window and right through the side of their head and killing them, that you
wouldn’t have, necessarily, if you were in a car in an accident.
Now, we
all know there are risks associated to anything. I mean, you could be driving
down the highway and a moose could fly right through your windshield and onto
your lap. That’s happened, unfortunately. There are things that can happen. But
these are some risks that he pointed out that, despite the argument about the
uncomfortable nature and the peripheral piece, these are still real things that
can happen to you if you don’t have helmet, even in these vehicles. So I’m just
putting out that there are counter-arguments there.
The
other piece that he talked about, this proposal of potentially exempting people
if they’re going less than 20 kilometres an hour or whatever or if you’re moose
hunting on a quad even, you don’t need to wear a helmet. Well, first of all,
who’s going to enforce the going 20 kilometres an hour piece? How does that ever
get enforced or determined, for one thing?
Then the
other thing is – and it is true – if you’re moose hunting, as an example, well,
if you’re just driving your quad or your whatever through the woods on a trail,
you’re kind of concentrating on the trail and whatever, you’re looking where
you’re going. If you’re moose hunting your head is here, you’re looking in the
woods, you’re trying to see a moose so you’re not paying attention, necessarily,
to the road the same as you would be – you’re not paying attention to the trail
in the same way because your head is going back and forth; you’re trying to see
a moose. You’re distracted.
That
actually puts you at greater risk of flipping the bike over or whatever than if
you weren’t. So that argument would basically say it’s even more important to
wear a helmet when you’re distracted looking for a moose than it is when you’re
paying attention. There’s a greater risk of having an accident moose hunting,
therefore you probably need the helmet.
As far
as this idea of, well, it’s going to take time to take off the helmet to shoot
the moose. The point he made – and it’s hard to argue that as well – it only
takes a second to take off your helmet and if those couple of seconds is going
to make the difference between getting a shot at the moose or not, it probably
wasn’t a very safe shot to begin with. It’s only going to take a couple of
seconds to do it.
If you
can’t do that, then that means you’re basically here on the bike, still on your
bike with your gun in your hand trying to shoot at a moose as it’s running
through the woods. It’s probably not a safe practice anyway.
I guess
the point is that there are counter-arguments on both sides. I do understand
that the minister has said – and that’s an important point to make and my
colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands talked about this – the way this is
worded now, these issues, if there were going to be exemptions – there could be
exemptions – it would fall to the regulations. And, of course, if it falls to
the regulations that means it’s out of the control of this House of Assembly
because we’re basically just saying to the minister: you decide.
While
this minister might decide to put in the regulations that we’re going to exempt
it today, there could be a Cabinet shuffle, in theory, and another minister goes
in and changes his mind or her mind and puts it back the other way, or a new
administration comes in and puts it back the other way. There would never be any
debate on the floor.
So once
we pass it as is, then we are leaving it totally to the discretion of the
government of the day, of the minister of the day, to do whatever they want in
that regard. So that is a valid point that my colleague from Humber - Bay of
Islands did make.
There’s
no doubt that there are two sides to the argument. I can see both sides, but it
is interesting, the Government House Leader talked about the other provinces.
That is an important point to note, I think, that every province in the country
pretty much has mandatory use and apparently there’s no issue. Perhaps, as much
as anything else, this is a cultural thing, as much as anything else, like seat
belts were and everything else. I’ve never had to do it, I don’t want to do it,
who are you to tell me I have to do it, type of idea, versus it being the right
thing to do and the safe thing to do and what pretty much everybody else is
doing.
I’m
going to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by reiterating a couple of points that my
colleague from St. John’s Centre made because he was right on the money, I
thought. I was going to say great minds think alike, but his mind is much
greater than mine. I’ll give him that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
What? And fools seldom
differ.
Anyway,
he did talk about the trail system and that was something I wanted to raise as
well. If we’re talking safety and so on, which we are, and we’re trying to
develop, not just a product for tourism from outside the province but even for
staycation and all those types of things, I think it is important that we
continue to develop our trail system.
Part of
developing the trail system, I believe, if we’re serious about safety and
everything else, is that there should be, periodically, along our trail system –
I look at the rail bed as an example, the Newfoundland T’Railway, we should have
signage and stuff there – more of it. Signage reminding people to wear your
helmet and that type of thing or to say it is illegal not to wear your helmet
and here’s the fine, to have that posted along our trails or T’Railway.
If there
are known ATV and Ski-Doo crossings along our highways and so on, I agree with
them, there should be some (a) perhaps more pavement along that shoulder where
that’s happening, but, in addition to that, signage. If we could have signs
saying moose crossing ahead, why would we not have some kind of a signage
leading up to an area on a highway or a by-way where it is a known trail system
that is literally crossing the highway? So why not have some sort of advanced
warning signage for motorists and that to know that this is here.
Of
course the other piece is just through general advertising and everything else.
As an example, perhaps when people get their moose licence and their tags in the
mail, perhaps there should be a little brochure, a little something stuck in the
envelope about –
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
P. LANE:
– the safety of ATVs.
SPEAKER:
The Member’s time has
expired.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Again,
it’s a pleasure to speak in the House of Assembly and represent the people of
the Exploits District, especially on this
Off-Road Vehicles Act because in my district, of course, it’s a big thing in
our way. We use ATVs, quads, snowmobiles, bikes, whatever: we use them in many
different fashions, actually. Like the rest, I have been getting some emails and
phone calls and some conversations with people in the districts with different
concerns. Again, I guess the big one, of course, is the helmets.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, we use quads and bikes. Quads and dirt bikes are used on the –
quads alone are more open; dirt bikes are faster. Quads are probably fast and
they’re used in a different fashion like for moose hunting, wood cutting,
they’re in a harder terrain than the Side By Sides.
Sometimes accidents do happen and you probably can’t get away with that, but in
that situation on a quad or a bike, I can see where the helmets do come into a
big effect in that way because too many people, of course, have been injured and
there’s been fatalities, no doubt. This year has been an extreme year, probably,
on fatalities and we don’t want that happening by no means. That’s one thing
we’re trying to avoid here.
But,
Speaker, the bikes and the quads, again, like I say, are used in a big fashion
in my way and I’m talking to people all the time in regards to bikes and quads.
Training, Mr. Speaker, is a big thing. I agree that under 16, training should be
adhered to. They need some training. I know probably parents in our way would
feel that some of the children are already trained. I’ve seen it and heard it
that they have quads and bikes and they probably let the child on the front, you
know, to push the gas, start off young, and then all of a sudden they’re up to
another couple of years later and they feel that they’ve been trained
themselves. But that’s probably not the way to be doing it. It should be
educated through a facility or training courses that those people under 16 who
are getting a new quad, new bike or new Side By Side – yeah, I can see training
on that being done very well.
Education, of course, is needed to educate students or young people as they
enter into their first quads and their first bikes of the dangers of what can
happen if those machines are ill-used. The end result is not what we want when
they’re ill-used, I guarantee you, because it’s not a call that a parent or a
guardian wants to get when their child has received an injury on one of those
machines and it’s not something we want to face. But it does happen, so
education is key and training is key for those ages that are being implemented
there. For 16s and 13s, I think training is a big key and education certainly
is, too. You can put out letters and it’s done on the machines themselves – it’s
already on the machines themselves now; especially on ATVs, there’s a big X
marked there: Under 16 not allowed and for supervision.
Speaker,
I would agree with most of safety changes that’s being implemented in this
legislation. However, Side By Sides today are used in a different manner than
the ATVs and the dirt bikes. Like I said, Side By Sides now are like pleasure
machines. They are used on the groomed trails, used on the roads. You almost
want a paved road for those things to be on now. But they come equipped with
seat belts, they come equipped with roll bars and they come equipped with
different aspects that can almost like a vehicle, a motorized – I know they’re
motorized, but they’re like a car, they’re like a little Jeep, they’re like a
truck and they are used in a different fashion than the quads and the dirt
bikes.
I’m
getting a lot of calls in regard to the helmets on the Side By Sides for those
reasons. It’s something that can be considered; it’s something that needs to be
taken into consideration, of course. But in regard to the Side By Sides,
themselves, there are adults using those machines. They’re the ones that buy it.
They’re working age of 19, 20 years old when they start, so they’re of age to be
using that. They’re the ones that use it so they feel that we should reconsider
the helmets for the Side By Sides and, like I say, within the fashion that they
are used is a different fashion. I know that quads and dirt bikes, again, are
used in a different way that people probably ill-use sometimes.
Changes
are good, Speaker. Changes are really good. Safety is always paramount no matter
what we try to do in this province, and we know safety is always needed in
regard to the bikes and the dirt bikes. We’ve heard it again, like I say,
through the last year and probably every time you turn on the news, you hear of
a dirt bike accident or a quad accident and we need to certainly look after the
safety aspect of that.
I’ve
heard it here in the House and I’m hearing it all through my district is, again,
enforcement. Enforcement is a big key. No matter what safety aspects you put in,
no matter what aspects, to what degree you put it in, enforcement of those
changes have to be made. That’s where a lot of it has got to come, because I’ve
talked to a lot of municipalities in our way. It’s getting to the point that the
municipalities are calling me and saying we have a big problem with dirt bikes,
we have a big problem with quads on our roads, on our main streets, crossing the
roads, in town. A lot of noise, a lot of interference and they’re driving fast
and that sort of thing.
So when
you see accidents and that happen in our areas, it’s mostly happening through
causes like that. It’s through people driving fast in the municipalities and
access – again, maybe that comes through some education itself with regard to
sitting down and talking to the municipalities of how access can be used more to
trails and side roads that the vehicles can use. Maybe we talk more with the
municipalities to see if there’s any way we can work that way to provide access
to the resource roads and the trails that we need to get on. But until they do,
they’re taking bypass routes on the main roads. That’s becoming more and more
common, more and more natural every day.
I’m sure
every one of us here and every community we have we can say we’ve heard with
regard to the quads and the dirt bikes and that going up and down the roads and
up and down the streets, across the roads, noise in the nighttime. Maybe they
can talk, again, to the towns to see if they can eliminate some of that. But
most of it is, again, through enforcement.
How do
we do that enforcement? Really, how do you do it? I heard the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture saying in regard to how they would be
enforcing the rules. And he’s right. How can you keep watch of every bike; how
can you keep watch of every person? It does become a particular area that you
really have to pay attention to. Do you put more officers out there; do you put
more police officers out there? How do you control it?
Again,
that would come from training and, no doubt, that the supervisors of some of
those people would have to step up and place a greater influence on how the
operations and the uses of those vehicles can have bad impacts when it’s
ill-used. So a lot of training, again, got to come from the supervisors and the
guardians of some of the people that are using those machines, Speaker.
But,
again, the enforcement part would be a big key when you’re putting in those
laws. You can put in whatever safety aspects, whatever rules or whatever laws.
If there’s not more enforcement, then the impacts of it is not going to be the
same. You know, fines can go up; you can put whatever in there. Again, it comes
down to enforcement. Education, of course, is another key, like I mentioned, in
regard to some parents, some guardians. Training, we need to do that in regard
to the dirt bikes and the quads.
It’s
something that really needs to be done. We know that there’s a problem; we know
that safety aspects are being ignored. We know when we hear of a death on the
highway, a death on a Side By Side, a death in a vehicle, it’s something that
none of us want to hear when it comes safety on our roadways, safety on our side
roads, safety on our highways. Nobody wants to hear it, and I don’t either.
Speaker,
that’s the things we need to do. We can put in the laws and we can put in all of
that, but we need to address how we go to enforce those rules and how we train
the people to adhere to those rules and be more respectful, probably, of the
machine we’re using. That’s a weapon sometimes, especially when they’re making
them so big now. I can remember, like, probably when the three-wheelers came out
they were only 250cc and now you got a four-by-four, you got up to 700, 800cc.
That’s for the quads themselves. That’s a dangerous machine. It’s a heavy
machine. So when you’re using that in the woods, like ill-using that, that will
cause you trouble. That will cause you big harm, probably even more.
So
education on all that, Mr. Speaker, and I know there are riding groups and that
out there that are used for the training aspects, but some more of that needs to
be done, probably in different areas, maybe in the Central area; probably more
of that can be done there instead of having to go elsewhere to do the training.
This
could be a joint effort probably with regards to the safety enforcement,
probably a joint effort from the RCMP, municipalities and the enforcement
officers that maybe you get somebody doing checkpoints. And I know with
checkpoints, as soon as they know that there’s an officer or something around,
everybody stands still; stand down b’ys because they’re in town. As soon as
they’re gone, bang; the quads and the bikes are started up again and they’re
going wherever and whenever and how fast they want to.
But it
is something that we can sit down with the municipalities, I think, and have
that discussion – a three-way discussion – to see if there’s more enforcement,
more ways we can do that. Again, like I say, the abusers, this is – and it’s not
just the youth, I’m not just directing this to the youth. This behaviour is in a
number of users and a number of abusers, it goes through many age groups. So
more has got to be done on a personal level to respect the laws, to respect the
usages, to respect the safety and to respect the use of those machines.
Education would be a big key. Training, again, is another big key. Of course,
that would be the four aspects – and enforcement, of course, would be another.
Other
than that, Mr. Speaker, I can go on forever talking about those rules and
regulations, but, again, enforcement and training would be the big keys in this
hear so that we can keep the lives of people safe and keep more people safe from
more of those accidents on those bikes. Because sometimes right now they’re
using machines that, really, they’re powerful machines and when they mistreat
those machines in a bad way, then, yeah, you’re looking for trouble; you’re
really looking for trouble.
How we
would put out the training on that, how we would advise people, but that would
be a good solution to a lot of this is training. Other than that, Speaker, I’ll
leave it for now and I’ll get a chance to, hopefully, speak on some of this
again later or somebody else.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I’m sure
everyone who’s reading this are looking over at me and know that I’m quite the
avid outdoors person and a massive fan of winter, much to the dismay of the
Member from Mount Pearl - Southlands who I one time wished a white Christmas to
and he didn’t like that.
But,
anyway, I am an avid outdoors person. I do spend a lot of time, especially in
the wintertime, outside. I do own and have owned multiple snowmobiles. I enjoy
it. The highlight of my winter is snowmobiling. So I do have a lot of questions
about this.
One
thing I do bring up is training, which is great. I know the RNC for a long time
and the Ground Search and Rescue has put off snowmobile training and ATV stuff
and outdoor stuff for youth in the community. But it was never mandatory; it was
a volunteer basis. I’m okay with that. I think that’s a really good first step
in the sense that we should be teaching young people safe use of equipment.
But one
thing I do ask, as the minister brings forward, is availability and the
definition of availability because in the past when things were mandatory and we
had to do these courses, availability in Labrador is a different thing. Do we
really expect people to wait long periods of time to get these courses once
they’re done or are people who are trained to offer it, are the same people that
are offering it now, will they be able to be qualified to train others?
So
that’s one thing I do question and I’ll bring it up in Committee when we talk
about availability and stuff like that.
I think
the bigger thing is the cc requirements on snowmobiles. You’re limiting it to
120 between 13 and 16. That’s a big one for us because the 120 – in the
manufacturing snowmobile market, a 120 is a lot harder to come by now as the
manufacturers have moved to 200ccs, especially with the four-stroke motors.
We have
a lot of these newer 200cc ones that are purchased, that are manufactured for
that age group. Right now, it’s there on the market, but, basically, we’re going
to make them illegal. They’re sitting on showroom floors across this province;
we’re now going to make them illegal. They’re sitting in people’s garages and
they’re going to be illegal. By the time the child is 16 years old that
snowmobile is too small for them because they physically will be too big to sit
on them.
This is
the thing that is really concerning is that we’ve just made a whole large
bracket of snowmobile that is actually manufactured and made for this group will
now be illegal and, on the same token, people who have purchased them and have
them for their children won’t be able to use them. This is a concern that I do
have with it is that there.
From my
understanding, and as an avid snowmobiler, there is a range between 120 and 340
that these youth snowmobiles are manufactured at. I really think we should go
back and revisit the cc requirement there, especially in the snowmobile market,
to encompass between 120 and 340cc.
Myself,
I grew up, I had a youth snowmobile and mine was a 300cc. They are manufactured
for youth in that market for that age group, but by limiting it to 120, you
know, it seems like we’re really boxing ourselves in when there is safe
manufactured snowmobiles between this range. I think, maybe, we can go back and
relook at this and see maybe, you know, are we really consulting with the
snowmobile community when we did this on that one. I think that’s something we
really need to go back to. Like I said, growing up I had my own youth
snowmobile, a 12 Elan, I drove a 12 Elan as a kid. They are there and we should
maybe haul back and reconsider, especially on that one.
Side By
Sides, helmets and ROPS, or rollover protection systems, I know we did our
jurisdictional scan and the Minister of Tourism did mention some jurisdictional
scans and stuff that got done. Maybe we can haul back and go back to the
manufactures, especially the manufacturers that put in rollover protection
systems in their Side By Sides and just have a chat with them about their
testing, their safety procedures and their recommendations.
Because
on the market there are Side By Sides that don’t have rollover protection
systems and there are others that do have rollover protection systems. Maybe we
could have a broader conversation about what is available in the market and what
is the manufacturer saying when they have ROP systems in their Side By Sides to
make sure is one thing going to outweigh the other. Also, you have to look at
having a helmet on when there is a ROP system in there, is it safe or not safe?
Maybe we
could have a broader conversation with manufacturers. Especially, if you look at
the federal government’s testing services on devices and things like that to
make sure where is it to and what is the recommended manufacturer thing? Because
I know you look at it, too, there are other things and there is a point to be
made, too.
Jeeps do
have a very limited rollover protection system in their vehicles. There is a
roll bar and everything there. It’s there but you don’t have to wear a helmet in
a Jeep when the roof is off. So maybe it is something of design. Maybe there is
something there that we can have a conversation about of is it warranted or is
it not, and are we there yet.
So
that’s just something that, I think, we have to have a broader conversation
about. We want to see what specs are out there because, in these markets of
recreational vehicles, there are different levels and there are different specs
out there according to what’s on the market and what customers are asking for.
It is a more diverse market in recreation vehicles than it is even in car
manufacturing because it is broader industry. You want two wheels, four wheels
and in some cases three wheels; it is not as defined as that – with my case,
track.
When you
come back to dirt bikes, street, trail, Side By Sides – well, not Side By Sides
but quads, obviously, on those, there is no rollover protection and the logical
thing there is to put your helmet on. That’s it; there is no more conversation
about that. Like I said, I am also an avid hunter. I’ll admit, if I’m hunting, I
don’t have my helmet on at that time. But if I’m out for a trail ride, I have my
helmet on. I know that there is an exemption in there for people who are
hunting, so that makes sense to me and also my family.
If
you’re doing one or the other, we do have the option. If you’re riding the trail
looking for some birds, you can take your helmet off and you can coast by and
have a look and that; that is one exemption there for that. At the end of the
day, if you’re just trail riding on a quad or dirt bike or a snowmobile, put
your helmet on. Especially in a trail setting, I always say if you’re on a
two-way groomed trail, you don’t know what’s coming at you from around that
corner. Is that person following all the rules themselves? Are they speeding or
on the wrong side of the trail? It makes sense; put your helmet on, on that one.
When it
comes to a lot of these things, I know we do judicial scans, but I really do
have some questions on responses from manufacturers and importers and stuff like
that on some of these recommendations. What were the recommendations on cc size;
what do they deem as youth or not; do they rule out any manufacturers or any
products as not youth, even though they may have been marketed as a youth
snowmobile? That’s a couple things that I do want to say.
We are a
very outdoor cultured people, and this is a big thing. We’re changing up
recreation vehicles. I’m sure if we want to break down statistics and stuff, I
would say we are probably one of the most active recreation vehicle groups and
we’re probably purchasing some of the largest numbers of recreational vehicles
in Atlantic Canada. No doubt about it, you can be here in Labrador West, you can
be in Lake Melville or anywhere and you’ll see dozens upon dozens of recreation
vehicles.
Like the
hon. Member for Mount Pearl said, some people are going to be concerned about
change and things like that. It’s not always easy to change, especially if
people are set in their ways and things like that. As for helmets on vehicles
that you sit outside of the vehicle, put your helmet on. It’s the safest thing
to do right now.
I do go
back to enforcement as well, Speaker. When you’re talking about enforcing this
and stuff like that – I do have a case where I know some enforcement officers –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is getting a little too loud. I can’t hear the speaker.
Thank
you.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
There
are a couple of cases, actually. I know of an individual who used to work with
me. There was an old mine survey road and he would go up and down it on his quad
with no helmet on, setting snares. Enforcement did get him on a trail cam with
no helmet on. Hs licence plate on his ATV was quite visible and he did get a
visit from enforcement to ticket him for no helmet, even though they picked him
up on a trail cam. Sometimes they are out there; you just don’t know they’re out
there. They’re a bit sneaky, so wear your helmet. Easiest thing to do: just put
your helmet on.
At the
same time, when it comes to enforcement and stuff like that, I think we should
maybe consider that we probably do need some more enforcement officers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is getting a bit loud. I can’t hear the speaker.
J. BROWN:
When it comes to enforcement, I think we do need to look at all aspects of
enforcement. If we’re going to expand these rules significantly, like we are, I
think we do really need to actually have some enforcement and some more training
and probably hire some more officers, especially up my way. We are very limited
on enforcement officers up our way. They are very busy. There is a lot going on
in the world of wildlife enforcement up our way.
We do
have a massive snowmobile trail network; we do have a considerable other trail
network – I guess non-incorporated trail network. There is a lot of activity and
stuff going on, so maybe we do need to take a step back and say do we have
adequate enforcement. Are we going to make the right impacts that we want to
make?
Even
when this is rolled out, how are we going to advertise it to the public? How are
we going to encourage the public to follow these rules? Are we going to go into
schools and talk to the junior high and high school about the safety of
recreation vehicles? Unless we actually take this out and educate people and
encourage them to do it, we’re just going to be in a world of more people not
listening. So we need to educate, we need to go into schools, we need to do the
stuff and educate people on why you put your helmet on, the importance of doing
that and stuff like that.
Even
with the rollout, education and enforcement, these things have to be a part of
it because if not, it’s not worth the paper it is written on; that’s the thing.
So we need to make sure that if we’re going to do it and we’re going to do this
right, education has to be available, make sure that we have the educators
available to teach this to the younger people. We also have to have enforcement.
I always
say, especially in my community, there is an issue with youth on quads on
streets like you wouldn’t believe; I don’t know where they got the quads, but
they’re everywhere. Once, one individual was ticketed for going down the street
on his back wheels on his quad with no helmet on and all the quads came off the
street very fast. This is where enforcement is important because it also shows
that, yes, we are serious about this; please don’t do it.
So that
is a lot of what I feel is important is enforcement and education, but also at
the same time just reconsider the cc sizes and stuff like that. Because I don’t
think they’re correct for the snowmobile market and I think that has to be
relooked at.
At the
end of the day, it is always education and enforcement are key. We are not doing
this because we want to be mean or pick on anybody or anything like that. It is
about public safety. It is about encouraging people to be safe, have safe
behaviours and to remind people that, at the end of the day, we want you to go
out on quads, we want you to have a good time, but at the same time we also want
you to come home to your family safe, healthy and non-injured in case of an
accident.
Like I
said, that is no different than with seat belts, no different with any other
things. It is important that we do all of the pieces correctly so, that way, we
are just encouraging the message of health and safety and well-being. But at the
same time, we all understand the importance of getting out on the land, going
out for a nice ride, go hunting and go enjoy nature. Because we are very lucky
as a province. We have lots of nature to enjoy – lots of it. There is tons of it
out there; go enjoy it.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
It’s
great to have an opportunity to speak. I don’t think I’ll use all my time, but I
did want to throw out just some – and I want to stick to the spirit of second
reading, which is really to talk about why we’re doing this bill, as opposed to
the specifics and the distances and the nuances. Because I can tell you,
Committee is going to be interesting. We’ll save that discussion for there.
But I
just wanted to underline – as I need to do for the district I represent – how
important this piece of legislation is. Just to give you by example – and,
Speaker, I’ve mentioned to you a buddy of mine, Geoff Goodyear, who’s moved to
your fair district, there’s an expression he always used to like to say whenever
he was asked about where he lived, which used to be in Labrador, they used to
say: Where’s Labrador? He said: Oh, that’s the place where we get 10 months of
winter and two months of bad skidooing.
I would
say climate change has probably shortened that season a little bit, but I can
tell you snowmobiling, the quad world, the four-by-fours, the RZRs, these are –
everybody is using them.
We had
an attempt at a Guinness book of records about 18 years ago, I’m estimating. At
the time, I think the record was something like 600 snowmobiles going in a
continuous line at a particular speed. I think it was maintaining 25 kilometres
an hour or something like that. Anyway, we blew the number right out of the
water with all the snowmobiles that just gathered on that day. We didn’t make
the record because some people at the front decided they were going to go a
little quicker than the rest. And once you started getting into 800, 900,
approaching 1,000 snowmobiles, the trail was so chewed up we just couldn’t keep
up with the rest of them. But my point is that there are a lot of people
pursuing this.
I just
spoke earlier today in preparing with Greg Wheeler, who is the president of the
Grand River Snowmobile Club – one of the very well organized, and I can say,
probably one of the best, although I’m just comparing it to what I know. But we
have an extremely good trail system, very well-organized snowmobile club. Greg
and I work closely on a whole bunch of different initiatives.
He’s
calculated that in the Lake Melville District there would be at least 6,000
snowmobiles alone. That’s in the Upper Lake Melville area, then if we add
Churchill Falls, there’s probably another 300 machines there alone. That’s just
talking about that winter season.
I’m just
thinking of what it’s going to be like when I arrive home late this evening
because between the sugar tax and this piece of legislation, we’ve got people
talking. So it’ll be interesting to meet up with some people.
In
addition to the recreational side of this, it’s really important for people to
understand – and I spoke a little bit about it yesterday – just some of the
differences going on between Labrador and the Island. I have a community that’s
really quite isolated. It’s close to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but the community
of Mud Lake, a snowmobile is much more than a recreational vehicle. It’s how
they get to work during that winter period. It’s how they collect firewood. Many
other people throughout my district are doing that. You just have to go to the
North and South Coast and Labrador West to see just how important these machines
are, not just from a recreational perspective but to put some food on the table,
to get some wood in the fireplace, just to get out and get some groceries – a
big activity.
One of
the things I am thinking about is it’s going to be challenging for Labrador, and
while I readily support the autonomy of the Nunatsiavut Government and Innu
Nation to work with and/or provide some exemptions, there is so much traffic
between Happy Valley-Goose Bay, that Upper Lake Melville area and the North
Coast in particular, this is going to be challenging.
I’m
trying to think how people will move back and forth, because during the winter
months, snow and ice are the highway. Now people are visiting relatives, they’re
coming in for supplies; the komatiks are just loaded down with gear as they go
back and forth.
This is
an incredibly important season. So as you go from the different boundaries of
Labrador and Inuit lands into the lands controlled by the province, there’s
going to be different regimes there. Again, I support the move that’s in here,
but it’s going to be challenging for people.
You
know, I’m just thinking myself and how fortunate I am. I have a snowmobile; I’ve
got a Kubota tractor and just how lucky I am. Through the winter now, starting
in a month or so, I actually will snowmobile from my house to my constituency
office. I wonder how many MHAs can say they get to do that whenever you get
home. It’s just one of those things that we really enjoy and really embrace.
Another
aspect to it that I think we’ll get into it with the details in Committee, but I
just marvel at the skill that is involved from the young to the oldest at
handling, for example, a snowmobile. I think all of us received an email earlier
today from a gentleman in the community of Churchill Falls talking about his
kids and how adept they are at using these machines, and he’s not exaggerating.
Kids do learn to operate them – I would suggest – as safely as – really, it’s a
reflection of their parents and the guardians around them. It’s a work of art to
watch a young child who’s had a lot of experience and been well instructed to go
up and down a slope. You just marvel at their ability.
So we’re
really going to have to think about, as we push back on some of these limits,
just what that’s going to mean for those who are extremely capable. I’m just
sort of planting the seed of an idea that I have that might help with some of
the acceptability. I guess I’m almost thinking about the ability to perhaps
grandfather some of this in. I don’t have that all figured out, but I just
wanted to put that out there.
Also,
I’m old enough now to remember when the seat-belt law came in. I can remember
watching my father going down the road. This, to him, was an incredibly
offensive piece of legislation. He used to drive down the road in his Ford truck
with a three-on-the-tree and he would hold the seat belt to one side, but he
would not attach it. He would drive literally – especially through the towns
where there might be somebody watching – he would just grab that seat belt and
hold it. He probably did that for a couple of years.
And now
I watch him get in a vehicle and the seat belt’s going in and we’re reminding
him. But he does remember back to those days. I was telling him just a while ago
that this legislation was coming and he was kind of grinning. He’s managed to
overcome it.
My point
is that it’s going to take a while for the culture to be lightly, gently molded
to reach some kind of acceptability. I feel coming in really hard on this is –
we need to set the signal that this is now the law. And while enforcement is
really important, it’ll need to be done in such a way that we can give people
time to get used to this.
We’re
still fighting – and let’s just face it, folks – we’re still dealing with
tragedies around life jackets. How long has it been required that life jackets –
first of all – just to be in the frigging boat, which I find to be just a
compromise on true safety. Let’s face it, the occupants should be wearing those
life jackets all the time, but we’re still struggling with that.
I guess
further to my point, I see so much good in this legislation and so many lives
that we’re going to save. However, we’re going to need to do this in a way that
we won’t get push back; we’ll get gradual and continuous acceptability. I think
that’s going to be really important.
Without
naming a name, I do want to bring a solemn point to this. Like so much of the
legislation that’s before us and, as somebody said earlier today, we bring our
life experience to this room. Some will know who I’m talking about, but there’s
a gentleman who worked with the provincial government. He worked in the Labrador
Affairs office. Just three or four years ago, as we were about to cut the ribbon
on a very important announcement, the very night before he had just been moving
his snowmobile, didn’t have a helmet on and died. Just rolled it over and he was
probably doing – I wasn’t there, but it was a very slow speed, just moving a
machine, caught in some ice, flipped over and a very capable guy behind the
snowmobile and just completely surprised by it.
If we
can save some lives here, I think that really is what we’re trying to do. We’re
trying to also do it in a way, like I said, that we can move society and shift
to a much safer place.
I am
looking forward to Committee. My plan this weekend is I’m meeting with the Grand
River Snowmobile Club, at least a couple of the folks on the executive, and now
that the bill is available we’ll be going through some of the details. I would
urge those of us, the presiding officers and the minister, that we’ll need to
work carefully through each of the clauses, because there’s a lot of interest in
each of these clauses as per this particular bill and this piece of legislation.
Thank
you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It’s a
privilege to speak to this here again this afternoon. I’d like to take a moment
to reflect on some of my first experiences with ATVs. It was actually a
snowmobile. My friends were playing hockey on a neighbour’s rink and I was doing
laps around said rink on a Bravo. I quickly weaponized said Bravo and turned it
into a Zamboni after I picked up a coat and dragged it across the rink and sent
all the hockey players sprawling and ended up down over the stairs into Mr.
Roberts’s basement. Needless to say, I never got invited to many hockey games
after that, and it took me a long time before I was really comfortable driving a
snow machine or my father was comfortable letting me drive his snow machine.
I’m
certain we could all tell tales or stories like that. That we get a little
chuckle out of and how we’ve learned to drive or operate a machine. But, as the
Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture said, I’m certain we can all
tell stories of close calls or, unfortunately, we could have recollections of
tragedy.
While,
thank God, over the course of my life and over the course of the many miles that
I put on that little burgundy Formula Deluxe 500 that I had, I’ve been very
fortunate not to have experienced any such accidents. But in my practice as a
registered nurse, I can’t say that the same is true for many of the patients
that I’ve encountered. I am inclined to believe that after you’ve held a
fractured skull or after you’ve tried to brace a child with a spinal injury,
your perspective on some of this changes.
It is
not as simple as we’re talking about helmet regulations; we’re also looking at
operator training requirements, age limitations and supervisions, as well as
highway use. It is not a great feeling when you bring in a 17-year-old with a
promising future, who wants to be an RCMP officer and you have to put a nail in
his femur; those things are some of the deterrents that I’ve come across.
You can
talk about children operating these machines. Remember, you’re driving along and
you see some of these kids and they’re barely big enough to hold on to the
machines. They’re superman riding them. Their legs are flapping behind them.
When you get a case come into the ER and it is an intoxicated adult who has had
an accident, it is often easy to say that’s your fault; you earned that one. But
when it is a child and they are on a machine that they can’t handle, then it is
often not their fault. I think it is imperative that we urge parents to be
responsible for their children and how they operate these machines, and make
sure that they have the necessary training and that they can manipulate the
machines that they are riding on.
We’re
not just speaking about snow machines or four-wheelers; I’m thinking about Side
By Sides. I remember being in a drive-through and two kids hauled up in a Side
By Side behind me; they could barely see over the dash and they’re in the
drive-through at Tim Hortons. We’re not letting them have a car, but we let them
have the Side By Side and they come on into the drive-through. I think it is
important that we have further discussion about who can operate these machines,
if they operate it with or without supervision.
That is
a large piece of what we’re talking about here today. Again, putting on my
nursing hat – which I am learning is very hard to distinguish; my nurse brain
never turns off. The ARNNL, which is now the College of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the NLMA and the Newfoundland Public
Health Association released a joint statement on ATV safety in 2004. So this is
not a real new conversation; it has been circling for years.
It
recognizes, in this report, that ATVs are six times more likely to result in
hospitalization and 12 times the fatality compared to bicycles. That is striking
numbers when you think about children and how they operate theses ATVs. The ATV
injuries are definitely more severe, requiring surgery and hospitalizations,
with 18 per cent requiring intensive care supervision.
The
report also called for regulations and gave some recommendations, but it
highlighted that areas where regulations to reduce injury and death were
implemented actually had safer practices. This report called for legislating a
minimum operator age; required training for operators; registered and licensed
vehicles; compulsory helmet use; restricting the use to specific off-road areas;
and mass public education.
As a
registered nurse, certainly something that we take very seriously is the health
promotion activities that can be implemented, especially as it applies to
children and high-risk areas. My area, there is certainly a lot of ATV use for
children. In rural and remote communities, this seems to be more of an issue or
concern.
Unsafe
riding behaviours are largely responsible for a lot of these accidents. Driving
unsupervised or kids falling off the vehicle or colliding with other objects
and, as the Member opposite mentioned, their poor judgment. Children just don’t
often understand the implications of the activity that they’re into. They lose
control of their machines and they just have the capacity to take risky
behaviours. So, in doing these things, we know that these children have to be
more closely monitored or supervised.
I’d also
like to identify that there was a study conducted actually in Newfoundland in
2018, a retrospective trauma registry review, where 298 patients were registered
between the Health Sciences Centre, St. Clare’s and the Janeway for trauma
related to ATV use. This resulted in 2,759 admission days and a total cost of
$1.6-million health care spending.
But the
striking number that comes out of this is that there were nine deaths associated
with this study. Most of the patients were male and they sustained head and
thorax injuries – so the major parts of their body – and 38.6 per cent of those
patients were not wearing helmets. I think we can all agree on the importance of
implementing measures that ensure these children are protected.
Safety
is everybody’s responsibility and we certainly do applaud those individuals who
have chosen to ride responsibly, but we want to encourage others to do the same.
Enforcement has come up as one of the key issues here and it certainly is
something that comes up in my district because, on any given day of the week,
the 430 is just like a racetrack. There are children roaring down the highway on
these four-wheelers, four and five of them to a rig. Those concerns do come up.
I’ve heard a lot of concerns from constituents about the Side-By-Side
operations, but I think right here is the point where we have to put to the
responsibility for some of this operations onto their families.
I think
it’s time that we stop operating and endorsing these behaviours that require
enhanced enforcement and continuing to applaud behaviours that are breaking the
law. So it’s important that we recognize the need for responsible use and
responsible supervision from parents. It is going to take some work to change
attitudes that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have, but we must continue to be
vigilant in our safety measures to protect our constituents.
I’ve had
several emails about Side-By-Side use and questions about the helmets and
whatnot and, as the minister has stated, these are things that we can consider
in the regulations: regulations related to hunting and trapping activities, as
well as factory-sealed Side By Sides. I think that’s an important designation
because we don’t have evidence on the rollover capacity or the safety testing of
some of these things like we do cars and trucks, and people are correlating the
safety of a car to the safety of a Side By Side with an encasement. That
evidence is really not there. I think it’s important that we look at some of the
frame testing that’s been done and make sure that we do have solid evidence for
that before we promote it as a government and something that we want our
constituents to be taking part in.
With all
that said, regardless of what type of ATV you’re using, what trail you’re on or
what corner of this beautiful province that you’re in, I think we all can
recognize the importance of this piece of legislation and how it impacts the
wellness and safety of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would, again,
take this opportunity to implore parents that if you are allowing your children
to operate these machines, you have to be responsible for them and you have to
make sure they have the proper training.
Speaker,
I do look forward to continued discussions on this in Committee.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It’s
always a privilege to speak in this hon. House and to represent the residents of
the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis and I’m happy to speak to Bill 22,
the Off-Road Vehicles Act.
As I’ve
sat and listened to many of my hon. colleagues here today, there’s a recurring
theme across the board. It may not be so prevalent in districts that are more
inner city. If you’re in St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi or Windsor Lake, it might
not be a daily event to have ATV usage in your district, but in the beautiful
District of Cape St. Francis it’s not just a daily event, it’s an hourly event.
That’s why I can agree and understand what my hon. colleague from L’Anse aux
Meadows is saying with respect to the 4:30 zip when kids are out of school and
the issue that’s there.
First of
all, I’m happy to see that this legislation is finally to the floor of this hon.
House for discussion and debate. I understand and I applaud the minister and the
staff for the amount of work that’s gone into that. I’m glad that it is here. I
think, earlier today, we talked about lived experience when we were discussing
in Oral Questions. Being a former mayor – and I look around this hon. House and
I see many former municipal colleagues and we all had that issue to deal with
when it comes to off-road vehicle use, ATV use, whichever way you want to put it
and how it impacts your municipality and now it’s impacting my district.
The
importance of safety is paramount when you look at what is being done when
people, of all ages, are using these machines. It was also mentioned earlier
today about a change of culture. We do have to change the culture with respect
to education, when these vehicles are being used, but that also sparked me to go
into another avenue with respect to culture, and that’s how important these
pieces or machinery are to our culture here on a daily basis.
I’m not
very old, Mr. Speaker; I’ll be 48 if I’m spared till next month. I can remember
taking the reins of the horse when we plowed our fields, and I’m only 48.
S. CROCKER:
(Inaudible.)
J. WALL:
I can prove it, hon.
Government House Leader.
But
today, when you look at it, these machines are used in many gardens in my
district this time of year when they’re plowing fields and doing the work. Of
course, it was touched on by my colleague from Exploits with respect to hauling
wood and doing whatever chores are needed. It is an important piece of
machinery.
I have
to say that I have a large number of users in my district for these machines. I
want to say a large number of responsible users. I want to applaud those
responsible users because it’s very important when you look at the proper use of
these vehicles. Now, I can attest at all hours of the day and night, that there
are machines being used on the roadways in a not-so-responsible manner.
As I
said before in this House, 7½ years as mayor of Pouch Cove, you work with your
municipal colleagues to try to curb some of these concerns. As a group on the
Northeast Avalon, we met regularly with the RNC in our area to discuss the
issues that were brought forward to us on a regular basis and, of course, what
we experienced daily. Many times, these officers said that our hands are tied.
I’ve heard that here today as well, because they have stated that changes need
to come from this hon. House, it needs to come from the department, it needs to
come from the minister and, as a collective body here, we need to make those
changes.
That’s
one thing, with respect to enforcement, that I’m not seeing here today. There’s
not a lot of change with respect to the level of enforcement or the increase or
introduction of any new enforcement measures in this particular piece of
legislation.
As I was
sitting here and listening, I reflected upon on two town meetings that I
attended. One as mayor and one as MHA, both with the RNC, both with concerned
citizens in the district, with respect to ATV use. Again, it was mentioned here
today with respect to the level of education that’s needed. The level of
responsibility that should come from the parents when these machines are being
used, we don’t see a lot.
I’ll
give you an example. The former RNC chief – who was then inspector at the time –
came to my Town of Pouch Cove when I was mayor, and we had a meeting with
concerned residents. I witnessed a parent argue with the inspector, at the time,
that her son or daughter should have the right to be on the road under the age
of 16 on an ATV. Now, if you have the audacity to argue with an inspector of the
RNC who is quite versed in the law and upholding the law, there comes the
challenge that each and every one of us in the 40 districts are facing when we
come to improper use of ATVs.
I was
looking and was hoping for more enforcement with respect to this new bill coming
in. Of course, we never know what we could come across when we have more
discussion in Committee, but to go to back to the regular meetings with the
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I applaud, at the time, my municipal colleagues
for stepping up and doing that. I’m glad to see that the mayors on the Northeast
Avalon are continuing that dialogue with the RNC to look for avenues that we can
have this behaviour curbed. But it was very frustrating when we go to the RNC
with this issue and they don’t have the solution either. That’s where part of
the problem lies when it comes to the amount of officers that we have. Do we
need an increase in officers? I’m sure that the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety has that question asked to him on a regular basis, and I’m sure that we
all hear about here as Members for each of our districts.
So it’s
important for us to go back to the municipal level to engage the municipalities.
I know that many towns have stepped up across our province with respect to
bringing in legislation or working with the responsible users and riders in
their areas. It is important to remember the municipalities, to remember the
elected officials there to work with them. But it’s also important to have
responsible drivers.
One of
my colleagues said about using a supported trail system. Well, unfortunately, in
Cape St. Francis we don’t have a dedicated trail system to ATV or off-road
users. That has been discussed many times over my 7½ years as mayor; the idea
has been brought back to me now as MHA with respect to responsible users looking
for trail systems. But it was mentioned earlier – I think my colleague from
Ferryland said about the train-track system. We don’t have that in Cape St.
Francis. You have to come into St. John’s to get down to the trains station to
start your voyage there.
I’ve had
discussions with many landowners in my district with respect to trying to come
forward with a dedicated trail system. Unfortunately, when you’re looking at
private land, Crown land, those different barriers, it makes it a little bit
more difficult. For me, in my district, I don’t have a dedicated trail system
but it’s something that I know the users and the riders would like to see, of
course. It’s very easy to travel on the side of the road to get from one trail
to another. We know that it is problematic when it comes to being used on a
daily basis.
There
are lots of issues that we have to deal with. Again, I go back to the level of
enforcement that I was hoping to see in the bill. I know that many of the police
officers were hoping to see a different level or introduction of a new
enforcement that we could have here. It’s something that we need to keep in mind
if we’re all going to be responsible to the residents that we serve; we have to
keep that in mind. Of course, there are many players at the table that we can
engage with to do so.
Speaker,
I always appreciate the time to add my two cents. Again, it’s from lived
experience, as one of the ministers said earlier this morning. It’s always good
to bring it back to the ground level, to realize what we have to do and, of
course, to engage the stakeholders that we must engage with to, hopefully, come
up with some solutions.
I
appreciate the work that the minister and her staff have done with respect to
Bill 22 and bringing it to this House. I look forward to the added discussion
and debate. I thank you for the opportunity, Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move
we adjourn debate on Bill 22.
Sorry,
Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of bills this week.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.’
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.’
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.