November 3, 2020
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 62
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
Admit strangers.
Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Lake
Melville, Stephenville - Port au Port, Mount Pearl North, Labrador West and St.
John's East - Quid Vidi.
The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
TRIMPER:
Mr.
Speaker, when the Goose Bay Air Base opened in 1941, it completely changed
society across Labrador. Indigenous and other residents relocated to the head of
Lake Melville to join allied personnel at the great trans-Atlantic airport, all
in support of RAF Ferry Command. Over 24,000 aircraft passed through Goose Bay
during the war.
In a remote corner of the base lies Commonwealth
Cemetery. Here lay 32 aviators and soldiers from Canada, the United Kingdom and
Australia killed when their aircraft went down.
Just as poignant as the Lest We Forget Cemetery, and
buried alongside are many civilians – including their children, who were also
involved in this epic struggle.
On each 11th of November, our community gathers here
for an emotional ceremony. Military personnel stand at each war grave while
remarks and prayers are offered by the wing commander and base padre. The Act of
Remembrance is read by the Royal Canadian Legion. Relatives and community
supporters gather in support while the three national anthems and “Last Post”
are played.
Please join me in thanking those in the service of our
country at 5 Wing Goose Bay, and those who gather annually with them at this
special place, to remember this ultimate sacrifice.
Lest we forget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Dave Rex is a very familiar name in the Stephenville -
Port au Port area. When it comes to volunteering, Dave's dedication and passion
in the community are obvious and he is certainly looked upon as an exceptional
community member who always goes above and beyond the call of duty.
As a testament to his volunteerism, Dave has been
recognized with a number of distinctions over the years. In both 1999 and again
in 2007, Dave was awarded Stephenville Citizen of the Year. In 2016, Dave was
named a Senior of Distinction by the Department of Seniors, Wellness and Social
Development to acknowledge and celebrate the meaningful contribution seniors
make to our society.
Dave has been a member of the Stephenville Lions Club
for the past 30 years and has held a number of offices within the club,
including serving as president. Under Dave's leadership in 2013, the
Stephenville club was named a top five club in Canada. In 2016, he also received
the Lions International President's Award.
To quote Dave: Service to others is the rent we pay for
our place on earth, and of that service, the greatest is to our youth.
Please join me in recognizing and congratulating Mr.
Dave Rex as an outstanding citizen and volunteer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pat O'Keefe Sr. has made many great contributions to
the community of Mount Pearl.
Pat began coaching hockey in 1975 when he coached the
Mary Queen of the World hockey team. From there, he continued on to coach
numerous all-star teams and served as vice-president and president of the Mount
Pearl Minor Hockey Association. Pat also coached soccer with the Mount Pearl
Soccer Association and was a Cub leader and a Scout master at Mary Queen of the
World. As well, he served on the PTA of two Mount Pearl high schools.
For many years, Pat served as a grand knight of Knights
of Columbus Father John B. Kent Council and is still a member today. He held the
position of president of Mary Queen of the World parish council for several
years, served as director of the Children's Wish Foundation and was elected to
the Mount Pearl council for two terms. Additionally, Pat has received numerous
awards and recognition for his outstanding work in volunteerism, including
Citizen of the Year and the Queen's Jubilee Medal.
Pat O'Keefe has contributed to the success of many
supports and community organizations within our community. Please join me in
recognizing Pat O'Keefe for his outstanding contributions to the community of
Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise to give recognition to the Labrador West
Search and Rescue team. The Labrador West Search and Rescue team was formed in
1982 and currently has 35 members. Even with their near-total shutdown because
of the pandemic this year, they have been on standby or in action for 11
call-outs and about 2,400 hours spent in the field, collectively.
The Labrador West Search and Rescue team trains for
hours in every weather condition so they can be prepared to deploy at any
moment's notice to give help to those who are lost or may be injured.
What some don't realize is that they are also at most
community events, volunteering to help with traffic control, first aid during
parades, marathons and hockey tournaments. These volunteers provide their
service to ensure that rowers are safe during our Regatta. They also educate our
residents on how to enjoy outdoor activities safely and give presentations to
all the schools.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking the
Labrador West Search and Rescue team for all the work they've done to keep our
community safe and educate everyone year-round.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I recognize the life and work of the Right
Reverend Dr. Geoffrey Peddle who was the bishop of the Anglican Diocese of
Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador since 2014 and was ordained in the ministry
for 33 years.
Geoff served in parishes across the province: Lake
Melville, Cartwright, Arnold's Cove and Mount Pearl. He was the author of
From Mount Pearl to Mount Sinai,
The Atonement of Jack Fowler, a
history of The Church Lads' Brigade
and The Church of England Orphanage in
Newfoundland: 1855-1969. He was outspoken in his support for same-sex
marriage, better treatment of prisoners and interfaith dialogue. He did not back
away from difficult topics.
I know I speak for all hon. Members as I send my
condolences to his wife Kathy, sons Benjamin and Adam, daughter-in-law Magdalena
and his new granddaughter Josefina. The family has asked that we give gratitude
for Geoff's life by enjoying time with loved ones, walking in nature and being
kind to one another.
I ask the hon. Members of this House to join me in
celebrating the life and work of Bishop Geoffrey Peddle. May we all aspire to
follow his example of kindness, inclusion and mercy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, today I participated virtually in the Maritime and Arctic Security and
Safety Conference – MASS20.
This event has attracted a global audience and is
showcasing the significant capabilities of the aerospace, defence and security
industries in Atlantic Canada. Despite a challenging year, industry leaders have
been quick to adapt to the rapid pace of change and take advantage of new
opportunities.
Aerospace, defence and security all play a role in the
growth engine of the Atlantic Canadian economy, accounting for almost 23,000
jobs and an overall economic impact of nearly $3 billion.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, companies and researchers
thrive on solving the technical challenges of operating in a cold ocean
environment with innovative technologies, such as subsea imaging and radar
technology, as well as aerial and satellite ice management. By establishing
world-class technologies, academic and research facilities and developing highly
skilled workers right here, our companies and institutions are competing
globally.
I would like to congratulate the Atlantic Canada
Aerospace and Defence Association for changing course while keeping everyone's
health and safety top of mind and putting together the virtual MASS20
conference. I look forward to continuing our partnership to help advance the
opportunities that exist to enhance our international profile.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I join the minister in
recognizing Atlantic Canada Aerospace and Defence Association on their virtual
conference, MASS20.
Mr. Speaker, as COVID-19 continues to reek havoc on our
global community, more and more conferences and workshops are transitioning to
the online format. While many participants miss the face-to-face interaction,
the online nature allows more individuals and businesses to participate,
especially smaller firms and start-ups.
I am pleased to hear that through MASS20 our
environment and local industry has been showcased. Our province offers the
unique ability to do research and innovate in cold-water climate while Labrador
also provides the ability to work in a northern and remote landscape.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy
of his statement. I, too, congratulate Atlantic Canada Aerospace and Defence
Association on a successful conference in these difficult times.
We have a gem here in Newfoundland and Labrador when it
comes to research and technology sector and we have the responsibility to
nurture and grow this industry further. I'm proud that we can continue to be a
world leader in Maritime and Arctic safety, so let's continue to grow and
support these industries.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture.
MR.
LOVELESS:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to highlight assistance provided through the Department of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture Seafood Development program to help support
the recent launch of Waspu – a new Indigenous brand seal oil capsule developed
by the Qalipu First Nation. Waspu is the Mi'kmaq word for seal.
Funding of up to $25,000 will be provided to the Qalipu
Development Corporation to help launch the Waspu brand into the domestic market
by supporting the development of social media, a website and marketing
materials.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the leadership of the
Qalipu First Nation for recognizing opportunities that exist in our commercial
seal fishery and pursuing the development of an Indigenous branded seal oil
capsule.
The provincial government is pleased to support such an
initiative that only helps promote the health benefits associated with our
seafood resources but one which also sends a clear signal that the seal fishery
remains active and an important component of the fishing industry here in the
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Qalipu Development Corporation has partnered with
Newfoundland-based retail grocery chain Colemans to carry the product where it
is hoped it will be welcomed by consumers here locally and beyond.
Mr. Speaker, opportunities to access new quotas of
valuable fish species adjacent to our shores are anticipated in the near future.
We look forward to continuing our advocacy on behalf of Indigenous communities
and, indeed, all those living in our coastal communities to ensure rightful and
fair access to future quota allocations is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. Mr. Speaker, we would also like to commend and congratulate the
Qalipu First Nation on this new venture. We should be promoting all our seafood
resources.
The seal industry is, in particular, often forgotten. I
know that it's ignored and completely misunderstood by the current federal
government, given that they continue to do the inaction addressing the growing
number of seals and the poor judgment it showed just last month giving $80,000
to the IFAW to do work in this province. That is why it's important to educate
people about the valuable resource and the benefits it can offer.
Mr. Speaker, we're very pleased to see the seal fishery
be promoted in this way. We wish the Qalipu First Nation every success with this
venture. We look forward to seeing expanded markets for this and other seal
products in the future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement and compliment the Qalipu Development Corporation on the launch of its
Indigenous brand, Waspu seal oil capsule, of course, with funding from the
provincial government. It's a truly local and made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador
initiative that utilizes Indigenous ingenuity, a renewable seafood resource and
partners with local businesses such as Colemans to promote the product.
If there's a path to economic prosperity for our
province, it is in partnerships such as these.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and
Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I acknowledge in this hon. House two gentlemen who
recently passed away, both of whom recorded impressive achievements and made
exceptional contributions to sport in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Enshrined in the Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Hall
of Fame, the provincial athletics Hall of Fame and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Soccer Hall of Fame, Ben Dunne was an integral member of our provincial sporting
community for over 50 years.
A contributor as an athlete, a coach and a builder, Mr.
Dunne was well known mostly for his impressive list of competitions within
athletics and on the soccer pitch. From winning the Tely 10 in 1973, to
participating in the prestigious Boston Marathon several times, he coached at
the 1988 World Junior track and field championships, as well as the Canada Games
and provincial games. On the soccer pitch, he led multiple teams, including the
2002 and 2005 squads at the national Jubilee Trophy for women's championships
and the provincial entry at the 1993 Canada Summer Games.
Mr. Speaker, another pillar of provincial sports who
recently passed was Dave Barrett.
In the days when top athletes typically played a couple
of sports, Dave Barrett excelled in two sports during the winter and two sports
in the summer. An all-round athlete who thrived in the sport of track and field.
He led St. Bon's to three overall championships, medalling in shot put, discus,
javelin, high jump and relay. In his brief tenure on the soccer pitch, he earned
an MVP award and played for the St. John's All-Stars. Mr. Barrett also had great
success on the ice with his beloved St. Bon's, where his squad won the Boyle
Trophy five of the six years he played hockey.
But, Mr. Speaker, it was on the hardwood where Mr.
Barrett's star shone the brightest. Winner of numerous city league MVP awards
and scoring titles, he was inducted as an original member of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Basketball Hall of Fame.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in
acknowledging the life of Ben Dunne and Dave Barrett, two pillars in our
provincial sporting community.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the minister for an
advance copy of his statement.
Mr. Speaker, sports in our province recently lost two
more sport legends and hall of fame members, Ben Dunne and Dave Barrett.
Mr. Dunne's contribution as an athlete, coach, builder
and educator in this province is well known. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment
was the young athletes and students who he aspired to reach their full potential
either on the track, the pitch or in the classroom. Dunne was an athlete
extraordinaire who competed at the Boston Marathon and won the Tely 10.
Mr. Barrett was an all-around athlete in multiple
sports but best known for his on-ice exploits and five Boyle Trophies. He was an
original member of the Basketball Hall of Fame for his excellence on the court.
Barrett also found time to serve his community as city councillor for a number
of years.
On behalf of the Official Opposition, I send my sincere
condolences to the Dunne and Barrett families on the passing of these two sports
legends.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy
of his statement.
We here in the Third Party caucus send our condolences
to the family and friends of Mr. Ben Dunne and Mr. Dave Barrett. The
accomplishments of these two gentlemen have left a huge impact on the sporting
community in Newfoundland and Labrador and their contributions will continue to
inspire thousands of generations to come and do their best.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During his leadership campaign, the Premier promised a
chief economic recovery officer. The economy needs recovery and jobs more than
ever, but this is another promise with no action.
When will action be taken on economic recovery and
jobs?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have already announced the Premier's Economic
Recovery Team and they're working diligently currently. We've also made good
progress on moving towards a chief economic recovery officer that will last
beyond the Premier's Economic Recovery Team, beyond this Legislature and
hopefully for years to come so that person can give updates regularly on the
economic situation of the province well into the future.
We're continuing to work hard to create jobs and
economic opportunity for the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
I
thank the Premier for that, but he's had six months now to think through and
work on the economic recovery officer and all he has to show so far is good
progress.
He says he talks to Ottawa every day. When did he last
talk to Prime Minister Trudeau about the jobs crisis in this province, and did
the prime minister promise any additional help for industrial-based jobs,
including Come By Chance and the offshore?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, the math from the Member opposite is once
again wrong. Nevertheless, we continue to have open discussions with Ottawa on a
regular basis. My last conversation with the prime minister was a first
ministers' call, which occurs every two weeks or so.
We discussed, in particular, the Atlantic region and
the impact that COVID is having. We discussed this at the Atlantic premiers'
conference recently as well and how the region itself is suffering in particular
with respect to the crisis in oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador. The
prime minister is aware of the situation and is currently working through all
solutions for all Canadians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, if I could respectfully suggest, if the Premier spent less time in the
Trudeau fan club and more time fighting for us, he might get results.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSBIE:
The
Premier's government has rolled over on equalization, failed on fiscal
stabilization and rate mitigation has been a total disaster.
Given that our six Liberal MPs have disappeared, when
will the Premier use his supposed leverage to get help from Ottawa?
PREMIER FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, we wouldn't be in a rate mitigation scenario
if it wasn't for the Members opposite and then we're in this (inaudible) that
we're currently facing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER FUREY:
The
fact that they burdened the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and their
children with this untold economic and fiscal crisis is something that we're
working through currently as a government.
That said, the Member opposite may want to rip down
flags, I want to build relationships so that we can work through this time of
crisis, not in war, but to work together towards a solution for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, the flag I want to raise is the flag of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSBIE:
I
might modestly suggest to the Premier that if he spent less time focused on the
past and more time focused on the future, he could get some good ideas about
Muskrat Falls from his friend John Abbott. A previous Liberal government under
Clyde Wells used legislation to repeal collective agreements for economic
reasons.
The Premier says attrition is not enough, so will he
clarify whether he intends to use legislation to tear up collective agreements?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for that question.
Raising flags – we're all interested in raising the
Newfoundland and Labrador flag. We do so every day. I'm not interested in
tearing down the Canadian flag.
We're part of Canada; we're part of a solid federation.
This is the benefit of being part of a Canadian family so that we can have open
discussions with our federal colleagues to advance the Newfoundland and Labrador
agenda in the face of an acute rate mitigation crisis that's been laid on our
laps by the previous governments.
We will continue to work towards solutions with the
Canadian government as part of that federation, which I know that all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud to be a part of.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Premier, I think we heard a pile of platitudes from the Premier about collective
bargaining, which amounts to no comfort for hard-working public servants. The
hospitality industry says 7,000 jobs will not survive another year without a
plan, and they need the plan now.
Can the Premier tell the industry what the plan is?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, thank you very much for the question.
Obviously, I think it's the first time the hon. Member
actually brought up the tourism and hospitality sector in this House, which is
excellent because it's a major economic driver in our province.
We've worked very hard on developing relationships with
our colleagues in the hospitality industry. HNL has been with us along the
entire way. We've developed a Tourism and Hospitality Support Program which has
been greatly successful in reaching out. Obviously, we're working very hard with
our federal colleagues and the Minister of Tourism. We're looking at
opportunities that we see to extend those programs, to ensure that those
operators have continuity because they've done substantial work over the last
number of decades and we want to continue that success into the future for that
industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Mr.
Speaker, just to remind the minister that he needs to be probably a little more
attentive because we brought up tourism many times in this House and in this
Question Period.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
PARDY:
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Education committed to consultation in January of 2021
with the child care industry about the $25-a-day program that he announced two
weeks ago.
Why did he not engage in a meaningful way with
home-based operators before rolling out the program?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The consultation process that I announced would have a
formal start of consultations in January is toward the statutory review that is
supposed to be in 2022. We decided that we would have that early.
Mr. Speaker, we are always open for consultation. We're
always open for feedback and for dialogue with those in the early learning and
child care industry. In fact, I have a meeting with home-based workers tomorrow
morning at 9.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Mr.
Speaker, it reminds me of the roll out of the school re-entry plan on August 17.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
PARDY:
Mr.
Speaker, operators continue to speak out about forced cuts to their rates. In
order to provide a $25-a-day child care they will be forced to lose money or cut
nutritious snacks and healthy meals.
Why is the minister forcing operators to choose between
going out of business or a quality, healthy meal plan for our children?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Like the Member opposite's bosom buddy, he was also
calling for half-day school, Mr. Speaker, or half-time school. Have one-half of
the class in on Monday, the other half in on Tuesday. I think our back-to-school
plan has worked far better than the suggestions from that Member, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, the $25-a-day child care plan is a phenomenal plan for parents in this
province. It makes early learning and child care affordable for families in this
province. Like any new program, as it was rolled out for the centres in 2014, it
came with road bumps. I am fully prepared to work with our partners in early
learning and child care to ensure that we have a good future for early learning
and child care in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Mr.
Speaker, if they had done homework when they rolled out the schools re-entry
plan, they would've known that the largest school district, the Toronto school
district, had that same idea. So it wasn't something new, it was something that
a jurisdictional scan would've highlighted for the minister.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from operators who are
devastated as they consider how to feed the children on $2.50 a day for meals
and 50 cents a day for snacks, which is outrageous.
Will the minister commit that he will fix this mess
before the $25-a-day child care starts in January?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will remind the hon. Member across the way that in
Ontario they have considerably larger numbers of COVID cases than we do in this
province. Maybe they needed half-day school in that province, Mr. Speaker, but
we don't in this province. I will gladly listen to the advice of parents in this
province who want their children in school full-time, as opposed to the advice
of the Member who wanted them in school half-time.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of early learning and child care,
the concerns raised –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order, please!
MR.
OSBORNE:
–
by home operations are legitimate concerns. I've got a meeting with them at 9
o'clock tomorrow morning.
Mr. Speaker, the plan for centres in this province, the
subsidy for centres is about $1 or $1.50 more than we're offering home based.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, Mr. Speaker. If we were back on August 11, there
was a different perspective on our school system and what we would face here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of these home-based
daycares are female entrepreneurs who are struggling to provide an essential
service and make a decent living.
Again: Why is the minister forcing the operators to
choose between quality of care and keeping the doors open?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, the plan that was rolled out in 2014 for our centres saw that 70 per
cent of centres today are involved in the Operating Grant Program, which means
about 30 per cent are not. So the 30 per cent have the ability, the freedom to
charge what they wish. They still have children going to those centres.
Mr. Speaker, nobody is forcing a home-based centre to
join the Operating Grant Program, so nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
We are willing to sit and speak with the home-based operators to find out what
their concerns are and see if there are areas, red tape or other areas that we
can make it easier for these operators.
I am meeting with them 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, Mr.
Speaker, to hear their concerns. As I said, some of the concerns that they're
raising are very legitimate concerns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2016, the sitting administration announced its
intention to implement regional governance and sharing of services. It has been
four years.
I ask the minister: Why has it been so long to see no
action?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for my first opportunity to answer a question. I'm sure
my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, is more than
delighted that I finally got my question.
As the Member opposite knows, and like so many in this
department, regionalization does take a significant shift in government.
Since I've been in this role for the last eight, 10
weeks, I took the opportunity to meet with MNL and PMA to discuss
regionalization. We set up a committee that has been working very actively to
tackle forms of regionalization. Right now, there are a lot of success stories
going on with regard to regionalization within our communities and that. We will
continue to work on that and build on that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Mr.
Speaker, we just heard that this sitting administration has set up another
working committee.
What mandate will this new committee be given and what
results does the government hope to achieve?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.
MR.
BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think in order to do justice to this regionalization
and shared services, we have to fully involve and be engaged with MNL and PMA
and other stakeholders. I don't think, as a government as a whole, that we can
make the decisions that are going to impact the residents and communities of
Newfoundland and Labrador without the involvement of these organizations.
We're not going to rush this, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it has
taken some time and we're working through the process. We're analyzing the
public consultation that took place and we'll continue to do so. We're not going
to rush it. We want to make sure we do this right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Mr.
Speaker, we just heard that the minister does not think government is capable of
making decisions.
Mr. Speaker, government has already held consultations
on regional government back in 2017.
Number one: Will they release the findings? Number two:
Has this Committee been struck because they're afraid to make the decisions
necessary?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.
MR.
BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not sure if the Member opposite heard my comments.
No, we're not afraid, as a government, to make the decisions, but I think it's
unfair for a government to make decisions without the key stakeholders involved.
PMA and MNL are partnering with us. They're supportive
of the action we're doing. They're fully engaged in the process to date and they
will continue to be engaged, Mr. Speaker. We have a great working relationship
and we want to continue on that working relationship.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Mr.
Speaker, for the municipalities in this province, particularly the smaller ones,
compliance with the new federal waste water regulations is practically
impossible.
What is the minister's plan to address the financial
impact these requirements will have on municipalities across our province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.
MR.
BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a good question. It is a concern that has been
addressed at various levels of government. Our government is committed to
working with our federal colleagues to work on the waste water management plan.
We did support MNL and their federal colleagues to ask
for an extension. The federal government did come back and commit that they will
reconsider the time frames that are put into place.
As a government, we take this very seriously. We'll
continue to work with municipalities through our different funding programs to
achieve the goals.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Mr.
Speaker, there are approximately 200 communities across the province with
boil-water advisories. These municipalities are more concerned about having
access to clean drinking water and waste water concerns are secondary.
What support does the minister have for these small
communities that have unsafe drinking water?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.
The Member opposite should be – and I guess everybody
should be – made aware that as of November 13, we've had applications open for
ICIP funding. That's funding for municipalities for waste water, for water, to
treat their waste water and the boil-water advisories.
We put out an early call last year in which we didn't
have a big uptake on it. I think it's about 160 at any given time that are on a
boil-water advisory in this province. A lot of towns have chosen, just made the
choice, not to turn on their infrastructure. We made an application available to
these towns.
If the towns don't take up on it, we cannot force it
down their throat, Mr. Speaker. We can lead people to the water but we can't
make them drink. We have a program in place to help the towns out there to
address the needs that will address their boil-water advisory issues.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. Member for Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
We
have been getting calls from constituents who have been waiting up to three
weeks for an appointment with Motor Registration in Grand Falls-Windsor. We are
also hearing that there are very long wait times to get a response on the
phones.
What immediate action will the minister take to improve
service delivery for those residents?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Since we had the global pandemic this year, our staff
at motor vehicle registration have completely changed how they deliver services.
While you used to be able to walk into a branch, now you call; you make an
appointment online. There are drop boxes where you do things. You do the
transactions online.
My understanding is in Grand Falls-Windsor in
particular, residents are able to get an appointment within the next day or two,
so I don't believe there is an issue in Grand Falls-Windsor.
We are working on a new phone system that will allow us
to share capacity around the province so that residents, when they call in, they
don't have a wait and they can get services right away. We are trying to make
things better for residents, and it's a very important priority for me.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
This is particularly concerning for seniors and others who are unable to access
service online as they have no Internet access.
What are government's plans to address their concerns?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While we are putting services online, our services in
person will not change. Residents can continue to call. They can use a drop box.
They can make an appointment to come in to a motor vehicle registration branch.
We are not changing the services. If anything, the online services will help
alleviate capacity so that we can provide better services to those who do them
in person and on the phone.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, that doesn't give any assurances to our
seniors who cannot access services online.
Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Premier. We're in
an economic crisis. I've heard from many people in my district and throughout
the province, including seniors and people on fixed incomes, about the rising
cost of groceries.
I ask the Premier of the province: What specific steps
are being taken to ensure that consumers are protected from the rising cost of
food?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In our department we have the Consumer Advocate. In
terms of complaints from residents and food, particularly on price gouging,
during COVID-19 we did have a few complaints around price gouging, but they were
all investigated and found that no one was actually price gouging in terms of
the price gouging rules. We don't have any concerns about this at this point,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main,
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have any concerns,
but our constituents who are calling our offices every day have serious concerns
about this problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, the cost of living in this province is
increasing, making life unaffordable and stressful for so many people. We are
hearing from constituents with worries about not only the rising cost of
groceries but other basic household essentials.
Once again, I ask the Premier of our province: What
specific steps are being taken to protect our people from the rising cost of
essential goods?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
This is a very important question. These are difficult
times for people, we recognize that. That's why we have a very stable budget in
very unstable times. There's $123 million allocated in this budget as the Income
Supplement, as well as for the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit.
There's $12 million towards adult literacy programs.
Mr. Speaker, there is plenty of programming available
for seniors, including through the Seniors' Advocate. If there's anything that
we can do to support a senior, we certainly will. These are challenging times.
We'll do absolutely everything we can to assist people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has identified a
“catastrophic shortage” of family physicians in my district.
Recently, I received an email from a lady who lost her
family doctor and she needed a prescription filled. She called the 811
HealthLine and, sure enough, they gave her a refill on her prescription, but
then they told her that if she wanted to refill that prescription again she
needed to get a family doctor or go to the emergency room the next time.
Minister, what would you suggest I tell this woman?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It's an excellent question. It is ironic that at a time
when we have more physicians and more family physicians in this province than we
have ever had, access to those individuals seems to be more challenged.
The Member opposite should know that we work with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. We actually provide them with
funding of $4.5 million a year for them and their family practice renewal
project. We have worked with them on collaborative arrangements to look after
orphan patients, as they refer to them, from time to time, and a team-based
approach that we have come to agree on will be a major pillar of our
negotiations going forward with the NLMA.
In the meantime, we have mechanisms in place for
episodic non-urgent care and we're looking to expand those as well, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer but, again, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association have identified over 100,000 people in our province
who do not have access to a family physician. It's not just in my district. It's
in the St. John's region, it's in the Central region, it's all over the province
and it's time that we do something because it's not working. While we say we
have more physicians than we've ever had, it's not working.
Mr. Speaker, for over a year and a half the Sir Thomas
Roddick Hospital in Stephenville has been without an internist and a surgeon.
Now we are hearing that the second surgeon is leaving. Surgical services in the
hospital have obviously been impacted and continue to be impacted. Clearly,
there's a problem with recruitment, not just with family physicians but also
with specialists.
Again I ask the minister: What is specifically being
done to address the catastrophic shortage of doctors in the Stephenville region?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, the challenge is distribution. We have, I
think, the second highest per capita number of doctors per 100,000 of any
provincial jurisdiction. It is of no comfort if they're all working in St.
John's. We have, with the Medical Association, begun discussions as part of
negotiations around a provincial strategy for recruitment and retention. We will
look forward to those rolling out once the negotiations have been completed.
Again, as it is part of negotiations, I think it would be premature for me to
say much more about that, Mr. Speaker, but it is a priority for us to get
physicians in the right places.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in a recent press release NAPE reported
that staff were working 12-, 16- and 24-hour shifts. Seniors' rights groups are
calling for a staffing ratio of 3-1. It was good to see a conference between the
regional health authorities, NAPE and the Government of Newfoundland took place
last week.
I ask the minister: What was the staffing plan for
long-term care facilities that came out of that conference?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
With reference to 24-hour shifts, the department has
had in place mandatory reporting of 24-hour shifts of any health care worker
well prior to COVID. We are aware of maybe half a dozen over the course of the
last six months. That seems to be a very infrequent – fortunately – situation.
With regard to the discussions with Mr. Earle and NAPE,
as well as the other unions, we have agreed a process to look forward to this.
We have increased enrolment of LPN and PCA courses through the College of the
North Atlantic by 80 per cent and we are working with the unions about improving
the working conditions of those who remain.
I'm pleased to report to this House that the average
hours of nursing care in long-term care has gone up to well above the national
average. It's gone from 3.4 hours per day, which is above the national average,
to over 4.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
minister's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have been receiving calls from
constituents who are seniors and have no place to live. They are depending on
the kindness of neighbours and friends who will board them for the night.
Currently, there are 87 empty units in St. John's with the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation and over 900 people on a wait-list.
I ask the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation: What is the plan to ensure that seniors are not
homeless this winter?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MR.
WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial and federal government
signed a nine-year multilateral agreement back in 2019 that provided $270
million in funding to preserve, renew and expand social housing and community
housing here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to bring new housing solutions to
the people in core housing needs.
The first of three three-year action plans, Mr.
Speaker, was agreed upon between Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation
and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation in March of 2020. This action
plan outlines our targets moving forward with regard to social housing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We still need to address the 87 empty units and the 900
people on the wait-list.
Mr. Speaker, a common practice I see is outpatient
services sending mental health patients, some to homes owned by private
landlords, many of which are not properly maintained. The substandard and often
unsupported homes exacerbate the mental health conditions of people who live
there.
I ask the minister: Where is the plan to support our
most vulnerable neighbours across the province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Again, a very important question and very timely.
During COVID, we, through the Department of Health and with my colleague from
CSSD, put together a vulnerable persons working group. This is co-chaired by our
director of Mental Health and Addictions in recognition of the mental health and
addictions challenges, as well as the representatives from NLHC.
This has become such a valued resource that it is
actually practically involved on the ground in finding policy solutions, as well
as operational solutions. This we have undertaken to continue regardless of when
the pandemic ends, and that will then feed into our mental health and additions
strategy, as well as CSSD's housing plan, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Mr.
Speaker, I invite both ministers to walk through our communities and recognize
the reality we are dealing with, which is basically a rise in violence, crime,
drug addition and mental health complexities. Both ministers are welcome to
speak to the people who live in our neighbourhoods and communities from St.
John's to Labrador West to see the reality for themselves.
I ask the Minister of Health or the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development: Where is the plan to address these
issues that we're facing right now?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MR.
WARR:
Mr.
Speaker, again, I thank the hon. Member for his question.
There are, I guess, a whole list of complexities that
the hon. Member has outlined and we continue to work closely through our
interdepartmental approach to poverty – if I may use that word, Mr. Speaker. I
know with regard to our Premier and our government, poverty reduction remains
high on our priority list.
Just last week, we took the opportunity in our SPC
meeting to address the issues that the Member is talking about today and we'll
continue to ensure that this working group makes this a priority going forward,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR.
SPEAKER:
In
accordance with subsection 44(1) of the
House of Assembly Act, I am tabling a report of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards entitled: Joyce
Report, November 3, 2020.
Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. 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 Thursday, November 5, 2020.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to clarify, in Question Period we talked
about price gouging. It was a mistake for me to say we don't have any concerns.
I feel sick about that, I should not have said that. I just want to clarify that
obviously we take the concerns of the people of the province very seriously,
especially with the price of food.
We have a Consumer Protection department within Digital
Government and Service NL and we investigate complaints around price gouging and
the price of food. I would encourage anyone in the province who have concerns
that they're – not necessarily from an overall inflation perspective, but if
they feel like the price of food is disproportionate or inappropriate according
to regulation, then they can certainly contact our office and make a complaint
and they'll be investigated. We take those very seriously.
I just wanted to apologize, I shouldn't have said that,
and clarify the role of consumer protection legislation in the province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any more answers to questions for which notice has been
given?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS.
EVANS:
I'm
presenting this petition for fairer electricity rates for Labrador Indigenous
communities.
The reason for this petition is: We, the undersigned,
are concern citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure
that fairer electricity rates be provided to Torngat Mountains residents of
Northern Labrador Indigenous communities of Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale,
Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet.
The rates charged to Northern Labrador residents are
cost-prohibitive to using electric heat. Therefore, rates are cost-prohibitive
to adequately heating their homes. The rationale for this petition is to bring
electricity rates more in line with what our neighbouring residents of Lake
Melville region pay.
For the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountains
residents are charged the same rate as neighbouring residents of Lake Melville
region. However, above the ceiling of 1,000 kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountains
residents pay six times the rate of Lake Melville residents; six times the rate,
jumping to 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The 1,000 kilowatt hour ceiling prevents
many residents from being able to afford to heat their homes with electric heat.
Low-income families and households that don't have the manpower to haul wood are
the greatest impacted.
Poorly heated houses often result in damage, creating
expensive repairs for frozen pipes, moisture damage and mould. Poorly heated
houses also create social and mental health issues that can be long lasting. We
strongly believe that changes to electricity rates are needed to be made for
Northern Labrador residents of Torngat Mountains.
Therefore, we petition this hon. House of Assembly as
follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the life block to 3,500
kilowatt hours when applying the Northern Strategic Plan subsidy to electric
bills of Northern Labrador residents of Torngat Mountains.
Just looking at my petition now, on the North Coast, as
was stated, if you go over a thousand kilowatt hours the rate jumps up to 18.5
cents a kilowatt hour. This is the highest rate charged to residents in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, 18.5 cents is cost
prohibitive to anyone being able to heat their homes, let alone the most
impacted, which is our elders, our children, single mothers and low-income
families. They are the greatest impacted by the inability to heat a house, heat
a home. In actual truth, everybody is impacted. Even people who have two large
incomes in a household really can't afford electric heat because the bill gets
up around $800, $900.
Just looking at that, I already talked about elders
spending all their pension cheques on heating oil. I talked about cold houses. I
talked about condensation because of the heating and cooling of not being able
to provide a constant temperature in the household. I talked about mould damage,
the cost of those repairs. All of this hits at the heart of the families on the
North Coast of Labrador. This impacts not just low-income families or our
seniors, our elders, it impacts all families.
Until we find an alternate source of electricity to
this greenhouse gas-producing diesel that we rely on, we're asking that the life
block be increased to 3,500 kilowatt hours. We're not asking for the world,
we're asking for the life block to be increased.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the reasons for this petition are that:
Whereas individual residents, municipal leaders, including the Conception Bay
North Joint Council have spoken to the deplorable road conditions in the
District of Harbour Main. The district is made up of many smaller communities
and towns like Holyrood, Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South
River, North River, Roaches Line and Makinsons.
These towns and communities have roads in desperate
need of repair and paving. These roads see high-volume traffic flows every day
and drivers can expect potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many
washed out areas along the way. We petition the hon. House of Assembly to
immediately take the necessary steps to repair and repave these important
roadways to ensure the safety of the driving public who use them on a regular
basis.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is not the first
time I've raised this petition in the House of Assembly. Last June, for example,
June 16, 2020, I raised this petition; yet, Mr. Speaker, we're still waiting. We
see inaction by the government. In the past 17 months since my election, one of
the biggest issues I hear about from my constituents are the conditions of the
roads. The roads in many areas of the district can only be described as
deplorable. They're horrible. Many people, not only in my district but other
motorists outside the district who have to travel on these roads, are concerned
and have reached out.
Primarily, they're concerned about safety issues.
They're concerned about hazards caused by the roads. People, motorists,
residents are getting increasingly frustrated by government's inaction to
address these concerns. We hear in our offices about these issues, but it's not
just individuals that are upset, Mr. Speaker. I have letters here from
Conception Bay North Joint Council, from the municipal leaders in these councils
who have contacted the previous minister of Transportation and now the current
minister, expressing their frustration and their concerns.
Let me say in particular, the area in South River is
horrendous. We're talking about large potholes that are dangerous and difficult
to avoid. Not only there; I'll just highlight a couple: Roaches Line, Mr.
Speaker. This is a well-known road in my district. It's Roaches Line. Many
constituents and residents travel this road. It's a popular thoroughfare for
travellers and commuters from neighbouring communities like Makinsons, Cupids,
South River and others.
Again, these roads need to be addressed. They need to
be improved. I've heard from council members that the patching work that goes on
is totally unacceptable. The quality is just inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, please, we ask the government, we ask what
action will be taken to improve the conditions of these roads in the District of
Harbour Main.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2018, Eastern Health announced that the services
offered at the Portugal Cove Community Health Clinic will be relocated to
Major's Path centre, with the transition expected to be completed by September
20, 2018.
The Portugal Cove Community Health Clinic has provided
public health services for decades and is the only clinic in Portugal Cove-St.
Philip's, a town of nearly 10,000 residents. The clinic provided direct health
care programs and services to the town on a daily basis and addressed the vital
growing needs for the community's health services, particularly for the increase
in youth and aged population of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's.
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 take immediate action to ensure that
the services that were offered at the Portugal Cove Community Health centre be
reoffered at the same level as they were prior to the closure.
Mr. Speaker, in 2018, in conversations with Eastern
Health in trying to justify the announcement to close a clinic that had been
there for decades, and keeping in mind it was established based on the needs
that communities needed to be or could be better served by having the health
professionals in that community for accessibility and understanding of the
dynamics of that community. The community at the time was probably 3,200, 3,300
people. A community now hitting 10,000, the eighth largest municipality when you
compare it to the over 200 in our province.
To me, it would dictate that you would not only
continue the services that you have been providing, but you would find ways to
expand them and offer other ones that normally or previously weren't the key
issues that had to be addressed. That would be around mental health; it would
have been around addictions. Not counting all the primary care provided services
that were necessary, those related to new babies, those related to young people,
inoculations, all the things relevant to that and the needs of seniors.
Mr. Speaker, not only was it taken away, it was done
based on what they call a financial exercise. When we sat down and analyzed it,
and I sat with the chair of Eastern Health, I sat with the CEO, I sat with their
chief financial officer, and at the end of the day I showed – coming with all
the monies that had been put into it and what it would cost now to run Major's
Path and still have nurses or nurse practitioners or any other health
professionals drive to and from Portugal Cove - St. Philip's on a daily basis,
losing anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half of direct provided service in
travel time, which also was a cost, which also added to a potential danger and
some of the road conditions in the wintertime and that particularly.
At the same time, with no public transportation it
limited the residents of that community to be able to get to Major's Path – of
which we don't own. Government doesn't own it. They pay rent there. The rent for
a facility in Portugal Cove - St. Philip's was minimal in comparison, and most
of the health professionals lived in that community because for decades when
they found employment they relocated to there. It made no sense in a time when
we're making communities to be more based around health care that we change it
(inaudible).
I ask the government to lobby to get back to what was
working. You fixed something that wasn't broken. Let's not only add to it, let's
bring it back and let's make sure people have access to the service they
deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 11.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded by the hon. Government House Leader, pursuant to our
Standing Order 11(1), that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 3.
Is the House ready for the question?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased to know we had full support from the Member
for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Fulsome.
MR.
CROCKER:
Fulsome.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call Order 7, Bill 49.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 49 – this is a bill we've already started?
MR.
CROCKER:
No,
no.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Okay, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I moved, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure, that Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits
Eligibility Modification Act, by now read a second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 49, entitled An Act To Amend The Other
Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, be now read a second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.” (Bill 49)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased this afternoon to have an opportunity to
sit in this hon. House and introduce An Act to Amend the Other Post-Employment
Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.
This measure will be put in place for non-bargaining
unit employees, similar to the measures we've put in place with recent
agreements with NAPE and the nurses union as well, Mr. Speaker.
These changes we are making today here will affect the
– I will use OPEBs – other post-employment benefits for non-bargaining
employees. A group that includes executive management, non-management,
non-unionized, House of Assembly Service employees and Statutory Officers and
employees and their offices.
I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, these changes are for
employees hired on or after April 1, 2020, and will apply to group insurance
benefits in retirement. Government currently maintains a blended group insurance
program for both active employees and retirees.
Today's proposed amendment, in combination with other
OPEBs changes, will work toward curbing the potential liability for applying
changes to OPEBs for non-bargaining unit public sector workers, similar, again,
to those recently agreed to by NAPE and the Nurses' Union. Mr. Speaker, this
will mean that all current employees, as of March 31, 2020, will qualify for
50-50 per cent premium sharing in their retirement. All employees hired after
March 31, 2020, will share a 60-40 per cent premium sharing in their retirement.
During bargaining, we have also ensured that
government, as an employer, maintains its rights to administer and modify
post-employment benefit and insurance group insurance programs.
Mr. Speaker, the majority of public sector plans
maintain the same level of benefit premiums for both the bargaining and
non-represented employees. It is important to note, this legislation falls in
line with that for NAPE and the Nurses' Union.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of these proposed changes, in
combination with other changes to OPEBs in 2018, we anticipate that over a
30-year period, we will achieve approximately $2.2 billion in savings. We are
committed, as a government, to addressing the province's fiscal situation
through planning.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is committed to
addressing the province's fiscal situation through delivering for our workforce
planning and remains committed to other financial management through amendments
to the other post-employment benefits, such as the ones introduced here today.
I will now actually take my seat and allow the debate
to proceed.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, as we move forward in this sitting of the House
of Assembly, there's another piece of legislation that's important to ensuring
that people have access to services, or the legislation is updated to protect
the individual. In most cases, it's the consumer and the citizen. In this case,
are those who would work collectively within our civil service to a certain
degree, depending on which bargaining unit they're part of.
Mr. Speaker, this goes back to a period of time when
there had been a number of changes in our pension plan processes and our
services or our access to provided services after one leaves a government within
the realms of the civil service, depending on which bargaining unit they are.
It's clearly about trying to bring everything in line with the other parts of
the bargaining process here.
I remember a number of years ago, when we first talked
about provided services and, at the time, there was some challenges around the
pension plans being stable and ensuring that all of our retirees had equitable
income and sustainable income, but it was also about the services, particularly
health services that would be provided afterwards. I must give credit to the
unions of the day and the leadership of the time that looked at: How do we
equitably do this? It was one of the first times that I really saw a
collaborative approach by all the leaders of all the bargaining units to sit
down and have a discussion about how we best address this.
I remember one of my colleagues, the premier of the
day, saying: The best way we can solve this is ask the people who are most
effected by it. I remember having a conference call with all the unions and
telling them this is where we need to get. How we get there, that has less
impact on you guys or protects the interest of your members and also covers off
things in the long term would be the best way to go.
I remember the debate and the discussion and over the
course of a couple of months, the unions and their leadership going away and
talking to their membership and coming back with suggestions and alternatives,
realizing we all had to find a common ground, financially, for stability of the
funds and the services after retirement but also for the betterment of every
Newfoundlander and Labradorian from a debt load and keeping our debt in check.
I do give credit. I do remember one time, months after
at a social event, running into one of these leaders who complimented us around
the process that was used. I think it should be a template for anything that we
do now. Before we get into a negotiations, before its called negotiations, let's
have collaboration. Let's go to the stakeholders, those most effected by it and
say: Here's where we need to go. Here's the reality. Here's what we need to
achieve. How can you best help us get to that level and still, at the same time,
minimize the impact or make sure that certain gaps in services are covered off
by what we negotiated?
That was an example there. Where we're moving to now is
ensuring everything is in line so everybody is protected on an equal field here.
Some would think it's simple but if you're talking
about the cost of your health insurance after you retire, that may have a
dramatic effect from 70 per cent to 50 per cent is a big difference, depending
on the reality of what your ailment may be or the interventions that you may
need as part of that whole process.
The fact that the legislation, presently, is currently
on a sliding scale where a retiree would pay 50 to 85 per cent of their
insurance premiums based on their length of service. For example, an individual
with 20 years of service would pay 70 per cent of their premiums. An individual
with 30 years of service would pay 50 per cent of the premiums.
We're trying to make it equitable. We're trying to say
if you've committed to a certain period of time to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador that we owe you the respect and the support, that we valued you
agreeing to provide those services for a period of time.
We've gotten to a point where we couldn't just let
people come in off the street for six months or a year and still reap all the
benefits of everybody else, but there had to be an equitable and a fair timeline
for commitment to the civil service because people come in with the civil
service at all different ages, Mr. Speaker. I was fortunate enough to come in as
a young man, so I knew had I continued through the civil service that I would
have been entitled to a pretty good package at the end of it with a pension
plan, a bit of security as part of that.
If people come in later in life there are maybe some
challenges in what they may be entitled to. At the same time, the taxpayers
can't be on the hook for people who come in a year prior to them retiring, and
then all the costing be related to every other taxpayer in Newfoundland and
Labrador. That wouldn't be fair also.
We did come up with an equitable recommendation at the
time. I'm glad to see now the legislation moves it to the next level. All the
other bargaining units that were sort of left out of that or weren't put in the
same vein as what was normally negotiated by the larger stakeholders at the time
will now be put in line.
Everybody coming in to the civil service, when they
know exactly what level they are with years of service, they would know, when
they're ready to leave, exactly what they're entitled to and would have a little
bit of security to ensure that their quality of life after retirement also
covers key things like health coverage and insurance coverage.
Mr. Speaker, on that note, we look forward to
supporting this and ensuring that our civil service, when they retire, do have
all the equal services as they would and their counterparts for their years of
service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further speakers?
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell
Island. I found his speech quite interesting. It was interesting to hear the
background of it and his support for this legislation.
For the people who might just be tuning in, we're
discussing legislation that basically speaks to amending the
Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility
Modification Act to cover non-represented public sector employees not
subject to NAPE or RNUNL membership and negotiated agreements.
I wanted to bring it forward because it's a little bit
– so the people tuning in can understand what we're talking about here. Mr.
Speaker, people in the audience, people who are listening may remember that NAPE
and the Registered Nurses' Union recently finished negotiations and signed
agreements with the provincial government on changes to Other Post-Employment
Benefits. I recognize their leadership in helping to negotiate what I consider a
strong settlement and a strong agreement. I think Members opposite agree that
the leadership within NAPE and the Registered Nurses in moving forward here, I
think is supporting not only their membership but also the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
What this basically does is it blends a group insurance
program that's post-retirement. In light of the recent agreements with NAPE and
the Nurses' Union, we've made changes to legislation to enact similar
compensation and benefits changes for most of the non-unionized employees.
Government currently maintains a blended group insurance plan for both active
employees and retirees.
These amendments set out new rules for benefits
applying to employees hired after April 1, 2020. These changes will apply to
group insurance benefits in retirement. All current employees, as of March 31,
2020, will qualify for 50-50 per cent premium sharing in retirement. All
employees then retired after March 31 will share a 60-40 per cent premium
sharing in retirement. That is to equalize those employees that are not covered
by NAPE and the Registered Nurses' Union.
I will say, Mr. Speaker, that post-employment benefits
– as the Member opposite and as my colleague, the President of the Treasury
Board, alluded to – are very important to people, obviously, and form part of
their post-retirement benefits and ensure they have the medical and health
insurances they require. What we've basically done is made the changes to
equalize between executives, managers, non-management and non-union employees,
House of Assembly service employees and statutory offices and their bargaining
unit office staff. So we're applying what was provided to NAPE and the Nurses'
Union, now we're applying it to others. That's what the changes to this act do.
As a result of these proposed changes, though, which is
important to all of us here in the province, is that over a 30-year period – and
I know it's a long time, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that it will take that
amount of time. It is a big benefit to the people of the province. It will
result in about $2.2 billion in potential savings. By just making this change
from the 50-50 to the 60-40 will maintain about $2.2 billion in savings and the
other things that we've been able to do.
I listened intently to the Member opposite because he
was talking about some of the changes that were brought in previously, Mr.
Speaker, that were brought in prior to this government. In terms of the pension
plan, I know those pension plan savings are also making sure that people have
both a pension plan going forward but also ensuring it is sustainable.
I will say again, this is employees hired on or after
April 1, 2020, that at retirement they'll qualify for pension benefits. They'll
qualify for what they call OPEBs, as long as they're pension eligible, have a
minimum of 15 years pensionable service and retire and commence receipt of a
pension immediately upon ceasing active employment. Upon retirement, those
employees who will become entitled to this will pay premiums of 60 per cent of
the required premiums.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for us to
recognize how important our civil service is to the effective management of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to recognize employees for the amount of
effort they give. We want to recognize how important it is to have these
post-retirement benefits continue. Current, existing employees, again, will
maintain their 50-50 cost-shared arrangement. For new employees it will be
60-40. It allows us to continue to offer these benefits, albeit at a slightly
more premium but, again, they will be eligible.
I can say, Mr. Speaker, in the private sector a lot of
people don't have these benefits. We all wish they did because, of course, these
post-employment benefits are important to people as they retire. Health and
dental and prescription drugs are very, very important.
Again, I'll say to the President of Treasury Board and
my predecessor, the Minister of Finance, for bringing forward these amendments
to the legislation to ensure that they are in line with the recently ratified
and signed collective agreements with NAPE and the Nurses' Union. I think this
is important to the people who are currently working in the civil service but
it's also important to all people and all residents of the province for us to be
able to offer these post-employment benefits but at a rate that is sustainable
for the province. By saving that $2.2 billion over the next 30 years, it will
certainly ensure that we fiscally responsible, that we are addressing our fiscal
situation in the province and ensuring that we can offer post-employment
benefits.
On that, Mr. Speaker, I'll turn it over to others to
bring forward their comments on this very important piece of legislation. But,
again, congratulations to the President of the Treasury Board for bringing this
forward and to NAPE and the Nurses' Union for reaching an agreement to ensure
that we are not just fiscally sustainable, but also making sure that we have the
right employment benefits and the right employment contracts to ensure we have a
robust and strong civil service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the rationale for this but I
do feel a need to speak on this issue.
When we are talking about our responsibility for
post-employment benefits, I've done a fair bit of reading on the Public
Accounts, from the Auditor General, as well as budgets and a consistent theme
throughout the Public Accounts as well as the Auditor General's reports is the
ever-present and growing existence of an unfunded liability associated with
post-employment benefits.
The reason we are in the situation that we are in – and
I note in particular the Auditor General's report has a particularly good
diagram showing just how much our unfunded liabilities have grown in recent
years. If one was to have a look at that, group health and life insurance
liability has been added to unfunded pension liability and our net borrowings
and it has increased from a little over $10 billion in 2013 to a little over $20
billion this current year.
Now, it is a little bit reassuring to know that the
group health and life insurance liability seems to be almost consistently the
same amount, but that amount is going to grow over time. Now, I'm just looking
at a picture so that can't give you the exact numbers, but our liabilities here
come from the fact that we have not funded our obligation to help individuals
receive health and life insurance once they retire. If one wants to look at what
a wage package or a salary or employee contribution package is, when we look at
salaries and benefits, post-employment benefits, including pensions as well as
health insurance, is part of a larger employee compensation regime or scheme, if
you will.
When we take on those obligations with individuals,
part of our obligation is to put money into the accounts so that we can pay
those group health and life insurance liabilities well before they come due. We
put money into those accounts so the dollars will be there and we do not fall
back into the very inappropriate pattern of doing things like paying pensions
out of general revenue, which is what we have been doing since about 1981 when
we went to a group pension plan.
We have been recognizing the need and the importance of
including group health and life insurance post-employment as being a key part of
an employee compensation plan; however, we have not been managing our fiscal
obligation towards that employee benefits appropriately. In fact, if one was to
read the Auditor General's report or the Public Accounts, we will have seen
that, time and time again, the unfunded liability in these post-employment
benefits has not been addressed.
What we have seen now is this has come to such a head,
has becomes such an important issue that a lot of our responsibility to these
individuals, who when they signed onto – and I believe this was an argument made
for some other pension plans, an inclusion into a previous pension plan – these
obligations, we promised that this money would be there for these individuals
once they retire. By not recognizing and paying into those funds, we have
increased our unfunded liability.
What's now happened is in recent rounds of collective
bargaining, not only are we not looking at increasing our salaries – our
salaries are not being increased by, say, the cost of living – we are also now
downloading some of the responsibility of these post-employment benefits onto
the individuals who we are hoping to compensate for that. We've not really
acknowledged our responsibility to our previous commitments so this unfunded
liability has grown and grown and grown over time. That's somewhat
disconcerting.
I am somewhat buoyed by the fact that collective
bargaining has resulted in a reasonable solution for those who are engaged in
the collective bargaining process, where everyone has agreed to pay a share of
their post-employment benefits.
Reflecting on the fact that these post-employment
benefits are part of our larger compensation for employees, we now need to
recognize that our compensation for employees is effectively decreased. That's a
concern and that's perhaps not something that was considered as this agreement
was being put in place. Remember, we are also imposing a collective bargaining
solution on our non-bargaining employees here. Wonderful that we are levelling
the playing field, but we also must recognize what the consequences of our
actions are.
I want to also reflect on the fact that quite often our
budget is a point-in-time document. So it looks at a particular year and the
circumstances in that year and says have we balanced our budget in that year.
One of the key things that I have spoken about on numerous occasions is we need
to look beyond the one-year snapshot and look at what are the implications of
our decisions five years down the road or 10 years down the road, or perhaps
whenever we all come to retire, might that be 20 years down the road.
What we have effectively done now is, if we are moving
towards a defined benefit plan – reasonable. If it's a defined contribution
plan, I'm going to be a little bit more concerned because in both of those
plans, a defined benefit or defined contribution, you still end up with what is
going to quite likely be a fixed income. That fixed income will be somewhat
lower than what individuals are making prior to retirement.
Thinking ahead a little bit, what we see is people are
going to be on fixed incomes; they will be lower incomes. They will be older. We
all know that as we age we have more medical requirements. We have a higher cost
of life insurance; we have higher health benefit costs. Now, we are imposing on
future generations or on future employees and retirees, fixed incomes, higher
costs associated with some of those post-employment benefits that must also come
out of those incomes. We know that these individuals are going to be accessing
health and life insurance at higher rates.
This is a concern that I do want to have entered into
Hansard just to officially recognize
that our decisions today will have consequences well into the future. We need to
be very, very aware of this.
Now, I'm not going to vote against this bill. What I do
want to say is I think this is a very, very good reason why we need to advocate
for universal pharmacare and we need to advocate against the continued
privatization of some of our health care services. I say that when I talk about
we have private individuals doing blood collection, we have private individuals
doing some scans, we have dentists, which is part of our health care system,
that operate in a private manner. When we talk about our health care system and
the importance of it being there, I think we need to recognize that we do need
universal health care and we do need universal and fair access to all of these
services.
If we are making decisions, like we are today, then we
need to also recognize that some time in the future, and what I expect will be
the very near future, we are going to need to make offsetting decisions to
ensure that the unintended consequences of what we are doing here are mitigated
so that we are not seeing individuals with reduced income requiring additional
health care services having to pay more and more of that lower amount of income
to take care of their health because we have chosen to make this decision.
The other part of this that I think is also important
is when we manage our health benefits it's important to ensure that those
benefits themselves are not eroded. When we talk about how much dental will we
pay for: Are we going to pay for 80 per cent of our dental? Are we going to have
one cleaning a year or will we have two cleanings a year?
Well, when we start making those decisions in the
management of our health care and life insurance plans, the more we reduce those
services – we are still paying for them out of that fixed income. You're paying
for those services, you're receiving reduced services, those costs are coming
out of a fixed income and because you have less services, then you are going to
have to find more money to pay for the services that are not covered on your
insurance plan.
I just want to ensure that the House is very aware of
the implications of the decisions that we are making and if any or all of us are
here in 10 years, or five years or 20 years when this all comes to fruition, I
hope we have the good sense to be able to address these in a comprehensive and
sensible way to ensure the safety and health of everyone who is being impacted
today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 49.
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate what my colleague from St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi is saying. I don't disagree with a lot of the points
she's making, but I do look at it a little bit differently. First of all, I
think it's important, once again, to realize where we are as a province fiscally
with a huge year-over-year deficit and a crippling provincial debt that we have
to try to manage our way out of. I do agree with her – absolutely agree with
her, a hundred per cent – on the points of how we got to this place in terms of
our government pension plans, our other post-retirement benefits.
Certainly, I have many people in my district, retired
public service employees and so on, who I've had conversations with over the
years and have raised concerns about the state of pension plans and
post-retirement benefits, which, quite frankly, was caused by years and years –
and you can't tag any particular administration. I'll say right back in Joey's
day and onward, red and blue, of where money which should have been invested in
pensions and post-retirement benefits was not.
Not only was money not invested, but the funds were
raided, from what I can gather. Funds were raided by governments of the day to
take that money and spend it on roads and everything else. Whether they were
good expenditures or bad expenditures, whether that was required or not, we will
leave that up to the historians, I guess, to figure that one out. It happened
nonetheless.
I do know there was a point in time, even since my time
or just prior to my time – I believe under the Williams's administration, I want
to say – where they actually did put some significant money back in to pension
plans. In the billions, if I'm not mistaken. There was a lot of money put in.
Now, I know a lot of money got lost because of stock markets went, but there was
$2 billion, for sure, went in to one of the pension plans to try to right the
wrongs that were done.
Regardless of that – I'm just going by my memory now. I
know there have been efforts made to try to right some of those wrongs, but the
reality of it is, as I said, we are in a lot of trouble financially and I think
the public expect us to do what we can to try to get expenses down. This
probably would be viewed, I think, by many people as a responsible thing to do.
It is worth noting that this basically is – as has
already been said, this is just basically being consistent with non-bargaining
employees to the things that bargaining unit employees have agreed to. I think
it's an important point to make that bargaining unit employees and their unions
have actually agreed to this, and all that's happening here is simply applying
it to non-bargaining unit employees. It's kind of fair and square across the
board.
I think it's also important to note, based on what I'm
reading here in the bill, that this really is only applying to I'm going to say
new people or relatively new people. It says here you would be required to pay
50 per cent of the premiums for employees that were hired from June 1, 2018 to
April 1, 2020, and then after April 1, 2020, it would be 60 per cent of the
premiums into the plan would be paid by the employee.
I would have major concerns with this, Mr. Speaker, had
we been going back in time and saying to someone who's been here for the last 20
years, guess what, we're going to change the rules on you now 20 years into your
career, and whatever plans you had made or whatever – when you decided to take
the job and work for the public service, we're going to change the rules
significantly through your career when you're getting close to retirement or at
least significantly into your career. I would have a concern with that.
That's not the case. We're talking about, basically,
new employees. These people, at this point in time in their life and in their
working life, they have lots of opportunity and time, if you will, where they
can either say, you know what, I don't like these benefits and what I'm
receiving and I'm going to move on to somewhere else and find another employer
who's going to do better, or I know where I stand and now I'm going to judge
myself accordingly and I'm going to invest in my own private plan in addition to
this one. I'm going to put money away or I'm going to invest in RRSPs or
whatever I'm going to do, so that when I do retire I'll be in a better place.
That comes down to personal responsibility, Mr.
Speaker. There's lots of time here, in particular, new people, they have a
career ahead of them where they can make decisions today so that in 25 years or
30 years from now they won't be in the situation that the Member, my colleague,
has alluded to.
Now, I understand you could argue there are people in
the public service that are not – not everybody is making – depends on what you
do in terms of what wages you make, what you can afford and so on, but the point
is, you do have an opportunity, lots of opportunity, to plan for yourself.
This is only applying to people who work for the public
service. This is something we have to recognize as well. God love the public
service, they do fantastic work. We all support them, we all do, but the reality
of it is that it's the collective taxpayer that's paying for all this, it's not
just people in the public service. We're asking every taxpayer in this province
to fund these pension plans and post-retirement benefits and so on. That's who's
picking up the slack – the taxpayer.
There are all kinds of people in this province who do
not work for the public service, they work in private industry and so on; a lot
of them don't have any pension plan at all, or medical benefits, they have
nothing. So if they want to have a good retirement or benefits and so on, they
have to go out and buy a private insurance or they have to go and invest in
RRSPs, whatever they need to do, when they retire.
You have to remember, every time we sweeten the pot
here, we're asking the regular taxpayer to subsidize and pay for this. That's
not saying that we don't treat our public service well and provide them with the
benefits that they've bargained for and so on. Not saying that at all, but there
are two sides and we have to try to find a fair balance all at the same time,
recognizing the fact that we have such a huge provincial debt that we have to
tackle.
Again, the fact of the matter is: Are these changes
somewhat of a downgrade to the people here that this applies to, from what it
would have been? Is it going to cost them a little more? Yes, it is. Is it
consistent with what all the other unions agreed to? Yes, it is. Do these people
have ample opportunity to adjust their retirement plans accordingly? Yes, they
do.
With all that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I will be
supporting the bill.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader, if he speaks now he'll close the debate.
Sorry, there's one more, the hon. Member for St. John's
Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to say a few words on this for sure. I
remember years ago when I served on the executive of the Teachers' Association
and the question before the membership was: Do we raise premiums or do we cut
benefits to the teachers' plan? I remember asking that question to a member on
the staff and his comment to me was: Raise premiums because you'll never miss
anything until you need it. For the most part, you want to have the services
there when you need them.
Insurance and that, as another friend of mine used to
say, it's a little bit like betting on a horse; you hope it's not going to win
because if you have to call upon it, you're sick or you're dead, one or the
other; if it's life insurance or health insurance.
Basically, what we're doing with insurance is we're
paying for peace of mind is what it comes down to. That's what we're paying for.
That's worth an awful lot to people. Certainly, to me, it's something that I try
to instill in my own children. It's not just the salary; it's the benefits that
go with it.
If you look at the Loblaws workers, the Dominion
workers, it's one of the things they are looking at, the benefits that go with
it that allow them to live with some peace of mind.
Insurance these days –I can only speak to the teachers,
some of the things we wrestled with. It's one thing to have years of the – it
will come to me in a minute. Anyway, some drugs are generics and others have a
patent on them, but once the generics come on stream, you can lower the cost.
The patented ones are – that's an increase. It gives the drug companies a lot
more profit for a lot longer, but, on the other hand, they make it very
expensive for plans to cover.
Now you have the advent of biologics, which are
significantly more expensive. It can range anywhere from $100,000 to
$130,000-plus a year for one person. Plans struggle with the – you look at
benefits as to how do you manage this. I know one of the things we attempted to
set up was reserve funds. In many ways, I think we look at putting it on to the
backs of the individuals in government. I think there needs to be, in some way –
my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, too, said – a national
pharmacare program. I think there has got to be some collective action by
government to start finding some way to put pressure on drug companies to lower
what they're charging.
I don't know if you remember in the news a little while
– it was last year – the businessman who took over the insulin manufacturing
company and immediately jacked up the prices up to several thousand dollars,
but, basically, made it very difficult for people who are diabetic to be able to
purchase the drug; a drug that they depend on. Gouging was what he was engaged
in.
I can tell you it's interesting, in 2006, I think it
was $1.98 billion that was put into the teachers' plan to stabilize – not the
health plan, that was the pension plan. That money got evaporated. That money
disappeared in 2008 with the stock market crash. At that time, the plan was
totally owned by government. What they didn't do at that time was to change the
asset mix. Since the plan was just about fully funded and requires a different
asset mix to make it work, to make it sustainable, that wasn't done and we were
back to square one and now, lo and behold, it's finally stabilized.
But there was a cost to that because, at that time,
there were drastic changes to sick leave for teachers – a huge change. I was
fortunate enough to retire from my career with my sick days intact. As it is, I
guess it indicates that I was privileged, lucky and fortunate enough to have a
rather healthy life during my teaching career. That's what it came down to. They
didn't need to pay it out to me or anything like that, it meant that I retired
in good health. But for some teachers, the change in sick leave is putting
tremendous pressure on them, especially if they have families and so on and so
forth.
I can only speak to what our bargaining unit, what the
Teachers' Association bargained for. As far as I'm concerned, everyone is
entitled – I don't care – to some sort of health care drug plan, health plan or
retirement plan. I think that's got to be something we've got to strive towards
because that's towards a more just, healthier society.
Where I'm going with this is this: One of the things –
and I was talking to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands about this. I
noticed, certainly when I was going around campaigning, the number of people,
some in the public service, who didn't retire necessarily with a great pension
plan and found themselves in that position because now they're living on a
reduced income. Mind you, they don't pay the union dues and CPP but still their
income was shrinking, for two reasons: Prices were going up and there was really
little or no cost of index living that was part of it.
The cost would go up in some of the places they were
renting. They could never afford to own their own home, so they were renting
apartments or renting places and the rent would go up in some of these buildings
by $10 a month every year. Now, $120 a year doesn't seem like much, but after a
while the cumulative effect is to drive the people out of their home. Where I'm
going here is that looking at 60 per cent, that change, that doesn't seem like a
lot. I would rather pay the premium and keep the benefit, but sooner or later
the cumulative effect it's going to have on people is it's going to make life a
little bit more difficult.
The other thing, too, I can tell you from bargaining is
that often the two are connected because the benefit we get in one, in terms of
when it came to the $1.98 billion, resulted in the loss of other benefits;
sometimes that's taken into the pay. So if you get a benefit, there are
sacrifices people make to keep certain benefits. Yes, their pension plan they
agreed to might very well be one they've already paid a price to attain and then
it's reduced in some way. I realize this is a sliding scale here, but my one
caution with this, my one concern, is that people who are already on the edge,
or pretty darn close to it, will find themselves teetering, if not falling over
as a result. It is death of a thousand cuts, if you will.
That's my one concern with this. To maintain the plan,
I'd rather have a plan than no plan at all. That much I would be certain, just
to pay for the drugs. The older you get, the more likely you are to depend on
pharmaceuticals to keep you ticking along until you gradually fade into
oblivion.
I do believe, for the most part here, this is something
that people seem to agree to but I think we really have to start looking at, how
do we ensure that people who are affected by this will not find themselves in a
position where they're unable to afford other necessities of life.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
If he speaks now he'll close the debate.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Members that took the opportunity to speak
this afternoon. I'll just quickly go through some of the things I heard.
The Opposition House Leader made some good points. He
referenced this is just a continuation of the 2014 agreement. I know it was
Minister Johnson of the day who signed that agreement that actually lets us get
at the unfunded liability in the Public Service Pension Plan, which was an awful
unfunded liability.
I stand to be corrected; the Minister of Finance can
certainly correct me. I think every year on April 1 we have to invest some $300
million into that plan just to make it stable over a 30-year period. That was
one step that was taken. Again, this is just another one of those steps that we
need to follow for stability and stabilization of our plans.
To the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, he actually
made some really good points. A person that will be affected by today's change
would actually be retiring somewhere around 2049 and given lots of time now to
plan.
Today, we currently have 28,000 active members on this
plan that won't be affected by today's change, and we have 18,000 retirees who
won't be affected by today's change in the legislation. I think there are 17
people in management that have been hired since April 1 of this year.
It's unfortunate to have to make changes to plans, but
this is really about stability. That goes to the things the Deputy Premier and
Minister of Finance were pointing out as well, that these are steps we need to
take. They're incremental; they are slow going but they bring substantial
stability. Because the reality is, if we don't make a move like this, in 2049
we'll have an unfunded liability of nearly $6 billion in OPEBs. This change will
allow us, by 2049, to bring the liability in OPEBs back to somewhere around the
$3.84 million. This does not solve the challenges in OPEBs but it will stabilize
the program as we go forward, and that's important.
The Member for St. John's Centre made some points. I
get the drug costs and how that affects people – the catastrophic drug costs –
but this is the premium, this is not the copay. This is the premium that a
person would pay. Thirty years from now they would pay a 60-40 split.
Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour the point any further. I
will just rest and move into Committee.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 49 now be read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility
Modification Act. (Bill 49)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole House?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Other
Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
49)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,
that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 49.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 49, An Act To Amend The
Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment
Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.” (Bill 49)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Be
it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report
Bill 49.
CHAIR:
Is
it the pleasure of the House for the Committee to rise and report Bill 49
without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters
to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 49, An Act To Amend The
Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered
the matters to them referred and has directed her to report Bill 49 without
amendment.
When shall this report be received?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the bill be read a third time?
MR.
CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call Order 9, Bill 52.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move Bill 52, An Act Respecting Tourist
Accommodations, seconded by the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that Bill 52, An Act Respecting Tourist
Accommodations, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting
Tourist Accommodations.” (Bill 52)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very excited to have the opportunity; I'm sure
everyone in this House is waiting with bated breath to hear this bill come to
fruition in this House of Assembly. I'd just like to take this opportunity to
thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to do this today. I'm
pleased to bring forward Bill 52, the new
Tourist Accommodations Act.
Mr. Speaker, the original
Tourist Establishments Act was established in 1970, some nine years
before my birth. The act and regulations providing a definition of the tourist
establishment, the condition to obtain a tourist establishment licence, the
requirement of a minimum one-star Canada Select rating and the obligations of
licensed establishments to submit monthly occupancy statistics and maintain a
list of their guests.
Since that time, the accommodations market has changed
quite a bit, not only in this province but throughout the country and around the
world. Collectively and collaboratively we need to adapt to it. Online
accommodation marketing platforms such as Airbnb have become increasingly
popular with travellers seeking a unique non-traditional accommodation and
experiences. Local hosts are capitalizing on the demand by listing their income
properties, vacation homes, condos and trailers on these marketing platforms,
creating an increase in the number of short-term rental accommodators, which is
creating an increase in the number of unlicensed short-term rental
accommodations.
Mr. Speaker, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and
many licensed tourism accommodation operators have been very vocal about the
short-term unlicensed accommodations and requested that the provincial and
municipal governments work on a solution to establish a more level playing field
for tourism accommodators. The proposed Tourism Accommodations Act represents a great step in a broader
government approach to supporting business equity across the accommodation
industry and better reflects the mix of accommodations provided to travellers
that desire that in this public.
In addition to hearing from the tourism industry, in
September of this year, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation
and the Public Engagement and Planning Division administered an online
questionnaire to inform the potential changes to the
Tourist Establishments Act, with the majority of respondents
supporting the proposed changes. Based on the outcome of the questionnaire
results, there is support for tourist accommodations, including short-term
rentals, be registered at a rate of about 73 per cent of respondents, with 60
per cent of the accommodation operators should not be required to have a Canada
Select rating and pay that annual fee. In addition to that, there's also a room
fee that goes along with that for every rental room.
The new bill is a modernization of the current
Tourism Establishments Act, with
changes substantive enough to repeal the current statute and replace it with the
Tourism Accommodations Act.
The definition of a tourist accommodation in the new
act is broadened to be more in line with the modern range of available
accommodations throughout our province. The new act removes the licensing
requirements and it is replacing it with a mandatory registration for all
accommodations including short-term rentals. There is no fee to register.
In addition, the new registration requirements will
replace the Canada Select rating requirements in the regulations when the new
act is proclaimed. This will mean a decrease in the cost for tourism operators,
as they will not have to pay the Canada Select rating fee. These changes
considerably reduce red tape for licence providers and remove barriers for hosts
to encourage registration.
Offences to the act will carry a minimum fine of $250
with a maximum fine of $2,000. The act will also include inspection powers and
the authority for the minister to designate inspectors to enforce the act.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the new act amends the
City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act
to reference this new act, to clarify that all tourist accommodations are
required to pay the city's accommodation tax.
Officials have investigated the successes and
shortfalls of approaches that have already been implemented in other
jurisdictions across the country, and this new bill brings it more in line with
provinces right across our beautiful country.
Mr. Speaker, these amendments alone do not address all
the issues of levelling the playing field for the accommodation industry;
however, it is an important step in confirming that the government is aware of
all the operators offering overnight accommodations and will treat them
similarly throughout the act.
With mandatory registration, appropriate provincial and
municipal regulatory bodies can access compliance with applicable legislation
and take the action as required.
This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. This is a positive
change in the tourism industry especially during the unprecedented time due to
the COVID-19 pandemic and the devastating effects to the tourism industry.
As a government, we encourage and foster conditions
that support small business growth in the tourism industry. We feel that this
new act will enhance the continued growth in the sector.
I encourage all accommodations in the province to
ensure they are registered. We look forward to working with them through that
process. I ask all hon. Members in this House of Assembly to join me in
supporting this bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
What a member.
MR.
TIBBS:
I try my best.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you very
much to the minister for bringing this bill forward. It is a very important
bill, you're right, Minister.
The first thing I want to do is congratulate Ms. Brenda
O'Reilly for taking on chair of Hospitality NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
TIBBS:
They couldn't have picked a better person for that job. Her passion came through
for many, many years now. I'm sure she will do great and I wish her the best of
luck, as I'm sure we all do.
Like I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this is a very
important bill. One of the greatest things that I think is going to come out of
this is the liability issue for anybody who is going to register their business,
their accommodation. A slip and fall, a house fire, heaven forbid, anything like
that. We all know we need certain insurances as we all go through life and it
should be the same thing for any accommodation that's out there.
Basically, what it's going to do is it's going to cover
them in the end and make sure that their accommodation, business will be
profitable moving forward. That's something important that we have to get on the
record and, hopefully, the accommodation sector sees that as that, for what it
is.
The other thing, of course, is the privacy of these
accommodations and who is going to get this information. I'm sure we'll touch on
that as we go forward here with our questions. The information that the
department is going to get, who that information is going to be shared with and
whatnot, the state of these accommodations and who owns these accommodations.
That's something we're going to have to touch on as we move forward.
I won't take much time. Like I say, it's a great bill,
1970, for a province that prides itself on tourism. I think it's definitely
about time that we take on this bill and make the appropriate changes as our
tourism industry evolves, and I'm glad the minister has brought this forward.
A couple of things, talks should include Hospitality NL
when it comes to different regulations moving forward for the accommodation to
become registered. I'm sure that will be done, but also a collaboration with the
owners of these accommodations to see where they sit and see what they need in
supports from the government to make their accommodations registered and make
sure they can move forward in a manner where they can still make a profit.
That's the other thing, affordability. We're not sure
what the regulations are going to look like. I'm sure that's going to be hashed
out, but we don't want to become a roadblock for these people as well. These
people right now, we've talked about COVID. Everybody is trying to do the best
they can, trying to make a profit. So I just hope these regulations are not
stringent to the point where they handcuff a lot of these people.
I'm sure the government wants to work with these
owners. These accommodation owners, I'm sure, are going to want to work with
government but, of course, when it comes to red tape and roadblocks, we've seen
it for a long time now. I just want to make sure these guys have a fighting
chance as they move forward, if they want to register their business and have a
profitable business for years to come. I'm sure we all want the same thing.
When it comes to the changes for the regulations or the
changes for the accommodations themselves, you're going to have accommodations
with character homes or an experience involved in that. We hope the government
works with these accommodation owners to ensure that stays in there, because a
lot of those places, pretty much that's their selling point, a character home or
an experience that you can get within the community.
I just hope the conversation continues and it's a very
open dialogue with government to see where they can go from there and help these
homeowners or these accommodation owners. That's what we're here for at the end
of the day, is to help business get off the ground, create new business and make
it as easy a transition as we possibly can for them all.
The tourism industry must be collaborative as they
network as well. I think this is actually going to help. We've seen the boat
tours with my colleague for the District of Ferryland – the two boat tours
companies in Bay Bulls. They might have been rivals at one time but, of course,
COVID brought those two companies together. Guess what? I'm sure they did better
this year than they would have done if they had to have done it separately.
I also see, for instance, restaurants throughout my
district or any other district – and it's great to see. If you go into a
restaurant in a town and a tourist comes in, they ask for a specific kind of
food. If the restaurant doesn't have it but there's another restaurant down the
road or in the next community over, I love to hear tourism owners and operators
of restaurants and accommodations have each other's back. They say we don't
serve that here but two miles down the road at so-and-so diner or takeout you
can get it down there and it's absolutely great food. That's something this
tourism industry has to do and it's something we have to do as a province here
in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to make sure we have each other's backs so
we can all stay profitable at the end of the day.
Finally, to the tax revenue side; of course, there's
going to be a tax revenue on this. That's great for the province and whatnot,
but we want to make sure that those people who have accommodations, as easy a
transition as we possibly can moving forward. Like I say, everybody wants to
make themselves a living and everybody wants to do well, but maybe just a small
recommendation to possibly use that money to support a website that could
showcase and promote our breathtaking accommodations.
So instead of Airbnb, which you see worldwide, we could
have something right here for Newfoundland and Labrador which that tax revenue
could possibly put forward a portal or a website which showcases our own. Put
all of our accommodations on that and say Airbnb is one thing, but here in
Newfoundland and Labrador we have our own portal. We have our own website that
you can come on and you can pick out which accommodation would best work for
you, the experiences around it and just specifically for those moving forward. I
think that would help a lot of accommodations as well.
Again, any evolution with any industry, especially the
tourism industry moving forward, it's something we have to – I embrace it and I
look forward to more of it as we move forward, as long as at the end of the day
we work with the people who are trying to make this transition. I'm sure the
government will, but I just don't want to put up a roadblock for these people
trying to make that transition because there are so many of them throughout the
province. I'm sure they will be onboard with it, and we'll make that as easy as
possible for them as we work with them.
I totally support it. I look forward to any other
conversations here, and I have a few questions as we move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm happy also to speak for a few minutes in support of
Bill 52, An Act Respecting Tourist Accommodations.
Mr. Speaker, I can't talk about tourist accommodations
without talking about a corner of this province that is so near and dear to my
heart, that I am so passionate about. I guess I'll say at the onset that as a
government we recognize the tremendous contribution that the tourism industry
makes to our economy and to helping preserve and share our cultures, landscapes
and wildlife.
Just in my own district, Mr. Speaker, I have Red Bay
World Heritage UNESCO site. The tourism numbers for Red Bay continues to go up
year after year. They recently came online with community cell coverage, we were
happy to partner with. We have Battle Harbour, which is a little island off
Mary's Harbour. It's certainly a gem in this province. You get to that island
and it's like a step back in time to when cod was king in the 1800s. Point
Amour, the tallest lighthouse in Atlantic Canada and the second tallest in the
country. Polar bears, killer whales, humpbacks.
Mr. Speaker, many, many people have said Labrador has
been a transformational experience for them and I love to talk about it because
we are just opening up. My grandfather often called it Canada's last frontier,
just opening up and we're looking forward to getting ready. Bills, like today,
are going to help ensure that we continue to grow our tourism industry so that
the experience is better for the people that come.
The Torngat Mountains National Park snowmobile trail;
people know of Cain's Quest, a world-class event that attracts people from all
over the globe. While Newfoundland and Labrador is a bucket-list destination in
and of itself, Labrador is going to continue to be a bigger part of that.
I'm going to pause for a moment and quickly share a
little story. Last year, I took a little walk down around the shrimp processing
facility in my hometown. I saw this big fancy motorhome there and this very
elderly man that was down fixing a flat tire. I got his attention and I said:
You didn't mind taking that big fancy thing down over the road here? He got up
and he said: Well, look at me. I'm 85; my wife is 83. They were visiting from
the US. He said: I wanted to see this neck of the woods. We wanted to see this
part of the world our whole lives; we're out of time. They didn't wait for all
the road to be paved or things to be in place; they came.
Mr. Speaker, while the tourism industry has struggled
through this unprecedented time during COVID-19 and, I guess, as a government,
we certainly understand the importance of the many micro-business owners
operating in rural communities and those that provide a valuable accommodation
service to the travelled public.
That's what this bill is about today. It's about
ensuring that when you book to go in, there will be a certain standard that will
be met. This short-term type of accommodation provides our visitors the
opportunity to travel to remote places and experience more of what our province
has to offer.
The new act, Mr. Speaker, will require all
accommodations to register with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and
Recreation. That's a very positive thing so that we know, so that we have a
number, so that we have a database on the accommodations. There will be no fee –
that's important for small business to know – to register. Future changes to the
regulations will remove the mandatory Canada Select rating requirement as well
as the associated fee.
The requirement to register will provide government and
the tourism industry with more knowledge, Mr. Speaker, of all accommodations
operating in the province. It will help us better understand our visitors with
the feedback that we will get.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'll just say that our
government is committed to working in partnership with the tourism industry to
ensure the highest quality experience for visitors in our province. I know that
the changes today with Bill 52 will be welcome news for groups like Hospitality
Newfoundland and Labrador and their membership.
I certainly join with the Minister for Tourism,
Culture, Arts and Recreation today in support of this important piece of
legislation, and I ask that all my hon. colleagues in this House do the same.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a privilege to get up and speak to this,
especially with my background. I used to volunteer with tourism organizations in
Labrador West for a long time. One of the things we always did talk about was
accommodations. I know sometimes in our district we get a bit of a constraint
competing between the tourism industry and the mining industry when it comes to
accommodations.
It's nice to see some changes and stuff here that
modernize accommodations, especially in this modern world we have a lot of
online booking and stuff like that. You see a lot of different groups there. I
know the most well known is Airbnb. It's a great thing, because, at one time,
tourism was the fad of the wealthy. Now, we've come that everybody has the
ability to be a tourist, either at home or abroad. Tourism has come a long way
in a long time.
The last iteration of this bill was in the 1970s, this
province wasn't really a tourism destination at that time. The bill was more of
just accommodations for work and travel and stuff like that. So bringing it in
to a more tourist lens will have its advantages and keep us a world leader in
tourism became we have the ability, we have the opportunities and we have what
people are looking for when it comes to vacationing.
This is a good step forward when we talk about
modernization and building our tourism industry. We see all different types of
accommodations. I know different leaders around the world in tourism have come
up with unique and more novelty ideas of accommodations. You see the glass
igloos in Northern Scandinavia and Northern Canada. You can rent a houseboat in
the UK or a canal boat in the UK. You can sleep in an underwater bubble, from
what I've seen. So when we move forward in this, accommodation is a broad term
now in the tourism industry. This is great that we do our jurisdictional scans;
we do our provincial scans and stuff like that.
I do want to mention, too, the registration of
accommodation operators. Like my colleague for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans
said: Where does this data go, who collects this data and who is it shared with?
That is something that we need to make sure, in the cyber world, that we keep
these things safe and only use when absolutely necessary and in the right
context.
Along with that, I do want to say with online
accommodation apps, websites and stuff like that, one thing I always think – and
it even happened in my own district – is online accommodation booking fraud.
Some people put up fraudulent accommodations and stuff like that. I hope that
this – within the regulations, that we have a way of combating fraudulent
postings of these accommodation things.
I know people are out money and out stuff like that,
especially when they prepay and things like that. We need to make sure that we
combat digital online fraud in the accommodation world because whenever we have
a new technology or a new way of doing things, there's always a group of people
out there who find a way to exploit it and use it for nefarious gains. We need
to make sure that we keep down and combat this new world of accommodation fraud
with those online booking websites.
Hopefully, the minister will take that under advisement
and consideration, too, that we protect our guests. We don't want them to come
here and have a negative experience; we want them to come here and tell their
friends and then tell their friend's friends. Word of mouth is always the best
advertising.
I do think this is great that we're moving forward, but
we also need to support those who fell under the old act. They put a lot of
time, effort and money, especially with the Canada Select program and all that,
those older B & Bs, those staples of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, to make
sure they have the ability and give a little bit of a guiding hand as they
transition into this newer act. Also, give them a guiding hand to help them
maybe set up an online presence, maybe give a webinar or a seminar on how do I
put my B & B on an online booking site. How do I do these things to give them a
competitive edge, too? Because we don't want those older establishments to lose
out to the more modern establishments. We want to make sure they both have an
equal chance in the market.
We make sure the supports and stuff are around for all
those who have been around a long time as well. Also, those who want to be
entrepreneurs and those who have a great idea – maybe someone wants to build
glass igloos or something like that – we always have a supporting hand for those
individuals and those entrepreneurs, too, because sometimes novelty drives
innovation as well.
I don't want to go any further, but I want to say this
is great. Hopefully, we'll see more modernization and ingenuity come forward in
our tourism industry.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly won't belabour this debate. I think it's a
wonderful bill. It's progressing; it's moving forward.
I would be remiss today if I didn't acknowledge and
congratulate the team at the Conception Bay Museum in Harbour Grace. Today, they
are celebrating their 150th anniversary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
P. PARSONS:
In
our beautiful and historic District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, I
certainly commend all of our volunteers that do all they can for our tourism. I
just wanted to say that today. It's a special day for them. I can't be there,
obviously, because we are in session here debating this very important
legislation.
On that note, I fully support this bill and I look
forward to the vote.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just going to take a minute here now to have a
couple of words about this bill.
I will also be supporting the bill. It's been a long
time since we had any changes, so just the fact that we're modernizing it, I
think, is a positive thing. That's something that should be done from time to
time anyway just to ensure that all of our legislation reflects today's
realities – if I can put it that way – and how we operate and how the world is
operating. In that regard, I think it's a good thing to do that.
I do understand, obviously, why people in the
hospitality industry would have concerns regarding unregistered accommodations
and so on. Because, let's face it, if you have a registered business and you're
trying to abide by all of the rules, regulations and everything else that may be
in place, whether it be provincial rules and regulations or whether it be
municipal ones and fire and safety regulations and so on, there's a cost to
that. I can understand why, if I was doing that and playing by the rules, if you
will, I would have a concern about individuals that are kind of doing it on the
down low, if you will, and wanting to create that even playing field, if you
will. I've heard that term used by the minister and a couple of other people
talking about creating an even playing field. I understand that and I support
it.
I also support the fact that we're no longer going to
be part of this Canada Select program. To be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I
know myself, even when I travel, I generally don't go looking at how many stars
a particular place has because that can be very misleading. I've seen 4½ stars
that probably should've been two stars and I've seen two stars that, as far I
was concerned in my experience, could have been a four star. I take the stars
part with a grain of salt. What I do use all the time is I look at the reviews
and other people's experiences and so on. That kind of guides me along the way.
The fact that we're going to no longer have this
requirement to be part of that Canada Select and the cost – and significant
cost, particularly to a small operator – to be part of that, that's going to be
some savings for them that they can, perhaps, put into other aspects of their
business. As I say, with social media and reviews and everything else, I think
that does the job anyway. Removing that, I think, is a good thing.
Obviously, the City of St. John's also will benefit
from this because, of course, they charge an Accommodation Tax. Again, if there
are unregistered operations under the radar that should be paying this, then
obviously they want to capture them, the same as they do with all the others.
Interestingly enough, though, on this Accommodation Tax
– a little bit off topic, I suppose, but it's all related – the City of St.
John's has in place for Mile One, and that was put in place because of Mile One
stadium and the Convention Centre, it will be interesting to see, if that gets
sold to Mr. MacDonald or anybody else, if that tax would still stand or not. I'm
sure the city would want to keep it, but I'm not sure how that would actually
work out; if there was no longer a subsidy to Mile One, why people would pay it,
but anyway.
The only part I'm little bit confused about or I just
throw out there is when we did the briefing – and I do thank the staff at the
department for the briefing. They were pretty accommodating. We were there a lot
longer than they had anticipated because we had a lot of questions. I thank them
for their patience. The part that I'm missing with all this is that they
indicated that all you have to do is register. Everyone's required to register
with the department that you have accommodations. There's no cost to the
registration, we were told. There are also no requirements put on those
individuals who do register.
Now, they say that there is a program that if you want
the department to advertise your business through their tourism portal and
whatever they have there, then there are certain standards that they would want
your business to uphold, which I think if anyone is going to have any kind of a
business – we talk about life safety and so on – I think it obviously needs to
be safe.
There were other things, other standards there that
were in place because, obviously, we want people to come to the province and
have a good experience. We don't want them going to dumps and so on and have
terrible experiences. So, obviously, the province would expect that if they're
going to advertise for my business that the place that I'm renting is going to
be inhabitable and it's going to be in decent shape and it's going to meet
certain standards and so on. I get that. It was indicated to us that was kind of
a voluntary thing; you didn't have to meet those standards, per se, only if you
wanted the province to advertise you that you did.
If a business is not part of this now and now they
simply register so that the government is aware of their existence, they're not
going to have to meet any standards, per se, then I wonder, to some degree, what
is the purpose of doing it.
Of course, a lot of these things we're hearing about
the regulations, because once again we come down to this whole discussion around
regulations. How many pieces of legislation – well, all of them, actually, is
the answer – all the legislation that gets debated in this House, so much of the
details are left in the regulations, which is at the pure discretion of the
minister and the government.
So we agree to this bill because it seems harmless
enough and it seems to be a good thing; I'm not arguing against it, I support it
in the concept of it, but we support this and then six months or a year down the
road we find out from people who have Airbnbs or whatever that, all of a sudden,
these regulations came into play and now we have all of these onerous
requirements that are being shoved down their throats.
Now, I was assured – and the Leader of the NDP can
confirm this; she was at the briefing. We were assured that's not the case.
That's not the intent. I'm not saying that the people who told us that were
intentionally misleading us but I just don't understand, it just doesn't seem to
add up to me why we would want to say to someone you're required to register now
but other than registering your name, nothing else is going to change. If
nothing else is going to change, how does that create an even playing field?
If the purpose is to create an even playing field,
that's to suggest that registered businesses are doing stuff that unregistered
businesses are not doing and that they should be doing; but, if no one is going
to force them to do it, all they're doing is just giving their name so they can
be on a list then they'll be left alone. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense
in terms of how that's going to create any even playing field.
Common sense would tell me that the minute they
register there are going to be things they're going to be required to do, and so
be it. I would say if there are things that need to be done to make sure the
accommodations are safe and they're doing things above board, I'm not against
it; but, to suggest somehow that all we're doing is taking your name, you're
registering and then we're going to leave you alone, that just doesn't seem to
add up to me.
I have a feeling that while the regulations – because
they said the regulations have not yet been created but something tells me that
when these regulations are created there are going to be standards and different
things that are going to be put on Airbnbs that are not there today, which may
or may not be a good thing. I would say it probably is a good thing for the
consumer and everybody else, but let's call a spade a spade and call it like it
is. Let's not say nothing is going to happen because I just can't see that. That
just doesn't make sense to me.
I can understand, like if you're in, say, the City of
St. John's or one of the larger urban areas where you have larger businesses and
hotels and now you have people sort of, I'll say on the down low competing
against you, I can understand why we would want to even that playing field; but,
I do point out that there are places across Newfoundland, particularly in rural
parts of Newfoundland – I'm aware of a few of them – where there are people who,
again, they might have a summer home or whatever the case might be, and they
don't advertise. They're not necessarily Airbnbs.
They don't advertise as such, but people in the
community – one comes to mind immediately, where people in the community know
that property is there. It's not operating as an ongoing business, but in the
summertime when there are people who live down in that area and they have family
and extended family and people are coming down from the Mainland or whatever for
a staycation – not a staycation – for a vacation or maybe there's a come home
year or whatever the case might be, everybody knows this particular property is
here and you can rent it out for a few days. They don't need to advertise. The
people in the community know and everybody knows that.
They're not really an Airbnb in a sense, but they will
rent out that property from time to time. I'm sure there are lots of properties
and people with trailers – because this is going to apply to trailers – that are
all across the province, that are filling a void that are not competing with,
I'll say, registered business.
There are places in the urban centres, yes, they are
competing with registered businesses, but there are places in some of the
smaller areas that are not competing with other businesses because there are no
businesses. That's the only game in town. If you wanted to stay at a particular
community, there might be a house or two that you could rent for a day or two.
That's the only game in town. So they're not competing with anybody, really.
What impact would that have on those people in terms of
the regulations they may have to abide by? Especially if they're only doing it
every now and then. Now, that's not to say they shouldn't have standards or
shouldn't be safe or they shouldn't pay taxes and everything else. I'm not
suggesting that at all, definitely not. I'm just putting it out there that when
these regulations get put in place something tells me that sometime in the
future I'm going to hear from different places who might say, gee whiz, what
happened here? All of a sudden I have to do this, have to do that, have to do
something else. Things that may be considered onerous and unreasonable,
possibly.
I just put that out there as a little red flag. I'm not
saying it's going to happen for sure; I don't know. I'm told it's not. I just
have a feeling that when we pass this – I just want to make the point that when
I pass this legislation based on what's on here, I don't know that those other
things won't happen, because they might happen in the regulations. They might
happen in the regulations. I'm just saying for the record that I'm raising this,
that things could happen in regulations that we have no control over.
Just because I'm voting for the bill doesn't mean that
I'm necessarily going to support the regulations or all the regulations. I might
support them, but I may or I may not. I don't want someone coming back if
there's a problem with regulations and red tape and onerous rules being placed
on small operators in parts of the province and say, oh, you voted for it. No, I
voted for this act based on what's here and based on assurances that there's not
going to be over regulation. Hopefully, it won't be.
Anyway, with that said, I'll vote for the bill.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a pleasure again to speak in this House. I
couldn't let this pass by without speaking on tourism, especially in the
district that I'm in. It's such a big district for tourism. I certainly agree
with the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, we'll support the act but the
regulations are something that we have to look at a little deeper for sure and I
will certainly agree with him on that.
Just to touch on the area, you start on the first part
of my district down in Maddox Cove, Petty Harbour and you look at all the
tourists that come in there. I spoke yesterday on it, that there are a lot of
people who come in there that we probably don't even track. From the aquarium
and the boat tours that are down there, and the zip line and all the tourist
attractions that are there, it's unbelievable in the area.
I'll work my way right through the district, and coming
up through. Along the coastline you have boat tours in Bay Bulls and you have
B&Bs in all these districts. You have Airbnbs and you have also bed and
breakfasts.
I know the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs
and Reconciliation, Labrador Affairs, was up in my district this summer and
asked me some different areas that she could visit. I'm pretty sure she had a
pretty good time. Some of the places I recommended are some great areas in the
Town of Ferryland, and up in Trepassey as well. She visited a few of those and
I'm sure she had her own experiences.
We also have boat tours in Bay Bulls. We have a boat
tour that was in Mobile – I'm not sure if it's still there or not. Ferryland, as
it relates to tourism, we have the Colony of Avalon, we have the lighthouse
picnics that people go up and do. Unfortunately, this year the Colony of Avalon
wasn't open, but the Ferryland lighthouse picnics did go ahead. You have
kayaking in Cape Broyle.
You have the UNESCO site that's up in Portugal Cove
South. There's a lot of tourism. They noticed last year, in the first year it
was designated UNESCO, that it was really busy in the area. You could tell by
the traffic, not alone the people, just the traffic going up and down. It was
really good.
Also, you get to Trepassey, you got the Edge of the
Avalon, a hotel up there that you can stay in right at the end of the district.
There are a lot of areas, and another minister was up there and visited.
We have a couple of parks there. We have Chance Cove
Park and we also have La Manche Park. There's a lot of tourism.
I would say another great one in the area – I didn't
want to let this go without having a couple of words on it. Another great one in
the area, and it starts way down in the northeast, is the East Coast Trail. I
had the opportunity to do, I'd say, three or four during COVID. You go out and
do them on a weekend. I know that some Members over there have done pretty well
all the East Coast Trail during this as well.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Yeah, they're pointed out.
When you go out there, there's a lot of work put into
these areas to get that done.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) the Spout.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Was
he down to the Spout? Yeah, the Spout is a great one; the lighthouse in Bay
Bulls and you just go on. You go right up the shore, right up to Aquaforte. You
go right along the East Coast Trail. They're still working on some of them.
I certainly couldn't let this pass without speaking on
tourism and how it affects all the Airbnbs and all the rental units that are
there for the tourists to use. When you live in the community that you have boat
tours and you go down at 9 in the morning, again at 11 o'clock, again at 1
o'clock and again at 3 o'clock and the boats have 75 to 100 on each boat on both
sides of the harbour, it's great for the area and great for all the attractions
that are there.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to
speak.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is indeed a great opportunity to speak here today on
Bill 52. The Member opposite who just spoke before me wished Brenda O'Reilly
really well on her term as chair of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador. I
also would extend greetings to Mr. Steve Denty for his term as past chair. I
look forward to his future endeavours, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I guess for me in my prior role in the
department of municipal affairs and environment, I met with people from
Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador. They were the ones that really kept this
going and said we need to bring in some regulations and rulings in this province
about the unlicensed or unregistered rental units.
Mr. Speaker, I think it sums it up in section 3(1). It
says: “A person shall not operate a tourist accommodation unless the tourist
accommodation is registered in accordance with the regulations.” It just makes
good sense.
I come from the municipal side, Mr. Speaker, where in
my small town from time to time there are multiple places that you could use for
a rental on a weekend, on a week or for a month, if you needed to. The town
councils would always struggle with taxation. Is it a business? Is it not a
business? Should we regulate it as a business? At least this brings everybody on
a fair and even playing field.
I come from an area of the province on the Northeast
Coast of my District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels where tourism is one of the
strong points. Yes, the fishery is the staple but tourism is one of the strong
points, Mr. Speaker.
In my hometown there's a renovated school called the
Hub of the North that was busy all this summer. Even in the poor times of the
tourism industry this year, I saw great movement in my district. Hare Bay
Adventures told me they saw so many people this year it outnumbered last summer;
the coffee shop, Washed Ashore, in Centreville-Wareham-Trinity. They saw some
numbers but they were all local people, Mr. Speaker, local people looking for
accommodations.
Mr. Speaker, for this move for us to have these
registered in such a way that when you go there you know it's registered, you
know it's insured, you know it meets the requirements that you need. Canada
Select is going to be a minimum of one, but if you look at it, most people don't
look at Canada Select anymore. They will go on and if they rent an Airbnb or if
they rent a hotel room, you read the reviews, Mr. Speaker. This just brings
everything in line, it helps tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador and it
actually promotes it.
One time, Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with the mayor
of St. John's who informed us that there are that many rentals in this area on
the Northeast Avalon, they could actually build two new hotels. Private
accommodations have taken the place of two hotels. If you look at two hotels,
you look at the work that it generates, the taxation it brings and what it
brings to any part of the province.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister on bringing this
legislation forward, and like everyone else in this House, I look forward to
supporting it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's nice to get up and speak on Bill 52. I know
Hospitality NL and the tourist industry has been advocating for such a bill. It
puts everybody on a respectful and even par in regard to the tourism operation.
It advertises much better for the tourism industry, especially on the
accommodations. If you're looking for a good accommodation and you got a
five-star accommodation and whatnot, it puts everybody on the same scale line.
The tourism industry can be advertised in that way and all accommodations be on
the upper-end scale of the accommodations and that's what this bill is all
about, Mr. Speaker, is to upgrade the accommodations.
Now, what will be in the regulations? That's to be
seen, I guess, in regard to what exactly will be in the regulations. I don't
know what the government intends to do there. That's probably some questions to
be asked.
The regulated accommodation for tourism, I know in the
Exploits District, tourism is becoming a favourite thing. We have lots of
tourist attractions. We have the Gillespie House down in Fortune Harbour, that's
a bed and breakfast and tourist attraction. We have places in Sandy Point,
Bishop's Falls, Botwood and Fortune Harbour, Mr. Speaker, all those places.
To see that Bill 52 respects the accommodations for
tourism and it will build a better relationship to the visitors that come here
for the accommodations that we have, it will keep tourism a big part of our
industry, Mr. Speaker. Tourism already is a big part of the industry, but it
will help grow the industry with knowing that the accommodations are there and
that we're able to attend to the accommodations. That will keep it viable.
Mr. Speaker, just with tourism getting pretty active in
the Exploits District, it was just nice to note some of the places that we have
in the Exploits District, especially in Sandy Point, Fortune Harbour, Leading
Tickles, Botwood and Bishop's Falls. We have areas like that, so it's good.
Norris Arm, again, has those places.
Mr. Speaker, it's just good to touch base on the
tourism part of it because I know tourism is a big industry to Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, if he speaks now he
will close the debate.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I wanted to make sure you would recognize me.
I'd just like to say thank you to the hon. Member for
Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans. I look forward to the questions with respect to
privacy and the regulations that we're discussing. I won't get into the answers
now because I know it will be easier when we go through the question side and
it'll be a bit more focused. I know Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador has
played a vital role in working with us on this, as well as making sure the
Office of the Privacy Commissioner was involved as well, so that's an important
piece.
I know that you talked about the experience is so
important in tourism product development, which is so key to this. You talked
about tax revenue and the fact that this will give us an opportunity to
re-engage. We do have a very strong website, newfoundlandandlabrador.com, which
lists all the accommodators and all those licensed currently. What we'll be able
to do now is add those that register after that point.
Also, I'd like to thank the Member for Cartwright -
L'Anse au Clair. Her passion for tourism is amazing. She talks about it all the
time. She has some beautiful assets in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair in Labrador,
in the Big Land in particular. She highlighted Red Bay, Battle Harbour and the
lighthouse at Point Amour, which is amazing. I look forward to getting up and
seeing them. I was hoping this year to get up to the Big Land to see that this
summer, but I didn't get the chance.
One of the big key pieces in Labrador, from both Lab
West as well as all the districts in Labrador, is the Cain's Quest. It's a great
tourism piece for us. It's a great showcase for the Big Land; it's a great
showcase for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'd just like to say
thank you to her for highlighting some of those key assets there.
The Member for Labrador West talked about the unique
products that are available in the Big Land. That's true. Newfoundland and
Labrador is a bucket-list destination for tourists to travel to. It's about
experiences, a unique experience you can't get anywhere else.
Talked about the protection of privacy. That's going to
be a focus for us for sure. Talked about the fraud issues as well. One of the
things, I think, that's really important that all Members understand in this
House of Assembly is the tourism industry is a huge economic driver in the
province. It employs some 20,000 people from 2,700 businesses with an economic
impact of $1.14 billion prior to this year. I know that's an important piece for
everybody.
Thank you to the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de
Grave for her kind words in thanking the volunteers and the people that worked
so hard in the tourism industry. I think that's an important piece. So many of
us should take the opportunity to say thank you to those volunteers because
without that, the tourism sector – outside the employment aspect of that it has
a huge volunteer component and aspects that way as well.
The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, thank you for
the support. Levelling the playing field, I'm sure. You talked about the stars;
I think they've aligned with us for this House of Assembly vote today, so I'm
quite happy about that. You are correct that the City of St. John's is very
supportive of this amendment as well, because it'll allow them to help collect
the TML, tourism marketing levy.
Also, I'd like to say a thank you to the Member for
Ferryland who I had the pleasure of visiting in his district. It's a beautiful
area in the province. Mistaken Point is amazing. Anybody in this House that
hasn't been to Mistaken Point, please visit that location. The Member for Fogo
Island - Cape Freels, thank you for that, as well as the Member for Exploits.
I'd like to thank all of you for the support in this
bill. As they say, the music is playing for the Oscars, as I'm starting to go.
As you can see tourism is a passion for me. Thank you very much for the support.
I look forward to moving into Committee so we can have a few questions on some
of the burning issues, or maybe no questions, but we'll see.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 52 now be read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act Respecting Tourist Accommodations. (Bill 52)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
bill has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole House?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Tourist
Accommodations,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 52)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,
that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill
52.
This will also give the minister an opportunity to
thank a few more people.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 52.
A bill, “An Act Respecting Tourist Accommodations.”
(Bill 52)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
I see the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Just one question there for clause 1. Along with HNL,
who else will be consulted?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Yes, thank you very much. Very hard when you have the earpiece in as well.
In the consultation period, there was HNL, of course;
there was a public consultation piece done through the Public Engagement
department here in government. We reached out to about 230 different people that
reached back to us. We also had conversations with MNL on this very issue, as
well. Then operators, in addition to that, had submitted reports and/or emails
and/or their concerns over the past number of years while this has been coming
to fruition.
There has been a lot of public consultation on this.
We're very happy to be where we are today.
CHAIR:
All
good?
Any further speakers?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Clause 1?
CHAIR:
Yes, clause 1.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
One question I have about it is digital protections for
fraudulent listings online. That seems to be a growing concern for a lot of
individuals. I was just wondering, is there anything in this or the regulations
plan to protect against fraudulent digital listings?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To answer the question, we did go to the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner, who is supportive of this and going to
work with us on the regulations, as well, to ensure privacy. Your question about
fraud will be – this act will actually help in that process because if you're
not regulated now or licensed now and you move into a regulation situation, then
at least you will be on our website as a regulated operator. That will help with
the fraudulent activity for protection of customers, which is an important
piece.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the minister – the Member for
Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Maybe one day.
Minister, if someone has a current listing online on a
platform, such as Airbnb, how will they be notified they have to now register
their establishment within the department?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
A
very good question. Thank you for the question.
There's going to be a reach out from a communications
standpoint, similar to what we do for encouraging people to be a licensed
establishment. Discussions just like this will help. HNL is going to be very
focused on trying to reach out on this as well.
I think this is a perfect opportunity to say
congratulations to Brenda O'Reilly as well. As my other colleagues have said,
it's an important piece. We're going to be working very closely together so I
look forward to that. I have worked with her very closely already.
From that standpoint, it's going to be an
all-hands-on-deck type of an approach to make sure we reach out to everybody,
but we've taken away some of the barriers that short-term accommodators were
having with this process. By taking away the Canada Select one-star rating, that
allows them to jump into this a little easier. Through our consultation, that
was one of the stumbling blocks.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
If an individual has a second building or trailer on
their home property – same piece of land but a second structure – does this have
to be registered or does this fall under the exemption in (2)?
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
The
exemption in subsection (2), the section you're talking about, deals directly
with when you live within the property itself, not in the physical structure,
not the adjoining properties that may be on a large piece of land or whatnot.
CHAIR:
The
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's the property, not just the establishment. How long
will operators have to become registered once notified?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
We're going to work with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador on that very
issue. We're going to be working closely.
This is not a punitive measure here; this is about
working with the operators, both those that are currently licensed and those
that are unlicensed, to try to bring them in compliance with where we want them
to be.
This is about providing a level playing field, like a
couple of your colleagues have mentioned already, that's what it's about. It's
not about punitive matters here; we're just trying to bring people in
compliance. We're going to work with them to ensure that compliance happens.
That's all.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
That's great to hear. I'm sure they'll appreciate that as well.
What will the registration process include? Will it be
paper or electronic?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
As
it is today, when you move into a licensed accommodation with us, it's all on a
digital platform. It will be the same scenario for registration. It will be
digital.
We'll work through that with our staff to work with the
operators to ensure compliance and ensure they can get through with limited
impact to their operation and/or to their abilities. It's fairly
straightforward.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
A big question, Minister: Who will this information be
shared with?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
That's a very good question. The information will be housed, similar to what it
is now, in our document management system here.
We will share that with municipalities that may be
requiring that and Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, obviously. It's not
going to be widely shared, if that's the question or concern. We don't want that
information to be out publicly like that. We want it to be housed within, shared
with public agencies like other government departments or municipalities.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Currently, the province has a large number of accommodations listed online.
These will now have to register. What steps will be taken to notify them of this
requirement, follow-up and enforcement?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Can I ask for that first part of the question again? I missed that for a second.
Sorry.
MR.
TIBBS:
Currently, the province has a large number of accommodations listed online.
These will now have to register. What steps will be taken to notify them of this
requirement, follow-up and enforce registration?
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
That's a fairly easy process from our standpoint.
They're licensed already, so they'll just be moved over fairly quickly with a
few movements to happen.
HNL is going to have a big role in helping us with the
communication side of it as well. There's going to be absolutely no doubt that
there will be widespread knowledge of what we're doing here. We're going to give
everyone the opportunity to comply without having any punitive measures taken.
CHAIR:
The
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
We
may see inspectors going into people's homes. Will there be any notice given?
CHAIR:
The
Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Absolutely, just like they would have in any other case now. Obviously, we're
not knocking on the doors and asking to come in right away. They will be called;
there will be meetings set up.
It really depends on what the nature of who's going in
there. Municipalities, obviously, have their own rules to do that. That's not
what this act is looking at today anyway. It just gives us the ability to ensure
that those operators are registered. What other departments may do with it,
whether it be Municipalities or Service NL, based on a complaint-based system or
based on what they need for their municipality or service district, that will be
up to them on how they do that. Nothing will change (inaudible).
CHAIR:
The
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
That's great to hear, but, of course, you can appreciate a lot of people are
going to have concerns as they've had these homes for quite some time now.
What analysis has the department done on how this will
impact cost of accommodations?
CHAIR:
The
Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We've done some analysis, obviously, from a
jurisdictional scan across the country on where we stack up from a legislative
standpoint. This brings us more in line with that and brings us more modernized.
With respect to costs, we see the removal of the Canada Select star rating as a
savings for the operators, which, depending on the size of the operator, could
be substantive. We see this as a cost benefit to the industry.
One of the stumbling blocks, as we said earlier, to the
short-term accommodators that remained unlicensed was the fact that they had to
pay a fee for Canada Select. We've tried to minimize that and support the
industry as best we could.
CHAIR:
The
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
What taxes and fees will operators pay?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Very good question. With respect to this bill, none. There will be no fee with
respect to this bill. From that standpoint, there are no additional charges.
Actually, this is a Red Tape Reduction strategy initiative for those that are
already licensed. This is going to be positively received within the community.
Obviously, those that have been short-term
accommodators in the past that were unlicensed, some may not like the idea of
having to do this, but we've reduced those barriers that would impede those
individuals, so there is no fee to do that and we look forward to having this
instituted in the near future.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When will this act come into effect?
CHAIR:
The
Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
As
was highlighted by my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands, the regulations
are in process now to be dealt with as soon as we pass this bill. We're hopeful
in the next coming months that this will be implemented.
We need that for our operators and we want to make sure
we support them as best we can. This is a difficult time for them, as we all
know, dealing with COVID and we're working very closely with Hospitality
Newfoundland and Labrador. This is one of the instruments we can use that
supports our operators.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor -Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
I
thank the minister for his answers here today. I just have one last question,
Madam Chair.
What communications are planned to educate all
operators on how to become registered in the future?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Absolutely, Madam Chair, we're developing a communications plan for that. We're
going to be working in close concert with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.
You're going to hear that an awful lot.
Obviously, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador are
supportive. We're going to work with our partners in this to try to reach the
most people we possibly can, to reduce any lack of compliance that could come
from just lack of knowledge. We're going to be out there as best we can trying
to ensure that those operators become registered, which is really important to
what we're doing.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers, shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 17 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 17 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 17 carried.
CLERK:
Be
it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act Respecting Tourist Accommodations.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 52 carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 52.
CHAIR:
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters
to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 52, An Act Respecting
Tourist Accommodations, without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole has reported that the Committee has
considered the matters to them referred and directed her to report Bill 52
without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the bill be read a third time?
MR.
CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call Order 8, Bill 51.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 51, An Act To
Amend The Condominium Act, 2009, The Co-Operatives Act And The Corporations Act,
now be read a second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 51, entitled, An Act To Amend The Condominium
Act, 2009, The Co-Operatives Act And The Corporations Act, be now read a second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Condominium Act, 2009, The Co-Operatives Act And The Corporations Act.” (Bill
51)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased today to speak to these amendments to Bill 51. I've heard
from many of my constituents, and I'm sure many Members have heard, some of the
annoyances that they've had recently from corporations or organizations in their
districts around the fact that they haven't been able to hold AGMs, annual
general meetings, a very important part of corporations and organizations around
the province. That's essentially what we're allowing today.
I know during COVID-19 we've all had to change the way
we work. There are a lot more Zoom meetings and Skype meetings. We've all had to
get used to that. In our legislation up until now, corporations, condominium
organizations and co-operatives, it was not clear that they could have annual
general meetings virtually or electronically. As a result, we've put forward
this revised legislation. Apologies – I'm just going to go to the next page –
I'm slightly distracted.
Meetings of directors and AGMs is a legislative
requirement under the governance structure for condominium organizations,
co-operatives and corporations, including not-for-profit corporations.
Currently, however, the Condominium Act,
2009, the Co-operatives Act and
the Corporations Act do not
contemplate or allow for virtual meetings.
This means that these organizations could potentially
encounter legal issues should they choose to hold meetings in ways not
explicitly authorized by their legislation. It also means that some
organizations may have to delay key business decisions if they cannot meet
virtually or hold in-person meetings in compliance with Public Health
guidelines.
The amendments introduced today would allow these
organizations to use virtual collaboration technology for all meetings and allow
shareholders, members and condominium owners to participate virtually. There are
certain conditions that must be met, such as the requirement for participants to
be able to hear one another and have the ability to speak and ask questions;
furthermore, voting procedures would need to maintain anonymity where required.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that these
changes we are introducing today are not about requiring organizations to
conduct AGMs through virtual means; rather, it's about providing the flexibility
for them to do so if they choose that option. We recognize that some
participants and entities may face challenges with respect to virtual meetings;
therefore, the proposed amendments will not remove the option to hold in-person
meetings, subject to appropriate Public Health measures. This will allow for
virtual or hybrid meetings. As I stated earlier, the intent here is to provide
additional flexibility for entities to determine the best and safest way to
conduct their business, particularly in light of COVID-19.
In May of this year, timelines were varied for holding
AGMs under the Co-operatives Act and
the Corporations Act and we provided
an additional six months for those to happen. As there was no section in the
Condominium Act requiring a meeting within a specific time frame, there was no
timeline to be varied or extended.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we feel that these amendments have
been brought to the floor and will go far in allowing condominiums,
corporations, co-operatives and provincial corporations to continue meeting
their legislative requirements and conduct regular business during COVID-19. I'm
happy to bring forward these amendments to the House and I look forward to
answering any questions on them in Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for looking after this, and
congratulations. It's my first chance to get to speak to you while you were
there and congratulations with your new arrival. I'm sure you're pretty excited
with it.
Just to start on this, I would like to congratulate the
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans on his first piece of legislation. He
just told me: I'm worn out from doing it. That's his first one.
Just to touch on it, and I have a few notes here and
it's a pretty quick piece of legislation. I'll just read from some of the notes
I have and just a couple of examples, I guess.
The Condominium
Act, 2009, the Co-operatives Act
and the Corporations Act are under the
purview of the Department of Digital Government and Service NL. As the names of
the various acts suggest, the Condominium Act relates to the condominium
corporations, the Co-operatives Act
relates to the co-operatives and the Corporations Act relates to the corporations, including
not-for-profit corporations.
These pieces of legislation require condo corporations,
co-operatives and corporations to hold various types of meetings, including
directors' meetings and annual general meetings, which is the main part. I agree
with the part there; it doesn't make them have their AGMs in person, it gives
them the option if they want to go the other way. I just listened to the
minister speak on that. That's pretty important.
While virtual meetings have been a common means of
addressing these challenges, the current legislation in our province does not
provide the opportunity for virtual meetings, including use of telephones for
general memberships of condominiums, co-operatives and/or corporations. Virtual
meetings are, however, permitted for directors and boards, but not for AGMs, I
guess. Because the authority for virtual meetings is not currently outlined in
the various acts, stakeholders could face legal issues if they have such
meetings. Department officials noted that the majority of the provinces allow
virtual meetings, including AGMs and board of director meetings, and this has
been in place even prior to COVID.
The amendments proposed of Bill 51 allow entities to
use audio and visual technology for all meetings and allow shareholders, members
and condo owners to participate virtually. Department officials noted that the
proposed amendments have been vetted by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
During COVID, we had our caucus meetings and I'm sure
the government side had their meetings. We all had to do telephone calls or
virtual meetings. Just for businesses or condominiums, people that are on the
board of directors trying to have an AGM, they can't have it without having
everybody together, so it's an important piece of legislation that needs to be
changed. It just needs to be updated and it's pretty simple.
Looking from a government perspective, I think we could
look at that. We look at all the meetings that we go to – and I'm not saying us,
as government, when you fly away to go to these meetings, I think there's a
cost-saving measure with these virtual meetings as a government as a whole. I
think it's something that they could look at over the next stretch of period –
well, right now you're not going to go anywhere because of COVID.
If that ever changes – and hopefully we'll find a
vaccine for that – to be able to get back on with life and get back to the way
we were. Government should be looking at this and saying maybe we can have our
meetings and do this virtually, do some stuff without everybody having to fly in
and costing us money. I think it's a good cost-savings technique. I think it's
just something that the government should look at.
Overall, Bill 51 will amend three different acts to
allow virtual meetings: the Condominium
Act, 2009, the
Co-operatives Act and the
Corporations Act. The proposed
amendments are outlined separately under each of these acts, but the amendments
to all these acts are to allow people to participate in meetings virtually by
telephone and electronic means of communication.
I'll leave it at that. I'll have a couple of questions
when we get to Committee.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just have a couple of words here on Bill 51. It's a
very small change but an important one nonetheless. It certainly recognizes
where we are as it relates to COVID-19. Not just COVID-19, because there could
other reasons why it may not be possible for everybody to attend an annual
general meeting of a condominium corporation or co-op housing or whatever the
case might be.
We have a lot of Newfoundlanders who work abroad, work
out on the rigs and work in Alberta and things like that, so it may not even
necessarily be COVID-19 related. Obviously, it will address COVID-19 issues but
it could be any number of reasons why members may not be able to attend. I'm
assuming this could be both as well. I'm guessing there could be some members
who would be face to face while there might be other members who can't make it
to the meeting. As I said, maybe they're visiting their child on the Mainland or
something, who knows, but they can sign in virtually and be part of that
meeting. It doesn't mean it's all virtual. It could mean that a combination of
in-person and virtual, I'm assuming, would be permitted under this.
It does make a lot of sense. There would be a lot of
people actually impacted in my district and in Mount Pearl in general. Mount
Pearl has CHANAL, which is the Co-Op Housing Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador. They actually operate over on Barbour Drive. Mount Pearl has more
co-op housing than any other part of the province by far. I believe it's
something like two-thirds of the co-op housing, or more, in the province is
actually in Mount Pearl.
We have co-op housing over on Barbour Drive; we have it
on Forsey Place. We have it over on Jeffers Place. We have co-op housing over on
Whiteley Drive. A couple of streets in the Power's Pond area in Mount Pearl
North are co-op housing. There's a lot of co-op housing. Munden Drive is another
area. They would all avail of this.
We also have a number of condominiums in Mount Pearl.
Condominium Corporation is up on Farrell Drive, which would be in Mount Pearl
North. A number of the units up there are condominiums. On Fairweather Avenue we
have them, White Place we have them. We have condos down off Dalton Avenue.
There's an apartment building that's a Condominium Corporation. We actually have
a whole bunch of these throughout Mount Pearl, in my district and certainly in
the District of Mount Pearl North as well, that would benefit from this
legislation. It just makes sense. We have technology; why not utilize it?
Again, I'd say that while the intent for this may have
been COVID-19, which may have spurred this on, I think that whether there's
COVID or there's no COVID, having that option available to have the meetings
virtually in totality or, as I say, to have the option where you could have
face-to-face meetings, but certain members of the condo board or the co-op board
could attend virtually – because they may be away for work, they may be out of
the province for some other kind of business or visiting family or whatever the
case might be. Or maybe they're just home sick or whatever and not able to go to
the meeting, but they could sign in on their computer and join in that way. I
see it as a positive thing and I will be supporting the bill.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't take up too much of the time there. I just
wanted to say we do support this because through our experience on the Standing
Orders Committee and the Committee on digital presence in the House, we did come
to the conclusion that using this kind of technology even for our Committee
meetings – and in the worst-case scenario even the House of Assembly could meet
like this.
Allowing corporations, condominiums and co-operatives
the ability to do this is just a logical next step. It's good to hear that this
was all reviewed by the Chief Information Officer as well. We have to look at
those kinds of things too. It's important that we move forward in the digital
age. The pandemic has exposed a lot of things, some things that we fell behind
on, and moving forward in technology that some other jurisdictions probably had
a heads-up on.
It's great that we are giving the ability to these
organizations, as they are regulated, to meet and conduct business this way and
protect themselves and their families. Avoiding travel is key too. If you don't
need to travel, you shouldn't do so.
I just wanted to say that we do support this. We hope
that we can move forward on this.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, if she speaks now she
will close the debate.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to thank my colleagues, the MHA for
Ferryland, the MHA for Mount Pearl - Southlands and the MHA for Labrador West
for contributing to the debate today. I appreciate everyone's support. I think
this is very important for the organizations in the province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 51 be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Condominium Act, 2009, The Co-Operatives Act And The
Corporations Act. (Bill 51)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
bill has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Condominium
Act, 2009, The Co-Operatives Act And The Corporations Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 51)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government
and Service NL, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and
consider Bill 51.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We're now considering Bill 51.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Condominium Act, 2009, The
Co-operatives Act And The Corporations Act.” (Bill 51)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a couple of questions here. Was there any
consultations with stakeholders on these changes?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Yes, Madam Chair, we did consult with stakeholders from these three
organizations as well as from – we considered legislation across other
provinces. This is certainly in alignment. I'm very happy with the consultation
that was undertaken.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Were all stakeholders supportive of these amendments? Were there any that were
not supportive?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As far as I'm aware there were no concerns raised by
stakeholders. Everyone was supportive.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When will these changes take effect? How soon can
entities start holding virtual meetings with members?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My understanding is as soon as this receives Royal
Assent it will be in effect and then organizations can start having annual
general meetings, virtually.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Last question I have.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
How will stakeholders be informed of these changes?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We will certainly post this on the website. It will be
in the Gazette. We'll be communicating
these to corporations as we usually communicate changes to corporations and
condominiums and co-operatives. They'll all be apprised that these changes have
been made.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any further questions?
Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 10 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 10 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 10 carried.
CLERK:
Be
it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act To Amend The Condominium Act, 2009, The Co-operatives Act And The
Corporations Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 51 carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, the Committee report having passed the bill
without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for your efficiency.
I move, Madam Chair, that the Committee rise and report
Bill 51.
CHAIR:
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters
to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 51 without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered
the matters to them referred and directed her to report Bill 51 without
amendment.
When shall this report be received?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR.
CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Order 2, third reading of Bill 41.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology,
that Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act, be now read a third
time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Contracts Act. (Bill 41)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and
that the title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Insurance
Contracts Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the
Order Paper. (Bill 41)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call Order 3, third reading of Bill 44.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 44, An Act To
Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2, be now read a third time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 44)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that
the title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act No. 2,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as
on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Immigration, Skills
and Labour, that this House do now adjourn.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that this House does now adjourn.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This House now stands adjourned until 10 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.