October 25, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 26
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Before
we start, I'd just like to take this opportunity, for my first time as Speaker,
to welcome the people in the public gallery. It's the first time we've had
people here since March 2020.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Welcome everyone.
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear Members'
statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova, Conception Bay
South, Burin - Grand Bank, St. George's – Humber and Mount Pearl North.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
on October 16, I had the pleasure to join the Southwest Arm Historical Society
who held a ceremony at the Hodge's Cove lodge to honour 71 loggers from the
Southwest Arm area who served with the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit, as
well as four women who served with the Auxiliary Territorial Services during
World War II, all veterans.
These
women later returned to the area and raised their families and to this day,
generations later, the families continue to be very proud to honour their loved
ones that sacrificed and worked long, hard hours during the war.
Hayley
Peddle, a Grade 12 student at Southwest Arm Academy, wrote and performed with
her glee club a song, “Everybody's Got a Story.” Her lyrics summed up the day
perfectly: The work was hard and the days were long, no rest 'til dusk and awake
before dawn 'til a lumberjack's day is done.
Hayley's
great uncle, Willis Drover, was one of the many that never returned from
overseas
The
Lion's Club in Hodge's Cove and the Southwest Arm Historical Society has erected
individual banners for each and every member.
Speaker,
please join me in honouring these men and women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise
today to acknowledge a very passionate special needs teacher, Ms. Sandra
Hemmings, from Conception Bay South, who has recently retired with 31 years of
service.
Sandra
Hemmings graduated from MUN in 1990 with two degrees: Bachelor of Education and
Bachelor of Special Education. From 1990-1991, she taught at Florence Williams
School in Pool's Cove and taught two students with special needs in the morning
and in multi-grade classrooms in the afternoon. From 1991-2021, she taught at
Queen Elizabeth Regional High School in Foxtrap until her recent retirement.
Sandra taught special needs and had the same classroom for 30 years.
Sandra
Hemmings wasn't only a teacher, but a mentor and a guiding light to all her
students throughout her career. She has been instrumental in helping her
students compete and succeed with the Duke of Edinburgh's program, enabling them
to become well-rounded individuals and building a strong sense of self-esteem.
Sandra's
passion for teaching and improving educational outcomes for the children was
tremendous and I've seen first-hand her positive impact she had on special needs
students.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms. Sandra Hemmings for her
dedication and remarkable achievements in the classroom and wish her all the
best in her well-deserved retirement.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, today I would like
to convey to the House the loss of a true ambassador for the Town of St.
Lawrence, the District of Burin - Grand Bank, our region and our province, Gord
Dunphy.
Gord
passed away on August 19, 2021, and is fondly remembered and missed by his wife
Jocelyn, his son and daughters, his grandchildren, brothers, sisters and
friends.
Gord's
contribution to soccer in Newfoundland and Labrador began as a player, then as a
coach, executive member, a member of the St. Lawrence Laurentian hall of fame,
the Burin Peninsula hall of fame, soccer NL hall of fame and as a commissioner.
Gord was
honoured and well-known for his lifetime membership to soccer NL, his three-time
Challenge Cup championships as a coach, a broadcaster and through his webcast
known as Gord Cast.
Gord
brought soccer to people who could not attend games and those who lived
elsewhere around the globe. This wider audience gave him the ability to share
his knowledge of the game and the players who were involved.
Gord
Cast was full of excitement and great interviews with soccer fans, players and
special guests.
Speaker,
Newfoundland and Labrador has lost a soccer great whose commitment and
dedication made him well respected and a giant in the sport of soccer.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's - Humber.
S. REID:
Speaker, I would I would like to recognize the good work of Jordan Bennett and
Marcus Gosse, two Mi'kmaq artists from the Bay St. George area.
These
two artists collaborated to paint a mural that was unveiled this past August
near Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill, where the community of Crow Gulch once
stood. This billboard-size painting celebrates the people who once lived there
and is in an area where the City of Corner Brook is preparing to build a new
park.
The
village of Crow Gulch was largely Mi'kmaq and was marked by poverty and social
stigma. Municipal services, such as electricity, were never extended into the
community and it was eventually bulldozed in the late-1960s and the inhabitants
relocated.
This
large-scale, permanent outdoor piece of public art is a first of its kind in the
area. The artists see their work as a way of honouring the people of the past,
but also want to inspire other Indigenous artists around the province to show
their presence in the province in public ways.
Speaker,
I ask all Members of the House to join with me in recognizing the important work
being done by Jordan Bennett and Marcus Gosse.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
L. STOYLES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in the House of Assembly today to recognize CHANNAL, Consumers' Health Awareness
Network of Newfoundland and Labrador.
For over
32 years CHANNAL has been committed to their mission to help people with mental
health and addiction issues to fulfil their lives. Staffed entirely by
individuals with similar life experiences, peer support have offered in person
assistance to over 25,000 people and the Warm Line have taken over 60,000 calls
from people struggling to overcome these challenges. Allowing them to be heard,
to share their stories and to understand that they are not alone all while
helping on the journey of recovery.
CHANNAL
has offices in Mt. Pearl, St. John's, Grand Falls-Windsor, Marystown and
Stephenville. They have staff in all those locations plus they have offices in
Clarenville, Deer Lake, Harbour Grace, St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and
Labrador West.
The
vision of the staff and volunteers at CHANNAL is to support those struggling
with mental health and addiction issues to realize their full potential.
I ask
all Members to join me in extending a thank you to this group, CHANNAL, for
their dedication and hard work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Speaker, I am very proud today to speak in this hon. House to inform my
colleagues about four brand new schools that have recently opened and are
benefiting families in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. LOVELESS:
In September, the new Gander Academy opened with 29 classrooms for students in
kindergarten to Grade 3.
Also in
September, a new intermediate school with 33 classrooms opened in Paradise for
students in Grades 6 and 7, but will eventually house Grades 6 to 9 by 2023-24.
In
addition, the new Bay Roberts Primary with 18 classrooms for students in
kindergarten to Grade 3 opened in those communities.
Just
last week, a new school with 17 classrooms opened in my district in St. Alban's
for students in kindergarten to Grade 12, servicing the Bay d'Espoir area.
Construction on all four of these schools began in 2019 and was completed this
year, for a total combined investment of more than $89 million over the course
of construction.
Speaker,
it brings me joy to know that students and staff in these areas are receiving
their education in modern school and that these buildings were constructed by
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
These
projects contributed significantly to the economic development in the province
by creating employment in each of these regions.
Speaker,
Budget 2021 allocated $4.1 million for
improvements to schools and post-secondary institutions throughout the province,
including $19.5 million for alterations and improvements.
We look
forward to continuing to improve learning environments for students and staff in
Newfoundland and Labrador in a way that is responsible for all taxpayers.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Speaker,
my colleagues and I join the minister in celebrating the opening of these news
schools. A new school is often a beacon of community activity in the area for
students, staff and residents alike. Anything we can do to relieve the pressure
on the K-12 system that is battling overcrowding and aging infrastructure is
welcome in this province.
However,
I do note the minister's claim that these schools were constructed by
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – not sure
if I agree. We continue to hear of government infrastructure projects being
completed by other provinces' workers while our tradespeople sit home. It is a
long time this government embraced community benefits agreements as proposed by
Trades NL. We should be putting our people first in everything we do.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I
applaud the government's construction of these new schools. Our party will
always welcome new investments in tomorrow's leaders.
New
schools are great, but they need the proper resources so that they can be
effective learning environments and part of that effective learning environment
will be a review of the teacher allocation model so that our children receive
the quality of education they deserve and are not placed in overcrowded
classrooms.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
A family
in Labrador whose infant daughter required life-saving medical attention could
not be assisted by medical transportation at the moment of critical need. The
Minister of Health decided to dispute the claims of the family. The family has
called the minister's statement – and I quote – inaccurate, misleading and
inappropriate.
I ask
the Premier: What concerns do you have about this situation?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I
don't believe it to be appropriate to discuss specific details of such a tragedy
on the floor of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, I will say on behalf of the
entire government and I'm sure everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a
loss like that, we all feel it. If someone pains like that, we all feel it and
it shouldn't be a source of political gain.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, this is a situation
where government and the minister has to take acknowledgement that it did occur
and that there has to be actions to ensure it doesn't happen to another family
in the future.
The
family has written a letter to the Premier stating that the minister has
mischaracterized the situation. The family is calling for the minister to
apologize.
I ask
the minister: Will you apologize for your public statement disputing the story
of this family?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I echo
the Premier's condolences. I spoke with the family immediately after the receipt
of that letter. Consistent with the Premier's comments, I will not be commenting
on the specifics of any case in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the family goes on
to say if the minister does not apologize, then he should resign.
I ask
the Premier: Do you continue to have confidence in your Minister of Health?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
reiterate, I'm not going to discuss the contents of the previous complaint. I
think we all share a significant amount of empathy with that family and I don't
believe it should be used a political football. I do still have confidence in my
minister, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, we all have empathy
for the family and all those other families who have not been able to avail of
health services when they need them. This is about an intervention, an immediate
intervention to ensure that this doesn't happen to another family coming out of
Labrador in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
It has now been five days
since the Premier and the minister didn't know the answer to the question, so I
hope they have gotten an answer from Eastern Health.
I ask
the Premier: How many people have died while awaiting cardiac surgery in our
province since the start of COVID-19?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I did
have a lengthy conversation with Eastern Health today. We have on an average
year, unfortunately, four people who pass away while waiting for cardiac
surgery. Waiting for any kind of surgery is difficult and our condolences go out
to the family. The specifics of the last 12 months: There were eight deaths on
the wait-list.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Last
week in Question Period when referring to a specific instance of neonatal
emergency medical transportation, the minister said: To my knowledge, a team is
available around the clock. If it is any different, I'll let the Member opposite
know.
Can you
provide an update on the neonatal medical transportation team?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I have
not been informed any differently by Eastern Health and I'm awaiting a response.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
In
September, Eastern Health said they were trying to recruit and train staff to
resume the 24-7 neonatal medical transportation operations.
I ask
the minister: When were you made aware that the neonatal transport was not
available 24-7?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
believe I've addressed what information I have and I can't add anything further
to it at the moment. I'm awaiting further from Eastern Health.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It would
be nice if the minister who is responsible would have this information sooner
rather than later.
Speaker,
this family we've spoke to has written a letter to both the minister and the
Premier. In this letter the family states that while they waited 31 hours for
emergency medical transportation for their child, virtual care was comprised of
informal consults lasting less than 15 minutes and occurred over FaceTime video
on personal cellphones of medical staff because of the lack of virtual care in
Labrador.
I ask
the minister: Is this acceptable?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
a very difficult situation. I had a difficult but honest conversation with the
family on Thursday on receipt of the letter. Following that discussion, I will
not be commenting on the specifics of this case in any venue.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I don't think
the issue is the case; it's the system. It's the fact that the infrastructure
isn't there. That's what we're trying to get at here. The fact that we don't
have a neonatal team 24-7, or we don't have infrastructure for virtual care: so
that should be our focus.
Speaker,
the Canadian Medical Association has now written the Premier urging him to
abandon his plan to weaken the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association
through legislation, the equivalent of union busting.
I ask
the minister: Will she follow the Canadian Medical Association's advice and
abandon this union busting tactic?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
These
discussions were begun with the Medical Association two years ago. I am aware of
the comments of the Canadian Medical Association. It's a little bit interesting
in actual fact because in 2011 the NLMA removed its mandate for NLMA members to
be members of the Canadian Medical Association. So we need to get the
consultations around this process completed and whatever the outcomes of those
are we will decide, as a group on this side, what to do with that legislative
proposals.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Dawn Turner commented to
The Telegram today concerning the fact that doctors have been without a
contract for four years under this Liberal government. She says, and I quote: “I
think you can offer less money, but you have to offer something. And right now,
we're really not being offered anything, other than disrespect and continually
being gaslighted ….”
I ask
the minister: How can you expect to reach a deal with the physicians of this
province if they feel like you are gaslighting them?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, and I appreciate the question.
As I
have said repeatedly in this House, we value and appreciate the hard work of
health care professionals, doctors, nurses, paramedics: all those who are
contributing to our health care system. As I have said in this House before, we
realize we are challenged with pay for family doctors. That's why we think it's
very important to get back to the table to talk about the proposals that we have
outlined. I'm sure there are other things that the NLMA will bring to the table
as well, Mr. Speaker.
We've
had discussions around the payment schedule. We've had discussions around family
practice renewal. We've had discussions around rural retention bonus; these are
important discussions. We need to get back to the table and I urge the NLMA to
do so.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, it is encouraging to
hear the minister wants to get back to the table with the NLMA so I just have
one question. Will the minister return to the negotiation table with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association without any strings attached?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
said to the NLMA I do wish that they would come back to the table. I have had
discussions with them, Mr. Speaker. I know that they wanted to consult with the
membership, but I do encourage them to come back to the table. There's much to
be discussed.
I've
said in this House that we recognize the challenges with pay for family doctors.
I've said in this House the multitude of proposals that are before us to be
discussed at the table. I hope we get there very, very soon.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
I remind the minister that
their contract has been expired for four years. That's a lot of time.
Speaker,
while this government refuses to recognize a crisis in health care, last week
the Energy Minister recognized that gas prices have indeed reached the crisis
level, but that government's hands are tied.
I ask
the minister: Will he direct the PUB to remove the additional five cents per
litre, which was added to gasoline prices when Come By Chance ended production?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Happy to
have an opportunity to answer this.
I'm not
sure if I actually mentioned the word crisis or anything like that when I spoke
with the media last week on this topic, but the reality is that certainly
everybody across the country is feeling the pain of high oil prices and high
prices at the pumps.
When it
comes to this province, the PUB, which is an independent body who are tasked
with petroleum pricing, received an application last year from NARL – North
Atlantic Refining – as it related to transportations costs to import fuel here.
That was an independent application and an independent decision.
We have
no legislative authority to intervene in such matters; although, we absolutely
understand the concern that is felt by the consumer.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
The people paying the prices
at the grocery store and the gas pumps will tell you there's a crisis.
Speaker,
the five cents per litre, which was applied to the gas taxes when Come By Chance
was shut down, is still in place ever since the refinery went offline.
Minister: Are you willing to admit that your failure in securing an operational
future for Come By Chance to produce gasoline and other fuels is the reason
people are paying five cents a litre more than they should be?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
No, Mr. Speaker, no I'm not
willing to admit that I'm the cause of rising gas prices in this province. I
certainly am not going to do that.
What I
will say is the reality is that the fuel is being shipped into this province
because Come By Chance is offline. We work with Come By Chance as it relates to
the start-up of that facility – one that's been working quite well. We've had
extensive consultation and work when it comes to the owner, when it comes to the
union, when it comes to prospective purchasers. And that's something that's
ongoing. We're not willing to just give everything away.
But I
will point out, when it comes to the PUB or independent, the last time that a
government intervened and told them what to do, it was to keep Muskrat Falls out
of their crosshairs.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, the other two fuel suppliers that are in this province did not
request the five cents, as the minister just indicated. This five cents per
litre was supposed to be temporary but because of the minister's failure to get
Come by Chance back up and processing fuel, it is looking more and more
permanent.
Minister, let's be honest here, will the extra charge ever go away?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I've
indicated now on a number of occasions, we have to ask the Public Utilities
Board as they are tasked with this duty by the Legislature. The Legislature had
tasked them with this some time ago. It is not a government policy decision.
One
thing is, though, if we do something like that there's a couple questions that
one would ask. One would be: If we're now forcing an importer to take away that
money, do we then get into supply issues? The second part of that is, if we're
talking about the subsidization of this by government, I think that leads to a
bigger question, Speaker: Exactly what are we willing to do there and not do
when it comes to all the issues that we face as it relates to our fiscal
situation in this province?
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Will the minister table the letter that he wrote to the PUB?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Absolutely. I'd be more than willing to table a letter that I wrote about a
month and a half ago to the PUB, asking for an explanation as to how the process
works when it comes to these types of decisions.
A couple
things I would point out. Number one, I have not had a response yet. Number two,
I would point out that I certainly didn't ask for anybody to direct them to make
a decision. But I do think – and I've said this publicly, actually, last
Thursday out there – as the Public Utilities Board, I think the board does have
a mandate to explain to the public how they do their work.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Quite simply, Mr. Speaker,
people are paying way too much at the pumps and everywhere else.
The PUB
decides the price of gasoline and other fuels. The minister should not hide
behind them. The minister can and should ask the PUB to find ways to lower gas
prices.
Why
hasn't the minister asked the PUB to review the pricing formula and see if there
are ways to lower the cost of fuel?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The same
way when I was in Justice, I did not tell the courts how to operate or how
judges were to make decisions; I'm not going to tell the PUB how to do their job
here. The last time that a government did that, a government told them not to
intervene in Muskrat Falls and we ended up with one of the biggest debacles –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A. PARSONS:
– as a government, as a province, that we've ever had to face. One that, I will
point out, that I'm still dealing with – we are still dealing with when it comes
to every decision in this province.
What I
would point out is maybe we would be in a better spot to do something about all
of these issues if we didn't have to deal with the albatross around our neck
that was Muskrat Falls that was inflicted by the people that came before us.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Muskrat Falls again, Mr.
Speaker, three elections later.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B. PETTEN:
You just had your time, Sir.
My
question is for the Minister of Education. Speaker, as our province grapples
with the fourth wave of COVID-19, we have seen schools close or many classrooms
are totally empty and students stay away, waiting for a COVID test appointments
and results.
What is
the minister doing to ensure these students are not left behind?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's
an important question, because the education of our children is of utmost
importance to our government.
Mr.
Speaker, we take guidance from Public Health based on epidemiology, on contact
tracing, on when it's important or when we're able to open a school or when we
can't. What we have seen is, in the first three or four days that an area or a
town is impacted or a school is impacted, that the numbers of students attending
school, attendance numbers are low but they build up, Mr. Speaker. We've seen it
time and time again that they build up and get back to normal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you.
Speaker,
the NLTA has clearly spoken out that teachers cannot teach in the classroom and
online simultaneously. Some schools are near empty for roll call. The Burin
Peninsula is also now dealing with the outbreak and schools are virtually empty.
Government has almost two years to prepare for this exact situation and families
are looking for direction.
Again,
Speaker, what can the minister offer them?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, based on
risk level, epidemiology, contact tracing, it's determined on when we open a
school and when we don't. The two schools on the Burin Peninsula are reverted to
online learning, Mr. Speaker, for the safety of the students, based on the risk
level as determined by Public Health.
But, Mr.
Speaker, the Member is correct; we can't have the teacher teaching both online
and in class at the same time. We did see last year that there were concerns
with blended learning. We also saw, Mr. Speaker, that through the Canadian
Pediatric Association, for example, that they raised the concerns for the
mental, emotional and physical health of students with online learning. So it's
important that, when safe, we have students in class.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, last month we
learned of a tragic situation wherein Gregory Pike, while an inmate at Her
Majesty's Penitentiary, took his own life. Let me take this moment to extend my
heartfelt condolences to the family at this difficult time. The family has
spoken publicly saying Gregory needed mental health assistance, not
incarceration, at the time the incident took place.
I ask
the minister: What concerns does this tragedy raise about the mental health
supports offered to inmates in our province's correctional institutions?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
First, I
do want to offer my condolences to the family. Obviously, I can't comprehend
what a terrible, difficult time it is to lose a close family member like that. I
do offer my condolences on behalf of the Department of Justice and Public Safety
and on behalf of the government.
As with
any situation that occurs like that at the penitentiary, a review will be done
to see if policy was followed, what gaps may exist and, if there are gaps, what
we can do to fill them. But I do want to ensure every one in the public that
medical care is provided to inmates through certified medical professionals;
that would include nurses, physicians and psychiatrists. The Department of
Justice and Public Safety takes advice from the medical professionals when it
comes to the treatment of inmates and the services that are provided.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, it's estimated
that 77 to 87 per cent of HMP inmates have either mental health and substance
abuse issues, or both; issues which the system has clearly failed to address.
I ask
the minister: Why is the justice system offering incarceration and punishment to
people, when what they really need is substance abuse and mental health
treatment instead?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
This is
an issue that permeates, obviously, not just inmates at HMP but throughout
society, and it's something that this government, and really everyone in the
country and the world, has come to recognize needs to be taken more seriously.
We're doing that, this government, with regard to treatment and addictions and
in my department as well.
So we
are looking at that, we are looking at ways to improve situations for inmates
and also to have therapeutic courts where certain individuals, where they meet
criteria, can avoid going to prison and can deal with their addictions and
issues through situations in therapeutic courts, outside of it and get the
treatment and help they need and return to be productive members of society.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, the minister
referenced the review and we look forward to the completion and public release
of the report into this tragedy. While this report is ongoing, however, the
Jesso report from 2019 is only half implemented according to media reports last
month.
I ask
the minister: Can he explain what recommendations have yet to be implemented,
and why such a long delay?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
As I've
said, mental health and addictions is an issue that's arisen and starting to be
taken more seriously by everyone in this government and by my department. We are
looking at all the recommendations that were made in that report, including
Eastern Health taking a more central role with regard to treatment of inmates at
HMP.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Speaker, the storm surge of
January 17 and 18, 2020, caused extensive damage on the coastline within the
Town of Bonavista. Despite promised federal disaster relief funds over 19 months
ago to fix it, the seawall has not been remediated. In fact, a young family with
several children fear for their safety and seeking safer rental accommodations
due to the breached seawall.
With the
winter season quickly approaching can the minister confirm that this work will
be done this year?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
actual issue in Bonavista is like many areas in the province that we deal with.
It's something that in terms of a planning process we know that, through the
planning, it's a costly venture as well in terms of securing coastlines. But I
don't have the if and when that work will be done, but I'll certainly go back to
the staff and find out for the Member and report back to him when we can have a
side conversation about that actual project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Minister.
Speaker,
90 per cent of the District of Bonavista still has local dumps operating, the
vast majority of which are overcapacity and negatively impacting the
environment. This is not a pretty picture for residents and tourists alike.
Why has
it taken so long for this area to fall under the provincial waste management
strategy?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Thank
you to the hon. Member for their question.
Any
opportunity we have to work with regions of the province, we have, trying to
expand the regional scope for our regional waste management sites. I've spoken
with the area residents as recently as about 10, 12 days ago. So we're working
towards those.
Thank
you very much for the question. I look forward to fruitful discussions to come
forward on that in the very near future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
As of
yesterday, there were 217 boil-water advisories in 173 communities in our
beautiful province. The Health Accord team has identified access to safe, clean
drinking water is needed to increase healthy living in our province.
I ask
the minister: When will safe, clean drinking water be provided to all people of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Speaker. It sounds
very rude trying to say just Speaker. I'm so used to saying Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. It's a very good question.
Our
government is very much committed to making sure clean drinking water is
available in all parts of our province. We have worked very hard on that. We
have put things in place. An example would be the 33 potable water-dispensing
stations placed there. We have the most agreeable and generous cost-share
relationship between municipalities – two levels of government – allowing them
to get clean drinking water for their residents.
We are
encouraging the municipalities to reach out to us. We want them to come to the
table with this and make that a priority within their district. If it's not a
priority in their area, it's hard for us to force that down their throat. We are
working very closely with them.
SPEAKER:
Time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Speaker, first of all, I
agree, Mr. Speaker and Speaker is two different things to get used to, no doubt.
I thank
the minister for the comment. When we have numbers of that nature, being a
former mayor, I know the importance of clean drinking water to the residents and
it is a very important topic. I do hope that more towns will reach out to the
department.
Speaker,
in our Blue Book, we have committed to a systemic review of boil-water
advisories across the province and to provide a timeline for those particular
fixes.
I ask
the minister: Is he willing to adopt our solution to improve access to clean,
safe drinking water to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Speaker, thank you very much.
I thank
the hon. Member for a very good question. We've got a very strong strategy
ourselves. I'll give you some examples of how we've seen very encouraging
milestones come forward. The levels of pH existence are at an all-time low in
this province; not saying that we are perfect because it is far from there. The
number of communities with a certified operator is at an all-time high. The
number of communities that have a percentage of drinking water systems put in
place is at an all-time high. The number of water treatment facilities put in
place reached an all-time high.
So those
are good things. It's not saying the job is done for sure. We are working with
them. We encourage all municipalities that have those concerns to come forward
with us. We want to work with them to get this solution fixed for the residents
that we all represent.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Last
Wednesday, in answer to my colleague's question, the Government House Leader
stated, “There are many Committees of this House, whether it's a Social Service
Committee or other Committees and we strike Committees from time to time ….
“The
thing we have to realize is we always had a Committee structure in this House,
which always can be used. But I will have more conversations with the Member
opposite on the opportunities we may have there around Committees.”
Considering his House Leaders ringing endorsement of Committees, I ask the
Premier: Will he instruct his House Leader to strike the Select Committee on
basic income we called for as one suggestion to address our health care crisis?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you for the question,
Mr. Speaker.
I'll
answer this question today and I'm happy to do so.
I think
Committees are a great way to get work done. In fact, one of the first things I
did when I became Minister of Justice and Public Safety was announce an
all-party Committee to review the Election Act.
All-party being the key word, but, unfortunately, all parties didn't show up. If
people want to participate and come to Committees when they're invited, I think
that would go a long away as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
I think it's a bit of a
misnomer, Speaker, that it's called an all-party Committee then, but I will tell
you we did offer suggestions which were promptly shut down by the minister.
The
Department of Health states in one of its posters that when it comes to COVID-19
interacting with more people increases the risk. The closer you are to people,
the greater the risk. Risk increases as people spend more time together. Mr.
Speaker, this describes our schools.
Would
the Minister of Education agree that the current back-to-school plan is actually
increasing the risk to our students, teachers, staff and their families of
contracting COVID-19?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if
the Member is applying for the job of Chief Medical Officer of Health or not but
I take guidance from Public Health, Mr. Speaker, on when schools are safe to be
occupied and when they're not.
I think
the Chief Medical Officer of Health and Public Health have guided us very, very
well so far through this pandemic. When we're advised that it's safer to keep a
school closed and go online, Mr. Speaker, we do that just as we've done with the
two schools on the Burin Peninsula.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, as Minister of
Education, the minister should know what works in a school and what doesn't as
well.
I ask
the minister: Why did he not maintain the proactive COVID-19 mitigation measures
his department and school district had in place last year such as extra busing
to allow physical distancing, extra cleaning staff to carry out enhanced
cleaning and extra teaching units?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, some of those
measures were kept in place, the additional administrators and guidance, for
example, Mr. Speaker, that were put in place were kept there. But, again, we, in
the department and the school districts, take guidance from Public Health. We
were advised that it was safe to go back to regular busing, Mr. Speaker. As part
of the low-risk and high-risk measures that are in place, when the need is
required for higher cleaning protocols they're put in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The cost
of living has skyrocketed in this province year over year. Inflation has
increased by 4 per cent. This will force people to choose between heat and food.
Where is
the Premier's plan to address the increased cost of home heating in this
province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We are
seeing, of course, the impact of higher fuel costs across the board, around the
world, as the change comes out of the global pandemic and, of course, we see the
price of oil rise.
I will
say, Mr. Speaker, the province was very proactive. When the carbon tax was
implemented in 2019, we carved out an exemption under the federal program. If we
hadn't done that, of course, all of us in the province would've been impacted by
carbon tax. This has been a way that we've minimized the impact, especially on
those that are feeling the pressures of the oil and gas increase. I will also
say that, of course, we do not charge gas tax on our home heating either.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
A quick
question; no preamble, please.
J. BROWN:
Well, seeing that, will you
remove the tax from residential electricity for those who are on electric heat
in this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As
budget comes forward, as we always do, we do look at our tax system to determine
what, if at all possible, we can certainly do for all of our taxes across the
board in this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, Bill 43.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1),
that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Tuesday, October 26, 2021.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.
B. WARR:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice of the following private Member's motion, which will be seconded by the
Member for Burin - Grand Bank.
WHEREAS
2020 and 2021 have been incredibly difficult for the tourism and hospitality,
arts and cultural industries in Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS
many individuals and groups are working hard to make 2022 a successful year; and
WHEREAS
planning for 2022 is important now in order to take full advantage of the
anticipated demand from people wishing to return or to visit our province; and
WHEREAS
the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted tourism and its important position as a
key employer and revenue generator throughout the province; and
WHEREAS
the desire of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who reside outside the province
to visit their families and friends has increased because of many months of not
being able to travel; and
WHEREAS
an abundance of municipalities across the province have local or regional events
planned for the 2022 tourism season; and
WHEREAS
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation's mandate letter announced
government's intention to have 2022 as a Come Home Year event; and
WHEREAS
government will continue to support the very effective provincial tourism
marketing and branding efforts that have brought so many visitors to
Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador is a remote working destination of choice; and
WHEREAS
there are plans to encourage and convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
living outside of the province, as well as first-time visitors, to stay and make
Newfoundland and Labrador their home to live and work;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the government's plan to
make 2022 a provincial Come Home Year celebration in all areas of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
In
accordance with Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's motion referred to by
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay will be the private Member's motion
debated this Wednesday, October 27, 2021.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
hoping to present this petition for the last time today, depending on the answer
from the minister.
The
maintenance and upkeep of the roadway in the community of Cold Brook is the
responsibility of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Sections
of the roadway have been in a deplorable condition for the last five years and
need repairs and resurfacing. There have been a number of close calls where
vehicles have to swerve in order to avoid driving over a section of the roadway
where the pavement is totally missing.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing, upgrading and
maintaining the paved road through the community of Cold Brook in the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Speaker,
there were several stakes put up over the summer on the Cold Brook road which
caused much questions to be asked and people were getting excited about it. So
today, when I present this petition, I'll be anxious to hear the minister's
response and he can clarify what all those stakes mean.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the hon. Member for his concern.
Those
stakes meant that work was supposed to be done the summer on that particular
upgrade and it didn't get done for reasons beyond my control, but I will commit
to the Member that, in the next season, the work will get done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS
individual residents and municipal leaders have spoken to the deplorable road
conditions in the District of Harbour Main; and
WHEREAS
the district is made up of many smaller communities and towns like Holyrood,
Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South River, North River, Roaches
Line and Makinsons who have roads in desperate need of repair and paving; and
WHEREAS
these roads see high-volume traffic flows every day and drivers can expect
potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many washed-out areas along the
way;
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: 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, this matter I have raised numerous times in the House of Assembly.
Today, I first of all wish to say that I'd like to thank the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure; he did acknowledge last week that he did come
to the District of Harbour Main, at my request, and we drove from one end of the
district to the other. He saw first-hand the deplorable and, I can say,
disgusting state of the roads in the District of Harbour Main.
While we
appreciate the fact that he did take the time out of his busy schedule and the
people of the District of Harbour Main recognize that, what we would really
appreciate is if you would do something to fix the problems.
The
roads – two areas in particular: South River and Upper Gullies. Those areas
we've heard from many, many concerned constituents. They're concerned about
safety issues. It's probably the biggest issue that I hear of in the district
from the constituents are the conditions of the road. The people are getting
increasingly frustrated; they're getting angry. They're getting so concerned and
upset about the lack of action.
What I
worry about, Mr. Speaker, is when I hear the government say that they've taken
the politics out of paving. The people of the District of Harbour Main and other
districts in the province need to know that, for example, a request was made and
it was shown that Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Elvis Loveless
increased his spending in his district from $1.5 million to $4.5 million in a
single year. Three hundred per cent increase while we see districts like Harbour
Main get nothing. Not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
I'll just tell the Member
that she's learning too many of her tricks from the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
E. LOVELESS:
But in terms of the value, if
the Member – knowledge or facts are very important as well. The amount of money
that was spent in my district this year was the same amount that was invested in
her district this year – absolutely.
So, in
terms of her concerns – I've travelled this province in every district this
summer, and there are a lot of roads that are comparable to hers and worse than
hers. In terms of her roads, I went there because I was serious about it. I
wasn't playing politics with it, because it was important.
I will
continue to do my job as Transportation Minister. Just to remind everybody in
this hon. House that I have a budget as well and I have live within my means,
and I continue to do that. I'll take her issues under advisement when we develop
the multi-year plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
former mill property and Grand Falls House were taken over by government after
Abitibi left Grand Falls-Windsor.
Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To return the
former mill property, along with Grand Falls House and its property, back to the
Town of Grand Falls-Windsor where it belongs.
We just
talked about a Come Home Year 2022 for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. I
think it's a great idea. Grand Falls-Windsor has so much potential and
opportunity, but there are things that have been holding up for quite some time
now. The mill property is one, and Grand Falls House.
This is
no value to the government at this moment, but it is a huge value – a huge value
– to the residents of Grand Falls-Windsor and Central Newfoundland and Labrador
in general. It doesn't cost anything to do this. We're not asking for any money.
We just want the minister to sit with the council of Grand Falls-Windsor – and
this is part of the petition. I'll ask the minister today if he would sit with
the council of Grand Falls-Windsor in due time over the next month, couple of
months, and acknowledge exactly what they're asking for.
It's
holding up economic development; it's holding up tourism opportunities. The
Premier addresses – and he promised that he would address this, once the
election was over, when he was in campaigning throughout Grand Falls-Windsor.
I'm just
asking the minister – I know that he wants the best for the province as well –
if he would sit with the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor and get this deal done and
return this back to the people where it belongs?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I have
no problem meeting with the town. I understand that the Member has been in
communications with officials in my department over the last several days and
with the town as well. Hopefully, we can come to a resolve at some point, but I
have no problem meeting with the Town of Grand Falls.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
To
continue with the theme of roads: Many roads within the District of Bonavista
need work completed, none worse than Route 232 travelling from Smith Sound from
George's Brook-Milton to Burgoyne's Cove. Residents, school buses, emergency
response vehicles and tourists have to endure a stretch of road that has not
seen pavement resurfacing for decades.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately address the condition of Route 232 and
other tourist attraction sites within the District of Bonavista to ensure the
safety of those travelling over this road and to maximize the economic impact
for the province.
Many
weeks ago, Speaker, I made a request through the local officials for the roads
rubric or the scoring key, as we often refer to as in the English language arts
within the school system, to have a look and see what determines which roads
would be prioritized over other roads. I know that population is one, but my
curiosity was where tourism fits within that roads analysis. Anyway, I
understood that I could not receive that to understand where it is.
I
mention Route 232 – and I say from the start, we've had some paving in our
district along Route 235, that's going down the shoreline, and we've also had it
on 239. In those areas, we have very wonderful tourism attraction sites that are
there that could even piggyback on the work that is existing or, in those small
sections, would make a significant difference to the tourism within the District
of Bonavista. At a risk of naming them, sometimes there can be adjunct that the
work that is done, it might leave out 200 metres of very terrible road that
would prevent people from going down to New Bonaventure, for example, or it may
be even to, we'll say, Tickle Cove where the sea arch would be under the UNESCO
geopark.
My
thinking would be Bonavista sometimes would quadruple its population and, I
would think, probably for four or five months of the year. I would think that if
the tourism piece is used that we would look at that and at least those more
critical spots can be seen too, hopefully, for the Come Home Year in 2022.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Thank
you for the petition. I think what the Member is asking, in terms of planning,
is will we look at the lens of tourism when we do the planning? I can confirm
for you that we definitely will.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
going to, again, present a petition on behalf of the people on the West Coast
concerning the closing of the motor vehicle registration office in Corner Brook.
Speaker,
there's considerable frustration over this. I just can't understand how the
minister can state that it worked well during the pandemic so we're going to
continue on with it.
I've
seen pictures out in Harbour Grace of people standing in a lineup in the rain
waiting to get in; standing up, lining up in the rain.
P. LANE:
Seniors.
E. JOYCE:
Seniors. Can't get into the
building; standing in the rain. That's how we're treating our seniors. It's
almost like in some ways we don't appreciate the seniors who are standing up in
the rain in Harbour Grace, in the minister's district.
Out in
Corner Brook, I had a person who contacted me – and it's sad; it's actually sad.
They were trying to arrange – they had to get an appointment done, if not, they
would have had to get a test, an older person. They were actually arranging
their doctor's appointment around to try to get in on a Wednesday morning so
they wouldn't be left out. It's just sad.
There's
no appreciation for the frustration and the inconvenience that we're giving to
people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There has yet to be a
reasonable reason why this is being done.
P. LANE:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
Spending more money, as my
colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands just said, they're spending more money
on it. It's more aggravation with less service.
I had
someone again last week who can't get through on the computers, the computers
are down – as the minister said they're down at times. The phone lines, you
can't get through on the phone lines, yet we're still allowing this. I'm sure
there are other government Members getting phone calls on this because I'm
getting them from all over the province. I'm getting them from all over the
province.
Why
isn't the government stepping in and saying, okay, we're here to serve the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not cause them hardship and not put them
through extra stress and strain. It is just inconceivable when you got seniors
standing up in Harbour Grace in the pouring rain waiting to get in because you
only got three hours a week to get in there. It is just inconceivable.
Then you
got it in Corner Brook also, where I had to bring chairs down to people to sit
down because they're waiting so long. Then you walk in, you got one line for the
seniors, one line of people who got appointments and you've got another line for
people just sitting over in the corner, hopefully, they're going to get in.
I urge
the government to change this draconian policy to help out the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and stop putting them through this stress.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
I move, seconded by the
Minister for Justice and Public Safety, that under Standing Order 11(1), this
House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 25, 2021.
SPEAKER:
The motion is that this House do not adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, under Orders of the Day, I call from the Order Paper second reading of
Bill 38, An Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member from Mount Pearl North, that Bill 38, An
Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 38, An Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province, now be read a
second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting
Accessibility In The Province” (Bill 38)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, I'm very proud to be here in this hon. House today to discuss a very
important piece of new legislation for Newfoundland and Labrador, An Act
Respecting Accessibility in the Province, referred to as the
Accessibility Act.
As a
government, we are strongly committed to delivering provincial accessibility
legislation to create a more accessible and inclusive province that will apply
to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In fact, my mandate letter from the
Premier clearly states that I and my department will work across government and
with stakeholders to lead the development of provincial accessibility
legislation to help ensure equitable access to services and opportunities for
people with disabilities. Today I am meeting this key commitment.
When we,
as a province, improve accessibility and inclusion, all persons in Newfoundland
and Labrador benefit; this ultimately leads to everyone being able to fully
participate in society. Nearly one in four Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are
disabled by barriers. These barriers can be physical, attitudinal or systemic.
As well we may have an act, a regulation, a policy, a technology that can also
prevent full participation in society.
It is
extremely important to remove barriers, as it helps to make the province more
inclusive and accessible, which benefits everyone. It helps improve a person's
health and well-being when they can fully participate in their community and
communities and businesses benefit from this engagement. Further, the purchasing
power of people with disabilities has been estimated by the Royal Bank of Canada
to be roughly $25 billion nationally; that is an estimate. For Newfoundland that
would approximate to $30 million.
There
are so many people and organizations that I would like to thank for being
engaged in the development of this proposed legislation. Obviously, you run the
risk of leaving someone out when you begin listing groups, but I would be remiss
if I did not acknowledge the important role of the disability community and
specifically the provincial advisory council of persons with disabilities and
the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador. The
commitment, passion and patience of so many in this community to ensure that
this was done right, I believe, have led to the development of very strong piece
of legislation.
So too,
we have appreciated our engagement with the business community. Certainly, over
the last year or more, businesses have and continue to experience challenges due
to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Many businesses have also found opportunities
to reach customers and clients by expanding their products and services with the
use of accessible and different technology features. From offering online
ordering and deliveries to curbside pickup, these additional options have
directly helped to expand their businesses to reach so many more individuals. As
businesses continue to look for ways to expand their reach, they are already
advancing accessibility and inclusion throughout the province.
Let's
all take a moment to ask why. Why are we advancing accessibility now? The answer
is simply it is the right thing to do. Everyone deserves to equally participate
in society without barriers, in a province that prides itself as being more
inclusive and accessible.
The
proposed Accessibility Act is a bill
that will allow government to outline the principles and goals for an accessible
Newfoundland and Labrador. The legislation that I'm presenting today, Speaker,
is enabling legislation. Enabling legislation allows for further development of
associated regulations and policies rather than prescribing specific
requirements in legislation today. It provides a broad focus on areas of
authority that government can act on in the future.
The
purpose of this bill is to improve accessibility by preventing, identifying and
removing barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from full participation
in society.
The
proposed bill would authorize the establishment of accessibility standards to
improve accessibility, and it's a key feature; establish an advisory board to
make recommendations to the minister regarding accessibility standards; require
an individual, organization or public body that is subject to an accessibility
standard to take actions to prevent barriers from being created and to identify
and remove those barriers.
It will
require public bodies to prepare accessibility plans every three years and make
them publicly available, and it will provide inspection and enforcement powers
to enforce the accessibility standards once they are in place.
Speaker,
as a province, this proposed accessibility legislation would allow us to join
five other provinces: British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Ontario and
Quebec, as well as the federal government, in having such legislation focused
specifically on advancing accessibility and inclusion. As well, Saskatchewan is
currently advancing accessibility legislation, with a goal of having it
implemented in 2023.
To get
us to this point today, we partnered with the Provincial Advisory Council for
the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities and the Coalition of Persons with
Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as government's Public
Engagement and Planning Division, to develop and deliver an extension engagement
process.
I am
very proud to report that this engagement process was identified as the most
inclusive and accessible engagement process ever held in this province. It is
now a preferred model for accessible and inclusive community engagement
sessions.
The
process consisted of eight in-person consultation sessions, with two sessions in
each of the following communities: Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, St.
John's and Gander. These consultation sessions consisted of an afternoon session
with key stakeholders, such as the community of and for persons with
disabilities, community organizations, the business and tourism sectors,
municipalities, Indigenous governments and organizations, which were by invite
and an evening session, which were open to the public. As well, there was an
online webinar to help reach even more individuals in more communities.
A
discussion guide was available on engageNL and for my department's Disability
Policy Office for interested individuals and organizations to provide written,
video or other formatted submissions and was available in accessible formats as
required. This discussion guide provided the context for the in-person
consultation sessions and webinar that are previously mentioned. In total, over
219 individuals and organizations participated in the public engagement process.
The
final stage of this engagement process was the accessibility symposium workshop.
This workshop provided key stakeholders with the opportunity to learn what input
information had been received thus far in the process, to discuss the draft
accessibility legislation and to provide an opportunity for additional input.
The
workshop was also designed to explore some of the opportunities and challenges
of creating and implementing accessibility legislation from other jurisdictions.
This included a keynote speaker and panelists with expertise in accessibility
legislation. That speaker and those panelists presented on experiences in their
jurisdictions, national considerations and practices relating to accessibility
legislation.
Throughout the entire engagement process, we heard repeatedly and consistently
from the community of persons with disabilities and key stakeholders that we
need a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach to accessibility legislation,
and we need to get it right. That, Speaker, is exactly what we have done.
This
made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador accessibility legislation specifically takes
into account the province's unique cultures and demographics. The legislation
also embraces the principles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the
Canadian Human Rights Act and the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights
Act.
As well,
the legislation also aligns closely with the mission of the Commonwealth
Parliamentarians with Disabilities network, which encourages Commonwealth
Parliaments, such as ours, to enable effective and full participation of persons
with disabilities at all levels.
To
develop this bill, we built upon our initial provincial consultation process
that sought the perspectives and knowledge of persons with lived experience. We
then continued to engage persons with disabilities and organizations of and for
persons with disabilities, as well as incorporating the advice of the Provincial
Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities to better inform
the development of this legislation.
This
ongoing collaboration and engagement has been vital to development of the
legislation and it supports the philosophy of Nothing About Us Without Us. To
ensure fulsome discussion, we held further consultations within the past year
with the business and tourism sectors, community organizations, the non-profit
sector and Indigenous governments and organizations to help better inform the
approach to this legislation.
It has
been said to me on numerous occasions by the community of and for persons with
disabilities that the passing of this accessibility legislation will be the next
critical step in advancing accessibility and inclusion in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
In this
bill, Speaker, it is important to note that disability is clearly defined to
include physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive and learning disabilities, as
well as communication or sensory impairment. This definition also includes a
functional limitation that is permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, that
interaction with a barrier prevents a person from fully participating in
society.
Speaker,
this enabling legislation will allow this government the ability to establish
standards requiring individuals, private sector organizations and public bodies
to take actions to improve accessibility. Accessibility standards are truly the
building blocks used to make real and measurable changes to the accessibility.
As we
begin to develop provincial accessibility standards, there will continue to be
ongoing engagement with individuals with lived experiences and expertise,
community organizations, the business and tourism sectors, Indigenous
governments and organizations and all other municipalities representing the
interest of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. These standards will establish
clear, specific and achievable goals to remove and prevent barriers.
Each
standard will be introduced in stages with a time frame for implementation. The
standards and timelines will consider all sectors such as government, including
the House of Assembly, to be covered by an amendment to the bill, the business
and tourism sectors, municipalities and community organizations.
A
particular standard may take into account the type of barriers being addressed
and any technical or economic factors that may be involved in its
implementation. This legislation could set monetary penalties for non-compliance
of the standards.
The
standards will focus on nine key areas: the design and delivery of programs and
services; the built environment including facilities, buildings, premises,
public transportation and transportation infrastructure; information and
communication; procurement of goods, services and facilities; accommodations;
education; health; employment; and any activity or undertaking prescribed in the
regulations.
Speaker,
for example, Manitoba enacted its accessibility legislation in December 2013 and
then its first accessibility standard, the Customer Service Standard, in 2015.
The focus of Manitoba's Customer Service Standard was to introduce policies, to
address training and communication with the goal of achieving respectful,
barrier-free customer service in all Manitoba organizations and businesses that
have at least one employee.
For
instance, to meet the standard organizations are required to meet the
communication needs of customers, clients or members, invite customers to
provide feedback and train staff on accessible customer service, including
reasonable accommodations under their province's Human Rights Code, just to name
a few. As well, there were different timelines for organizations to meet the
standard: The Manitoba government had one year to comply; the public sector had
two years to comply; and private, small municipalities and non-profit
organizations had three years to comply.
In
addition, Speaker, this made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador bill outlines that
sign languages are recognized as languages for communications by deaf persons
and this includes American Sign Language and Indigenous sign languages.
The act
also enables the establishment of an Accessibility Standards Advisory Board.
This Advisory Board will be responsible for advising and making recommendations
to me, as minister, respecting: priorities for the establishment and content of
accessibility standards, as well as the time periods for their implementation;
measures, policies, practices and other requirements that may be implemented by
the government to improve accessibility; long-term accessibility objectives for
furthering the purposes of this act; and any other matter relating to
accessibility on which I, as the minister responsible, seek the board's advice.
The
Accessibility Standards Advisory Board, following the premise of Nothing About
Us Without Us, shall consist of a minimum of seven members and a maximum of nine
members, and at least one-half of these members would be persons with a
disability or representative of persons with disabilities and at least one
member shall be an Indigenous person.
To
assist the Accessibility Standards Advisory Board in the development of an
accessibility standard, a standard development committee, which would report to
this board, will be established for each standard. This committee will consist
of at least half of the members being persons with disabilities or organizations
representing them, as well as technical experts, representatives of
organizations and public bodies that may be affected by this standard and
representatives of government departments that have responsibilities related to
the standard.
In
addition to the role related to the creation and oversight of accessibility
standards, Speaker, this bill also outlines the expectations of the duties,
roles and powers of myself, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons
with Disabilities, and these include raising awareness of how barriers impact
persons with disabilities; promoting the prevention, identification and removal
of barriers; and providing information to assist individuals, organizations and
public bodies related to this new legislation and any applicable standards.
To this
end, my department's Disability Policy Office is required, through this
legislation, to support the implementation and administration of the act and the
regulations through such things as providing policy and communication support;
reviewing measures, policies and practices to improve opportunities for persons
with disabilities; and providing administrative support to the accessibility
standards advisory board.
We
recognize that public awareness is an important part of making the province
accessible and inclusive for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; therefore,
increasing the awareness of this accessibility legislation throughout the
province will be critical. As standards are introduced and regulations become
law, education, tools and other resources will be provided to organizations to
help them understand and comply with the accessibility regulations.
The bill
also outlines that public bodies, individually or two or more together, will
prepare an accessibility plan within two years and then every three years
thereafter. An accessibility plan will include the measures taken and/or
measures intended to be taken to remove barriers and procedures to assess if the
measures are working. These plans will be developed in consultation with persons
with disabilities and representatives of and for persons with disabilities.
The
proposed accessibility legislation will give me, as minister, the authority to
appoint a director of compliance and enforcement. The director of compliance and
enforcement will have the authority to issue orders related to non-compliance
and there will be an appeal process; however, as is the approach in all other
provinces with accessibility legislation, compliance and enforcement are and
will be a last resort. We are looking at awareness and education first and
foremost as the key priority for this legislation. Next would be detection, then
correction and finally sanction.
The
legislation also outlines accountability mechanisms which include: I, as the
minister responsible, must prepare and publicly release an annual report to
describe the actions taken within each year; the Accessibility Standards
Advisory Board must also prepare an annual report and make it publicly
available; an accessibility standard, once in place, will be reviewed at a
minimum every five years; and, finally, there will be a statutory review of the
effectiveness of the legislation every five years after the bill comes into
force.
To
conclude, Speaker, I would like to highlight that every December 3 we come
together to join persons with disabilities around the world in celebration of
the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. The annual observance of
this day was proclaimed in 1992 by the United Nations.
The
observance of this day aims to promote an understanding of disability issues and
to mobilize support for the dignity, rights and well-being of persons with
disabilities. It is my goal – and I hope the goal of this hon. House – that the
made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador accessibility legislation be proclaimed on
December 3 to help further advance and ensure the accessibility inclusion of all
persons throughout the province.
Speaker,
before I conclude, I went through sort of a detailed explanation and description
of the consultation process for this bill. I think it speaks to the recognition
by my department and the government that that was, and continues to be,
essential if we are to be successful. Nothing About Us Without Us is an
operating premise of our Disability Policy Office and certainly of this
legislation.
We
continue to consult and will consult with them. The legislation speaks to the
important role that the persons with disabilities and their representatives will
play in each stage of the implementation of this legislation. Whether it's in
the design and delivery of the accessibility advisory board, the standards
development committee, the development of those standards and the consultations.
So it is fully embedded throughout. I think that will make sure that this will
be successful on an ongoing basis.
With
that, Speaker, I will conclude.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
pleased to lead the debate on behalf of the Official Opposition on Bill 38, An
Act Respecting Accessibility in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
purpose of the Accessibility Act is to
lay out in section 3 of the bill – this is how that section of the bill reads in
its entirety: Section 3(1) “The purpose of this Act is to improve accessibility
by preventing, identifying and removing barriers that prevent persons with
disabilities from fully participating in society with respect to (a) the design
and delivery of program and services; (b) built environment; (c) information and
communication; (d) the procurement of goods, services and facilities; (e)
accommodations; (f) education; (g) health; (h) employment; and (i) an activity
or undertaking prescribed in the regulations.
“(2)
Communication referred to in paragraph (1)(c) includes the use of American Sign
Language and Indigenous sign languages.
“(3)
Sign languages are recognized as languages for communication by deaf persons in
the province including, without limitation, American Sign Language and
Indigenous sign languages.”
The term
“built environment” is defined like this: “'built environment' includes (i)
facilities, buildings, structures and premises; and (ii) public transportation
and transportation infrastructure.”
The word
“barrier” is defined like this: “ …'barrier' means anything that prevents a
person with a disability from fully participating in society, including (i) a
physical barrier, (ii) an architectural barrier, (iii) an information or
communications barrier, (iv) an attitudinal barrier, (v) a technological
barrier, or (vi) a barrier established or perpetuated by an Act, regulations, a
policy or practice.”
The term
“disability” is very broadly defined. Here is how the definition reads in the
bill: “…'disability' includes a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive,
learning, communication or sensory impairment or a functional limitation that is
permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, that, in interaction with a barrier,
prevents a person from fully participating in society.”
So, as
we can see, the scope of this bill is extremely broad and far reaching, and if
we had any doubt about how broad that scope is, we need only to refer to the
document provided by the department at the briefing. The document states: Nearly
one in four Newfoundlanders and Labradorians report their everyday activities
are limited due to a disability.
We are
potentially talking about a quarter of the population – more than 125,000 people
facing barriers that this act is determined to remove. When we see signs for
designating parking or seating or other facilities for persons with
disabilities, we are used to seeing the symbol for a wheelchair. This bill is
certainly for those who face mobility challenges, but more than that, it covers
those who face vision challenges and hearing challenges. It covers disabilities
that may be hidden or temporary. It covers barriers that include the way people
are treated.
This
bill is about changing, not only the physical realities around us but also our
attitudes. We all need to appreciate that the person beside us may be a person
struggling with a disability that we need to be mindful of.
We need
to empathize and care enough to recognize the barriers they face. We need to
care enough that we become part of the movement for change. Progress will happen
more quickly as more and more of us come on board. It's going to be a learning
process that we need to pay careful attention to. We need to let people tell us
their stories and describe the changes that will help them participate more
fully in our society.
The
stories are going to vary. The barrier faced by one individual may be completely
different from the barrier faced by another. The bill is designed to be an
umbrella bill for all sorts of disabilities.
On the
website of Johns Hopkins University is a lengthy list of types of disabilities.
It's not comprehensive but it gives a good idea of the broad range of
disabilities that people may have to deal with.
There
are speech and language disabilities, perhaps they result from hearing loss,
cerebral palsy, learning disabilities or physical conditions. It could include
stuttering or stammering or the complete loss of voice. There are psychiatric
disabilities. These include a wide range of behavioural and psychological
problems characterized by anxiety, mood swings, depression or a compromised
assessment of reality.
Our
attitudes towards mental health have been changing in recent years, but we still
have a long way to go.
There
are physical disabilities. These may result from congenital conditions,
accidents or progressive neuromuscular disease. They may include conditions such
as spinal cord injury, such as a paraplegic or a quadriplegic; cerebral palsy;
spina bifida; the loss of a limb; muscular dystrophy; cardiac conditions; cystic
fibrosis; paralysis; polio or post-polio; and stroke.
There
are medical disabilities. These include respiratory, immunological, neurological
and circulatory systems. Examples include: cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome,
epilepsy seizure disorder, fibromyalgia, lupus, multiple sclerosis, chemical
dependency, diabetes, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV and AIDS, multiple chemical
sensitivity and renal disease.
The list
also includes learning disabilities. These are neurologically based. They may
interfere with the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing,
reasoning or mathematical skills. The list includes those who are deaf or hard
of hearing. They may require different accommodations depending on several
factors, including: the degree of hearing loss, the age of onset and the type of
language or communication system they use. They may use a variety of
communication methods, including: lip-reading, cued speech, Signed English,
American Sign Language or an Indigenous sign language.
The list
also includes brain injuries. This may include, in many ways, traumatic brain
injury, typically resulting from accidents; however, insufficient oxygen,
stroke, poisoning or infection may also cause the brain injury. Brain injury is
one of the fastest growing types of disabilities, especially in the age range of
15 to 28 years. Brain injury can cause physical, cognitive, behavioural or
personality changes that affect someone in the short term or permanently. The
list also includes blindness or low vision. Some people are totally blind,
others are legally blind and others have a severe vision loss in distance or
near vision.
Other
disabilities include attention deficit disorder and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, also known as ADD and ADHD. These are neurological
conditions affecting both learning and behaviour. They result from chronic
disturbances in the areas of the brain that regulate attention, impulse control
and the executive functions which control cognitive tasks, motor activity and
social interactions.
This is
a long list of disabilities and the scope of the bill is broad enough to
encompass all of them. So, as we can imagine, if we, as a province, are to
remove the wide range of barriers faced by people with such a broad range of
disabilities the implications will be enormous. It's going to be a step-by-step
process and one of the most important steps in the process is going to have to
be education. We need to learn about the kinds of barriers that people face, not
just so we know but, more importantly, so we act, because once we find out that
a barrier exists we need to own the responsibility for removing it. Think
globally, act locally; make a difference close to home.
A great
deal of work has already been done thanks in large part to the organizations and
activists who have made progress with their purpose in life. It is time now to
build on their work and take the next steps to real change happening. According
to the department in their briefing, this bill establishes an accessibility
standard. The standard is intended to move us step by step progressively towards
full inclusion. The standard will consist of building blocks that will make
real, measureable changes to the accessibility around the province.
The
standard will establish clear, specific and achievable goals to identify,
prevent and remove barriers. The standard will be introduced in stages with time
frames for implementation at these various stages. These time frames will
consider the circumstances of all sectors of our society, government,
individuals, business, municipalities and community organizations. The standard
will be developed by people whose knowledge of these matters is the broadest and
the deepest. There will be an Accessibility Standards Advisory Board, there will
be a standard development committee and these will work with the Disability
Policy Office.
Everyone
will be working together on solutions that move our province forward. We can
learn from the jurisdictions that have already passed laws on this. Five
provinces and the federal government have implemented accessibility legislation:
Quebec in 2004, Ontario in 2005, Manitoba in 2014, Nova Scotia in 2017, Ottawa
2017 and British Columbia in 2021.
One
example of a standard already adopted under such a piece of legislation is
Manitoba's. They have developed a Customer Service Standard. To meet that
standard, organizations must meet the communication needs of the customer,
clients or members; allow assistive devices such as wheelchairs, walkers and
oxygen tanks; welcome support people who are there to assist; welcome people
with service animals; ensure accessibility is maintained as intended through the
use of ramps, wide aisles and the removal of clutter; let customers know when
accessible features and services are not available; invite customers to provide
feedback; train staff on accessible customer service, including reasonable
accommodations, under the Human Rights Code; make public events accessible when
they are hosted by large public sector organizations; and require that all
public sector organizations and private sector organizations with more than 50
employees must document their customer service policy and provide notice that it
is available upon request.
So, as
we can see, a standard will make a real difference. It's more than just good
intentions. The legislation means that it will require accountability. This
legislation will have teeth. The bill provides for inspectors to check on
compliance and enforcement. The government will have the power to appoint a
director of compliance and enforcement who will monitor all complaints of
non-compliance, prepare an annual summary of complaints and outcomes, delegate
powers and duties to inspectors, issue remedial orders and enforce
administrative penalties.
The bill
prescribes penalties that range from a fine of up to $1,000 where the person is
an individual, and up to $25,000 where the person is an organization or public
body. The bill also provides for incentive-based measures to encourage and
assist an individual, an organization or a public body, or a class of
individuals, organizations or public bodies to meet or exceed an accessible
standard. That's an interesting feature of the bill described in the
regulations.
Public
bodies will also have to produce accessibility plans. The first within two
years, and then every three years thereafter. The bill also provides for the
legislation itself to be reviewed and updated from time to time to make sure
it's working as it should.
So here
we are today at the beginning stages. We're not entirely sure what to expect; we
have only a general idea of how this will work. We can look at the standards of
other provinces and imagine that ours may be similar. We can look at their
experience to learn from their best practices and avoid any pitfalls they may
have encountered.
We
expect the government to keep the public fully informed at every stage of
implementation so people know what will be expected of them. This is
particularly important when we think of organizations and businesses that will
have to invest in measures within certain time frames in order to meet the
standards. They need to be fully informed well in advance so they have the time
and resources to comply.
The
thing we really like about this legislation is the way it was created. It was
created after significant consultations including the publication of Nothing
About Us Without Us and consultations with the Provincial Advisory Council for
the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, the business sector and Indigenous
governments and groups.
This is
an initiative driven by people with passion for full inclusion and full
participation of persons with disabilities in our society. Those are the heroes
of this initiative. This will be part of their lifelong legacy. We owe them our
gratitude for their dedication and tenacity. They are the ones who will ensure
this initiative works. They are the ones who will hold our feet to the fire, no
matter which administration is in office. We note that this is also a
nation-wide and worldwide movement toward inclusion.
In 2010,
Canada joined the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. The convention protects and promotes the rights and dignity of
persons with disabilities without discrimination and on an equal basis with
others.
In 2018,
Canada also joined the Optional Protocol to the Convention. The Optional
Protocol allows individuals and organizations to make a complaint to the UN if
they believe their rights under the convention have been violated.
In 2019,
Ottawa also passed the Accessible Canada
Act known as an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. We expect our province
to be a leader in removing the barriers facing persons with disabilities.
As the
Official Opposition, we intend to be among those who hold the government's feet
to the fire. This has to be more than good intentions or long-term goals. Let's
bring everyone in the province on board and allow the public to be part of this
movement for change.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
just spend a few minutes on it. I just want to congratulate the minister and the
staff in the department and everybody who participated in presenting this bill
here today. It's something that's overdue and, as the minister stated, it's an
enabling legislation that allows the groundwork to actually get the legislation
put in place and have regulations put in place to put down the barriers across
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I just
want to recognize the hard work of the minister, all the advisory groups, all
the people who participated and the staff itself. It's a great step to get
things working in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for people with
disabilities and other issues.
I
noticed that the minister mentioned that the consultation was very extensive and
that is very important to have extensive consultation.
I can go
back a long while to when I was involved with the disability community. I
remember this guy with the Canadian Paraplegic Association, Mr. Sean Fitzgerald.
Sean was involved with it for a number of years. Newfoundland and Labrador, at
the time, when we were involved – I remember going to national meetings in
Vancouver at the time. The point that we pushed when we got in there, at the
time, and we pushed it back in the province and it moved ahead a fair bit, was
to have people with the Canadian Paraplegic Association and other disabilities
to get involved. That was so important. I go way back in the '90s when they used
to have the accessibility awareness day in the province.
I'm
going to tell a little story now about awareness. It was Premier Clyde Wells. I
remember we arranged it, going into the building, the Sir Richard Squires
building, we asked the premier to sit in the wheelchair and get up to the 10th
floor. He couldn't do it. So then the awareness of the premier of the province
started the acknowledgement by the government, at the time, that we need new
accessibility regulations put in place and remove barriers and have the
elevators with the sound.
I'll say
to the minister, this here today takes it to a higher level and I just wanted to
recognize that.
When you
look across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and all across Canada, the
awareness is lacking and a lot of times it's the buy-in of some of the
regulations that you put into it. The slogan Nothing About Us Without Us is a
great slogan because it's so true. Many times things are done without
consultation, then you have to go back and try to change it or people aren't
really aware of the issues.
Another
good story I always liked talking about was when people came back – this is how
the Canadian Paraplegic Association was started – war vets coming back from the
Second World War. At the time, the owners of the Toronto Maple Leafs went and
said, okay, we have a duty here. So that's where all the wheelchairs were
stored. I remember the sidewalks, cutting down the sidewalks so people can get
by. They used to bring down the politicians in downtown Toronto and say, okay,
get across the street. They couldn't.
This is
the awareness that started back in the '40s. This was a physical disability, of
course, with war veterans coming back. Since then, there are a lot more issues
that have arisen that wouldn't encompass physical disabilities and sometimes
intellectual abilities that we need to be challenged with also.
I will
be supporting this. I will be looking forward to having input on some of the
regulations that will be coming out on this. It's always great to have the
advisory boards, the people who have the first-hand knowledge and the best way.
I notice
the minister mentioned it earlier – and this is for the businesses around the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – I remember meeting Rick Hansen several
times on this also. This is something which has a lot of power in money. A lot
of people with disabilities these days, they travel a lot. They look for places
where they have accessibility, especially in tourism, especially in other
initiatives, especially in sporting events. They look for it.
So not
only will it help the business community, it will also enhance the tourism in
the area and help the people in this province who can get out more to spend
money; help the economy a lot. It is a business initiative also, along with the
initiative of helping people with disabilities.
I just
want to say that this is a great enabling piece of legislation. I'm hoping that
it's going to be done by December – December 3 I think the minister mentioned.
That would be a great day because I remember always recognizing those days.
The
minister mentioned back in the United Nations when they passed that piece of
legislation, when they described that day as the International Day of Persons
with Disabilities. I remember that well also.
I just
want to give full support to the minister and the government for this, and I
look forward to the regulations of it. This is a great first step for all of us
to move ahead, will help a lot of people in the province, our own family at
times, our own neighbours at times and a lot of people that come in contact
with.
I will
be supporting this and I will be urging everybody in this House – which I know
they will. I think everybody in this House will be supporting this bill. The big
part about it is that the people who are mostly affected will be the driving
forces behind this.
Congratulations to the minister, the staff, the people on the committees and all
the people who gave input for this to bring in this piece of legislation.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I, too,
am very proud to be able to support this legislation. I think people in every
single district in this province would support this legislation. It's a very
important piece of legislation. As my colleague in the House has already said,
what's really important about this is the input that the organizations, the
advisory councils and everyone have had into this particular piece and how it
will work in the future.
For the
people of my district, this is a long time coming. They are looking forward to
the implementation of this piece of legislation. Because one of the most
inaccessible buildings in my district is the Government Service Centre. I was
really interested in some of the minister's words when he talked about equitable
access, a key commitment being met, the right thing to do and enabling
legislation.
Again,
I'd simply say that the first place that we're going to have to start here is
with the government-owned assets, because for too long people in my district
have not had access to a public courthouse. People with disabilities have not
been able to access the courthouse in Stephenville. People with disabilities
have not been able to go to the Government Service Centre.
More
than six years ago, this particular building was promised to be replaced and it
still has not been replaced. To make matters worse, there was a rumour – and I
hope it is only a rumour – that government were going to spend a million dollars
to repair the roof on this particular building. Again, what a total waste of
money if that is the case.
We've
had similar situations in my district already, where buildings that have been
left over from the days of the American Air Force base have been remodelled or
tried to be remodelled. The Bay St. George Medical Clinic, another one, while it
has a wheelchair accessibility ramp on the back of the building, government has
spent more than $1 million on putting siding on this building, while inside the
building staff continue to complain about poor ventilation and many, many
issues.
So
again, I think this piece of legislation is fantastic. I think we support it.
But again, I want to make sure that government lives up to its commitment, that
it meets its key commitment and that it actually starts now to look at its own
assets and how can we move those forward so that we can eliminate public
buildings from being inaccessible. That, to me, is the key that we have to start
with first. Government has to take care of its own challenges first and then
work with the business community and others to make sure that they meet their
requirements.
I'll
have a few more questions to ask when we get to Committee stage.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, I am quite pleased today to speak to Bill 38, An Act Respecting
Accessibility in the Province. This new piece of legislation is a commitment by
the current Liberal government. We now join five other provinces and the federal
government with developing accessibility legislation.
What I
like about this, Speaker, this legislation will reach across a wide spectrum of
individuals and organizations. The establishment of an accessibility standards
board to make recommendations and provide consistency in standards is a great
move as well.
It
recognizes American Sign Language and Indigenous sign language as languages of
communication. There are soft compliance and enforcement measures, which is very
important. There will be an evaluation of the act every five years and that is
key as well, Speaker, because it is important that we continue to evaluate any
bills or legislation of this type – when you're dealing with persons with
disabilities.
There
had been extensive consultation with the disability community, and that's key.
They certainly spoke loud and clear, and their concerns and what they expressed
in those consultations were part of the legislation.
Speaker,
the private sector, as well, is very supportive of this legislation. Despite the
fact that some businesses may have to do some renovating, they still very much
support this legislation.
Speaker,
a bill such as this will help people with disabilities and will help everyone as
well. It brings about an increased quality of life, creates independence and
improves social integration. It leads to better health and the opportunity for
independent living within communities – very important. In an accessible
environment, people can care for themselves and live independently. Wouldn't
that be great, Speaker, to be able to do that?
Accessible environment and service delivery such as public library services and
so on allow people with disabilities to move around independently and access
services – very important. This, in turn, will allow people to leave their
homes, which will prevent social isolation, which is very much part of the daily
issues that people with disabilities have. I know people that have disabilities
that sometimes don't get an opportunity to leave their homes. This legislation
will help people get out.
Speaker,
under this legislation, issues in relation to transportation will be addressed
and will enable and hopefully help bring day-to-day service to people to enable
them to visit friends, enable them to get to appointments and so on.
Accessibility legislation, Speaker, in the area of employment and recruitment
will be beneficial; cultural and sports activities will allow people with
accessibilities to spend time with family and friends at such events.
Speaker,
accessibility in Newfoundland and Labrador is about creating workplaces and
services so that our residents can fully become involved and participate in a
society without barriers.
In a
2017 study, six million Canadians aged 15 and over identify as having a
disability. That's 22 per cent of the population. This bill will address 59 per
cent of Canadians ages 25 to 64 with disabilities are employed compared to 80
per cent of Canadians without disabilities.
The
Government of Newfoundland is building on the advocacy of stakeholders to
promote the rights of persons with disabilities and to build on inclusion and
accessibility.
The
legislation will benefit everyone in this great province, especially those with
disabilities by working towards a barrier-free Newfoundland and Labrador and
working through creating standards crossing all sectors.
This act
will interact with all our residents and bring changes and visibility to
accessibility in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Speaker,
I am totally in favour of Bill 38.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Warr):
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Certainly, this is something I, personally, and the Third Party, will support,
especially when you look at the purpose of the legislation is to improve
accessibility as a necessity for full inclusion of persons with disabilities.
The benefits, obviously, are far-reaching if inclusion means participation in
the economy, day-to-day life, so on and so forth.
Establishing an Accessibility Standards Advisory Board: In many ways, that's
about making sure that measures are ongoing; it's not a one-off, but there's
consistent opportunity here to improve.
I
particularly like – in terms of the next one – requiring public bodies to
prepare accessibility plans and provide inspection and enforcement powers. This
is coming at a particularly important moment, especially in light of the Supreme
Court of Canada ruling with regard to snow clearing regulations, policy versus
operations, in which, basically, it has allowed citizens to sue cities for a
lack of snow clearing.
Now, you
don't have to go far in St. John's to find – and I speak here of St. John's; I'm
assuming for other areas, as well, it's going to be a similar issue and maybe
even for smaller municipalities. But I'm assuming here that this legislation
also will have implications for cities and snow clearing, when all you have to
listen to – look at the Facebook group of citizens of winter-unfriendly St.
John's. It's very clear that in the winter anyone who has a physical disability,
who's in a wheelchair, is going to have a tremendously difficult time to get
around. They're basically forced, if they have to, to use public transportation,
but the option for them to walk safely is not there.
As it
was said by, I think, one of the candidates in the recent municipal election,
she purchased a guide dog. A guide dog is trained to keep you out of the lanes
of moving traffic; not help you join them. For many pedestrians – and
pedestrians, whether they're disabled or not, but certainly people who have
physical disabilities – that is a significant barrier to them in participating
just in ordinary pleasures in life. Even just to go out for a walk and enjoy the
fresh air.
I note
that in this act in Part I, Interpretation and Purpose, it talks about a
physical barrier as well as architectural barrier. I would suggest that icy
sidewalks and snowbanks are physical barriers.
Public
transportation and transportation infrastructure, again, for the driver, a road
that's a little bit bumpy, a little bit ice clogged is not a major impediment.
For the person who is walking, especially the person who may be using a
wheelchair or a walker, it's almost insurmountable.
I notice
also that in here, I'm assuming – and certainly as the debate goes on, maybe the
minister could certainly clarify this – it also refers to a municipality under
the Municipalities Act. I'm assuming
here that they will have to come up with some sort of an accessibility plan to
deal with snow clearing, especially in the wintertime.
It says
here “The purpose of this Act is to improve accessibility by preventing,
identifying and removing barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from
fully participating in society with respect to (a) the design and delivery of
programs and services ….” Again, snow clearing is a service. It's something that
we do. We certainly have a blacktop policy, I would say in most municipalities,
where we will scrape snow and salt the roads down to the asphalt itself.
But
until recently no such policy for sidewalks really existed. I would suggest that
that's a core duty of any municipality and indeed when it comes to our highways
as well. Certainly, when it comes to this even when sidewalks that are now
cleared are still not, what I would call, accessible to people who aren't able
to walk without help.
I notice
that in this “An accessibility standard may (a) specify the individuals,
organizations or public bodies that are subject to the standard (b) set out
measures, policies, practices and other requirements for (i) preventing barriers
from being established, and (ii) identifying and removing barriers ….”
So I
have tremendous hope for this bill that it's going to have some significant
implications, positive implications for pedestrians who choose to walk or who
have no choice but to walk, and for those pedestrians who have no other means
but to walk.
For the
most part, I can drive in here. I have a short distance to walk to get to the
door. People who use public transportation don't always have that luxury.
Sometimes the distance between the bus stop and where they're going is
significantly longer than the walk that I would go through here. I would argue
that if you look at the sidewalks here around the Confederation Building, they
are salted and they are cleared, for the most part. You do not have to compete
with traffic going through the parking lot.
So I
think in many ways the cities – municipalities – and, indeed, any
government-owned roadways should be kept up to the same standard. To me, it's
not just about failing to install a ramp or the proper slope or anything like
that, but it's about the other barriers that come because of our environment.
I do
commend the minister. A few weeks ago we visited the house on Froude Avenue. To
me, it's what an accessible design should be. From the get-go, a person can walk
into that, even if they have no mobility issues, they can age into that. I look
at the father and daughter who are there and they are absolutely thrilled. It's
significantly much more difficult to retrofit an older home, but I've got to
commend the investment – and I would assume this goes back a few years, but the
investment in this and the forethought is significant, and I do applaud that
construction. I hope that we'll see more of those. Not only is it accessible,
but it's bright, it's spacious and it's a great family home.
Still,
around Froude Avenue, you're going to have to make sure that roadways are clear.
Just a little bit out from Froude Avenue you have Cashin Avenue, which is a
major thoroughfare. For a person, again, in a wheelchair, if they've got to
share the road with cars, God help them. Because many drivers do not slow down.
And that's a reality. We're in a rush to get everywhere and we're not paying
attention to what's on the road next to us.
The only
other point – and I'll move away from snow clearing – has to with accessibility
when it comes to motor vehicle registration. I pass this on right now. We might
think that going online increases accessibility, but not always the case because
there are those who do not have emails, that do not use the Internet, that
depend on other people. Whatever the reason is, that in and of itself, going
virtual is not the total answer. It's part of the answer but there's got to be
some other way of allowing people to access the services that they need.
For my
wife and I, it's not much of an issue. We're reasonably technical savvy until,
of course, I run up against my granddaughters and I realize that they're a lot
more technical savvy than I am – and they're only four and three.
I think,
when we're looking at this, we've got to look at it from the point of view that
just because I have an ease with using technology, not everyone does. Some of us
can rewrite the program on a computer. Others are lucky if we can access the
various functions on emails.
So the
final comments I'll make – two things here. I'm hoping to hear that this act
does have implications for cities to draft accessibility guidelines when it
comes to snow clearing in the wintertime so that people who choose to get out in
the wintertime or who like going outdoors are not restricted to the summertime
activities, that they also have that opportunity, who also depend on sidewalks
to get to work, buy their groceries and so on and so forth. Also, if we could
look at our own government departments for that, and I'm thinking there are a
lot of provincial roadways, too, that might need areas cleared for pedestrians
and accessibility.
Also,
when it comes to our Service NL, Digital Government, that digital is not
necessarily synonymous with inclusivity and accessibility.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia - St. Mary's.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
today we are debating Bill 38, An Act Respecting Accessibility in the Province.
This bill has been a long time coming. I personally believe that bringing this
bill into law will lay the foundation for accessibility in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Yes, we have made amendments to other pieces of legislation to make
accessibility equitable but we are now building up.
When you
openly talk about a barrier you identify it, prevent it and remove it. The
equity then evolves. It's somewhat unfortunate that we have to go to these
lengths. But having said that, we do this every day, especially with legislation
like the Highway Traffic Act,
for example; we identify an issue and we work to resolve it. This bill
requires individuals, public bodies and every one of us to abide by an
accessibility standard.
This
bill also provides inspection and enforcement powers to enforce accessibility
standards. You may ask: What are these barriers that warrant this legislation?
There are multiple barriers, Speaker. Attitudinal barriers and behaviours,
perceptions and assumptions that discriminate against persons with disabilities.
These barriers often emerge from a lack of understanding which can lead people
to ignore, to judge or even have misconceptions about a person with a
disability.
Hallways
and doorways that are too narrow for a person using a wheelchair, electric
scooter or a walker; counters that are too high for a person of short stature;
poor lighting for persons with low vision; doorknobs that are difficult for
persons with arthritis to grasp; parking spaces that are too narrow for a driver
who uses a wheelchair; loud spaces for individuals with autism – these are just
some examples of the barriers to inclusion.
Our goal
is that organizations will remove or prevent physical barriers and, thus, make
community more welcoming to people with and without disabilities. For instance,
stair-free access, wide paths and automatic doors are often useful to families
with small children and seniors.
This
legislation has very clear expectations of the duties, the roles and the powers:
to raise awareness of how barriers impact persons with disabilities; oversee the
development and implementation of accessibility standards necessary to obtain
the purpose of the act; provide information to assist individuals, organizations
and public bodies to integrate applicable accessibility standards into
activities and undertakings; and ensure that individuals, organizations and
public bodies that may be made subject to accessibility standards are consulted
in the development of accessibility standards.
Speaker,
when one thinks of accessibility, they often think of physical accessibility.
But, as I mentioned here, there are many forms of accessibility. Another example
is accessibility and the use of computers. We are moving towards a digitally
accessible work for efficiency to allow more people to have quicker access.
There are many types of accessibility aids needed for computer use: visual
impairments, at least 1.5 million blind and visually-impaired Americans use
computers; hearing loss and impairments; audio enhancers; speech impairments –
my own son is non-verbal and at times he uses his iPad to communicate through a
program called Proloquo2Go – motor impairments; and cognitive impairments. Many
individuals use accessible programs and apps to access the digital world.
Speaker,
this legislation will be the second provincial accessibility legislation to
recognize American Sign Language and Indigenous sign language as languages for
communication by deaf persons. Amendments to the designated mobility impaired
parking regulations under the Highway
Traffic Act related to illegally parking in a blue zone did come into force
in January of 2018. On that day, there was an increase in the minimum fines for
illegally parking in a blue-zone parking space anywhere in the province from
$100 to $400 and the maximum fine is now $700. So our government has made
amendments to the Buildings Accessibility
Act.
Speaker,
I was quoted at that time saying, “Improving accessibility is a key component of
our government's commitment to ensuring inclusion and equity for all. Illegal
parking in blue zone spaces makes it more difficult for people with mobility
impairments to fully participate in their community. Increasing fines is an
effective means of deterring these offences, as shown when the City of St.
John's did so within their jurisdiction in 2012.”
We are
now putting a standard in place; we will work together in all sectors of society
to make our community accessible to all.
Speaker,
just prior to entering politics I worked as a community inclusion coordinator
and the executive director for the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for
Community Living. Community Living is an organization committed to a future of
inclusive communities. As an employee of the organization and alongside
volunteers and staff, we battled barriers to inclusion, especially inclusive
education, day in, day out. I saw individuals face accessibility barriers
non-stop. It was discouraging at times but this legislation today is a result of
that consultation being done with the community that represents persons with
disabilities and key stakeholders. Speaker, I am proud that our government
understands Nothing About Us Without Us.
I cannot
talk about this legislation without mentioning my late friend, Brenda Power.
Brenda was an individual who was a wheelchair user, but she never let that slow
her down. She was a powerhouse and a friend of mine. Brenda went everywhere with
us in the late '80s, from George Street Festival to the Top Hat, and she would
proudly be directing me today on accessibility and very supportive of this
legislation. My personal awareness of what accessibility really meant and the
tools needed to make our world accessible started with Brenda.
Speaker,
as I mentioned, there has been extensive consultations with regard to this piece
of legislation, especially with the disability community. Those in the private
sector are supportive of the legislation, despite the fact that many businesses
will have to make changes in order to remove barriers and become accessible.
Here we
are today with what I believe is truly the foundation to accessibility in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you to my friends, past colleagues and all
those individuals that gave our government advice and guided us with this piece
of legislation.
Speaker,
I strongly support Bill 38, An Act Respecting Accessibility in the Province.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
support the bill. I think it's very important for us to look at what the purpose
of this act is. It's actually outlined in section 3(1). It says: “The purpose of
this Act is to improve accessibility by preventing, identifying and removing
barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from fully participating in
society …” and it goes on to list what it's respective to.
I think
first off we need to ask the question: Why do we need to improve accessibility?
It's 2021, we have a lot of infrastructure, we have a lot of resources and we
live in a province in a modern country. So why do we need to improve
accessibility? How can it be that there are people out there that actually have
barriers to accessibility that the rest of the population takes for granted?
I've
listened to people advocate on their behalf to try and identify, and really a
lot of the times what's important is not only about the barriers to
accessibility, but who's greatly impacted, for whom is this bill intended to
help? As a self-identified able-bodied person, I think this bill actually
improves the quality of life for, not only people who face barriers but for
everybody. Because when we help people overcome barriers, we're also helping
ourselves and that's very, very important.
When you
answer the question: Why do we need to improve accessibility and for whom? When
we have those answers, we do understand the importance of this bill. That's why
we all need to support this bill.
It's
about equal access for everyone. It's about fairness. I totally applaud the
intent of this bill.
Also, I
applaud the broad view taken in identifying what are barriers? Identifying
barriers, it's not just pigeonholing the definition. We need to be able to
identify the disabilities first and then we need to be able to identify the
barriers that actually impede people who suffer with disabilities.
That's
why it's important to me. I believe that with improved accessibility comes
improved quality of life such as access to being able to get a job and to be
able now to keep a job. A lot of times people who actually are burdened with
some disabilities, the barrier to accessibility will actually prevent them from
being able to maintain and keep a job.
Something as simple as being able to get on public transportation; being able to
navigate within the work-office environment. It's about quality of life.
It's
about the ability to be independent and also when we remove the barriers that
people face to accessibility we also improve, not only their quality of life but
their self-esteem, their mental and emotional health is improved. You just have
to ask a person who is suffering with a disability this winter when they're
going to trying to navigate the streets, a lot of times be at risk of being hit
by a vehicles, being injured, being killed.
I've
been to a couple of the protests where basically that was the gist of the
protest. It's protesting the inaccessibility of being able to walk on the street
in the middle of the winter without fearing for your life. We know of people who
have actually died.
This
bill is very, very important, not only to people who face barriers but for the
general population. It's about quality of life and it's about improving access.
A lot of
times it's very important for us to recognize within ourselves, even within this
House of Assembly that we don't recognize a lot of the barriers out there. If we
don't recognize the barriers, basically, there are gaps that will be created.
It's
very important for us to identify that a lot of the decision-makers, a lot of
the influencers don't recognize barriers. That has to change. I say that we need
to be able to recognize that everybody has to work together.
One of
the biggest things that I think we need to do is we need to listen to people who
are the advocates for removing barriers. Because, a lot of times, people fall
between the cracks that are created when there's a failure to actually ensure
equal access. Barriers put people at risk of injury, at risk of losing their
jobs, at risk of suffering emotional and mental health issues and we learn now,
in 2021, that it's all interconnected.
But most
importantly, if I say one thing in this House of Assembly today, is that we need
to be more respectful and we need to listen to people out there that are
advocating on behalf of others. We need to ensure that their voice is heard. And
it's shameful, in 2021, a lot of times those advocates, their voice is silenced,
their voice is discredited and their voice isn't given the weight that it
deserves. So it's very, very important for us to actually be able to do that.
I've
listened to a lot of people who advocate. People like Joanne McDonald; she's
been an advocate for people facing disabilities for many years now. It's
important for us to understand that.
I'm not
going to go on; I'm not going to dwell on the facts, but I think it's very, very
important for us to recognize that. Also, I want to say here that I do support
this bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
great honour to follow up my colleague from Torngat Mountains today and speak
about this bill. I'm going to start off with a tribute to Rosalie Belbin, who
many of us know. She's become a good friend to many people in this House and –
AN HON. MEMBER:
I saw the pumpkin.
P. TRIMPER:
Yeah, you saw the pumpkin.
It's a
three-day drive from Lake Melville to this House of Assembly, but I've made it a
great routine of being able to stop in and see Rosalie on my trips. That is one
of the best ways to pick up your day, I can tell you.
She
follows – and I bet she's watching now; I have to send her a message. She'll
probably send me and most of us in this room a text. Sometimes I get a little
jealous when I see just how much attention she has. Whether it be the
bobble-head from the former Member for Windsor Lake, the former leader of the
Official Opposition, or the photo of the former Speaker – I see him over there
from St. George's - Humber, and so many others. There's a little shrine there.
Anyway,
Rosalie is one of those people who has so much to offer and it's incredibly
rewarding to spend time with her, just to interact with her. She's always
reaching out to us. So I'd encourage you guys all to do that. She spends a lot
of her time closely attuned, and there's great contribution from her. So,
Rosalie, thanks for all you do for us.
My
colleague was just saying it goes both ways. For people who are trying to find a
good way in society, we need to realize that this is going to improve those of
us who maybe have those opportunities and a way to reach out to them.
If you
try to understand, I think the whole Legislature is grasping the whole concept
around accessibility. It's not just the physical aspects of this. As many have
noted, there are attitudes, the organizational or systemic barriers that are out
there; information or communication – technology, for example. I'm just thinking
back on my time, both as a politician and then prior, some of the things I've
encountered. I often like to speak about Russia because I spent a good 14 years
running around in that amazing country.
You only
have to travel afar to realize maybe some of our own issues you're dealing with
here in Canada or in this great province, but maybe while we are very proudly
going forward with these advancements, you just have to travel a little way else
in the world to realize, you know, we're very lucky and very fortunate.
That
doesn't mean we stop doing what we need to do, but I can remember working in
different organizations and so on, where folks with disabilities were, frankly,
hidden away. You did not see them. They were not participating in any kind of
meetings, discussions, organization. In fact, it was almost like a sentence that
the state would not support or help them.
I can
remember a couple of instances, just helping somebody off a plane and people
were walking around this person. He was there with his mother and I remember
helping carry this person off a plane in a far-flung airport. And, wow, it
really was a whole attitude. It was a societal aspect. I'm glad I live where I
do.
I want
to give a little shout-out to a former minister, the Member for Placentia - St.
Mary's. I watched her very closely when she served as minister, because there
was an interesting little requirement she used to have in place – and many of
you may know what I'm talking about, but she would not speak at a building
unless it was fully accessible. I can recall, in fact, some venues where she
would arrive and it was not appropriate and she actually did not proceed. I
believe she stuck to that throughout her term as minister and I salute her for
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. TRIMPER:
I'm thinking also, too, of locations in Lake Melville. We finally have a
beautiful new YMCA. I contrast with what we just replaced, which was the
training centre. In my time working, it was soon after I was first elected and I
was working hard with the different departments, including that same minister,
to actually get a lift in place so that we could help provide access for the
Special Olympians.
I'm very
proud of the Howling Husky's team that we have in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but so
many of the athletes could not gain access because if they were in wheelchairs,
you should see the approach that they had to take just to get from the change
room to the pool. It required two people to carry the chair up and down three or
four sets of stairs. It was designed to be a deterrent. I'm very proud to see
now that YMCA that's functioning and working well with a fully accessible access
for people in a wheelchair, for example, to get into the pool. It's absolutely a
wonderful addition.
Some
other issues – again, thinking in these different contexts of barriers; just
think to the election this spring and so many people in Labrador whose mother
tongue is not English and going to fill out a ballot. This issue certainly
received a lot of attention. I'm proud to sit on the Elections Committee now to
see what we can do to fix some of these things but for many people a legal form,
a formal document, such even as a ballot, is an intimidating feature.
My
mother-in-law, her first language was Cantonese and she struggles to this day. I
will tell you, this week I will be spending some time with her just helping her
interpret and understand tax forms or any other kinds of official papers. So,
languages are also very much of a barrier and we need to find strategies for
dealing with it.
Sunday
morning, consistent with the rollout of the NLVaxPass, I went to attend church.
I got there a few minutes early, thank goodness, because there were folks
getting ready to attend the church who've done so probably for, I would say,
decades and decades and were about to be turned away at the door, because they
were intimidated by the technology that is on these VaxPasses.
I can
tell you the technology, when it works, is amazing; it's fantastic. I'm pleased
to say I was able to go over and help these dear friends of mine. I took their
MCP card, put it in the system and, within about a minute, we had their VaxPass
and they were able to go on into church. Something that is very important to
them. But again, it was the technology; it was that barrier that we need to
realize is out there for so many people. Sometimes they're not obvious.
I'm
going to end on a point that I think we all need to realize, and I'd ask
everybody in this room to look in this room right now. If you're in a
wheelchair, how do you get to your seat? How do you do it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. TRIMPER:
If we're going to lead by
example, we really need to lead by example. I know the people in the Clerk's
Office and the Speaker's office and so on have been very concerned about this
for years. When I served as Speaker, over two terms, I became acutely aware of
the challenges.
We've
got this beautiful room, lots of room, we've been able to handle ourselves
during COVID, but just imagine if one of us was in a wheelchair. Just remember,
folks, some of the special guests that we've had, whether they be in the
Speaker's gallery or in the public gallery, who haven't been able to fully
participate here. We had to have very unusual, awkward situations where we've
had to bring them in by the Sergeant-at-Arms just to participate, to be
recognized because we couldn't handle them with a wheelchair accessibility
issue.
I'm
looking forward to watching these three-year plans being developed, proposed,
approved and implemented. We will all need to support it because, you know,
these modifications are not going to come easily and they're not going to be
inexpensive. We're going to need to disperse resources. But I feel people like
to say this is the people's House and we need to make sure it is available for
all the people of this province, so let's set a good example.
I look
forward to supporting this bill and moving on with moving our society forward.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
it's great to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 38.
As
everyone has said, Mr. Speaker, this is a great – well, I'm going to say it's a
great start. I'm going to say that, it's a great start. I'm sure there are many
people in our disability community and so on and various organizations that are
very excited about this and are welcoming this, for sure.
I can
certainly speak to, I'm sure, a very strong advocate, a friend in my district,
Mr. Craig Reid. I can say one thing to Minister Abbott, if you haven't met Craig
yet, I'm sure he had his input into this and I can guarantee you he will have
his input in making sure this is implemented because he's like a dog with a bone
when it comes to this stuff; very passionate about it. I have no fears that with
Craig and others they're going to make sure that some of these, what you're
referring to as, accessibility standards, will be implemented.
Of
course, Speaker, it is important to note here that, as has been noted by the
minister, this is enabling legislation, which gives the ability to create
accessibility standards but it does not in itself create any standards. It's
important for people who may be viewing and listening to this to understand
that. This doesn't mean that everything, all of a sudden, changes overnight.
It's
unfortunate that it's taken this long for this to come forward. I'm glad it has.
I certainly commend the new minister on bringing it forward, but I can recall –
and I will just say as an example, this is something that we talked about – I
was part of the Liberal caucus at the time, back in 2014 we were talking about
this. I participated in a debate during the election of 2015, it was at Easter
Seals House and, at that particular time, the then-leader of the party, Dwight
Ball, said: Paul, go forward and when you're debating on behalf of our party,
you can announce at that time that we will be bringing in a disabilities act.
That was in 2015 that this was first brought forward, the idea of it at least.
I asked
questions in Question Period subsequent to that over the years. It was being
worked on, being worked on and so on. But it took until 2021, now, for this
actually to be brought in.
I'm glad
it's being brought in. Again, I'm not trying to rain on the parade here. I think
it's a positive thing, but it is important to know that it's 2021 and we're
bringing in enabling legislation.
Based on
the briefing, when you talk about the standards, I'm just kind of going off the
top of my head now – I don't have it written down here. Because I think the
minister said I think there are five other provinces who have it, plus the
federal government has it. But Ontario, if I'm not mistaken, Ontario went down
this road in 2005 I want to say – 2005 or 2006, so approximately 15 years ago. I
think they're on their third standard, maybe their fourth standard, 15 years
later.
The
point is, when the minister talks about nine standards, we're averaging about
three years per standard. Now, hopefully, based on the experience of other
provinces, based on the fact that Nova Scotia has it and Ontario's had it and BC
just proclaimed it; based on the fact that there may not be a need to reinvent
the wheel, so to speak, I'm hoping that the implementation period for these
standards, the creation of these standards, I'm hoping can be a lot faster than
three to four years per standard to get it done. Because if it's going to take
three years per standard, times nine standards: we'll be 27 years later before
we ever get all the standards in place – if you were to do that math.
I'm sure
that won't be the case – I hope it won't be the case but it is important to note
that. Again, that is not to be negative about what is being done; I think it's
fantastic that it's being done. But I believe we need a commitment that we're
going to have an aggressive timetable in terms of the creation of standards and,
more importantly, the implementation of standards because this has been way, way
too long.
I also
think it's important that government needs to lead by example when it comes to
what we can do, what government can do. It's one thing to create standards to be
imposed upon private industry and so on, but government needs to be the leader
here. They need to lead by example. Again, that's not being negative here, but I
can look at things, as an example, things that I have pointed out over the last
number of years.
Here is
one: the government was under a PC administration at the time, if I'm not
mistaken, they brought in on the blue zones, I think it was a $400 fine. I think
the Liberals upped it to an $800 fine, if I'm not mistaken. It was changes made
by the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's and it got adopted province-wide. I
think it's an $800 fine if you're parking in a blue zone. Interestingly – and
I've brought this up on numerous occasions, still nothing done – we put in all
these blue zones here at the Confederation Building, as an example, $45 ticket.
So you
go out here now where the Premier parks, all the Members, all those blue zones
are there; somebody violates that, I think it's a $45 ticket because there is a
separate set of legislation. It's not the
Highway Traffic Act. Because it's on our parking lot, it falls under a
different piece of legislation. If I'm not mistaken, I think it's $45 is what it
is.
So if I
went to AES Office here in the building and I violated the blue zone, say over
at the Regatta Ford building, it would be an $800 ticket. If I come in and I
violate a blue zone here at the Confederation Building, I think it's like a $45
ticket for the same violation, because we're on government property. What kind
of nonsense is that? How is that setting any kind of deterrent or setting a
standard?
So that
is one. Then, if you look at Memorial University – and, by the way, I checked
with security there a while ago and I asked did it change, and I even brought it
forward to the department and they didn't change it. Memorial University, if I'm
not mistaken, I think it's like 20 bucks. Violate a blue zone and it's 20 bucks.
Because MUN, under the MUN act has the autonomy, if you will, to create their
own parking fines.
I'm
assuming they created it because they're saying, well, poor students, they can't
afford to pay big fines or whatever. But what we're saying to the poor student
is that it's okay for you to go and park in a blue zone for a disabled person
who now has nowhere to park. And it's worth your while; it's cheaper than buying
a permit. Pay 20 bucks on a fine for parking in a blue zone. It's not right.
That still exists, to the best of my knowledge, at MUN. So that's something that
should be changed.
We
brought in the changes to the
Accessibility Act for outside properties, businesses and so on. We put in
this 1984 rule, which is absolutely ridiculous. There's a 1984 rule in there
that if you have a building and it was older than 1984 or newer than 1984 –
whatever you want to look at it – newer than 1984, built after 1984 – that
you're required to have appropriate amount of blue zones, blue zone signage,
accessibility and so on. But if your building was built before 1984, you're
exempt.
Now, I
can understand – and there are people in the disability community who would say,
well, they don't even understand that. But I can get my head around the fact if
it's an old building and it's, for example, some kind of a historic property,
like the old courthouse or something, and there's no way to possibly do what
needs to be done, for some reason, in terms of accessibility, it cannot be done,
then I can understand. But you have a building over on, I don't know, Elizabeth
Avenue and it's just an old square box, just like any other old building. A
warehouse, a building, whatever, an old square box and it doesn't have to meet
the standards because it was built before 1984, which is absolutely ludicrous.
So
that's something that could be changed. And, as far as I'm concerned, needs to
be changed if we're going to be serious about these issues.
Another
issue I've brought forward on a number of occasions. We have out here at the
front of the building, just to the west of the main entrance, you have the
courtesy flagpole. We have people there every year from the MS Society, as an
example, they raise their flag there and so on. When you go out there by where
the security is, by the tunnel, and you take that door out there, that is not
accessible access to that pole. It's all torn up gravel and mud and everything
else out there. You cannot get out there.
We've
had people out there, like I say, with the MS Society with their wheelchair or
whatever, and trying to get them over that mud and grass. I've brought that to
the department now for the last number of years and still not fixed; still
nothing done with it.
So,
again, these are things that if we're going to go down this road – which is
great, and I support it; I'm sure everybody supports it – we need to get our
house in order. My colleague here from Labrador mentioned the fact, even the
House of Assembly, and he's absolutely right. You cannot get a wheelchair, for
example, up here. If you had a Member who had an accessibility issue, you cannot
get a Member up on this with a wheelchair. We've had people – and again, he's
right – in a wheelchair recognized and everyone else is up in the Speaker's
gallery, but the guest in the wheelchair had to be put there on the floor next
to the Sergeant-at-Arms, you know, to my mind not being treated equally. I know
we were trying to accommodate and so on, but it's not the right way to
accommodate. People should not be sort of stuck out in any kind of a way to make
them seem like they're any different than anybody else. So that's something that
he raised which I also agree with, I say, Speaker.
This is
fantastic. I'm bringing these matters up because it's an opportunity to bring
them up again. I'm just bringing it up because it's an opportunity to bring it
up again to make the new minister aware of some of the things that we could and
should be doing just to get our own house in order here, so that's why I'm
bringing it up. But this piece of legislation is great and the more we can make
things more accessible throughout the province, it's wonderful.
I seen
something – I'm sure the Members may have seen it. I saw it on social media this
summer. I can't tell you where it is. But there was apparently a beach or
something here in Newfoundland somewhere – I don't know if it was the Sunshine
Park, maybe. It was somewhere. They put, like, a paved ramp, if you will, right
down to the beach, right down to the water's edge, so you had sand on both
sides. So anybody –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
Where was it?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Down in Deer Lake.
P. LANE:
Deer Lake, was it? There you
go, Deer Lake.
So you
could wheel right out to the edge of the beach, just like everybody else, with
your wheelchair. That was wonderful. That was something that that town took as
an initiative on their own and good for them for doing it. But that's the kind
of thing that we need to see more of.
My
colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands raised a very good point, a very, very
good point.
E. JOYCE:
He always does.
P. LANE:
He always does, he says.
Yeah, sometimes he does.
One
point that he did make, beyond the accessibility piece in terms of having
everybody being treated equally and having access, which is all very important,
from a business point of view, from a tourism point of view, it makes sense.
Sometimes when we're talking access and inclusion as well, it's not about
necessarily somebody who was born with some kind of an issue that they were in a
wheelchair or so on. It could be just an aging population. As we get older, like
you say, you get arthritis, you get issues with your back and you find it hard
to walk and all these kinds of things.
We have
an aging population and also, when we talking about tourists coming here, there
are a lot of tourists and people, whether they're in a wheelchair or they use a
walker or they have any kind of issues, who are looking for places to go that
are accessible. Looking for a place to go where – or when you go to a hotel,
that the hotel rooms are not what they call accessible. Some of the ones you see
that are called an accessible unit and they're up on the 10th floor or
something. What happens if there was a fire and you can't use the wheelchair, as
an example? Maybe they should be on the bottom floor. When they say the bathroom
is accessible, is it really accessible in the true sense of being accessible?
But they should be incorporating a more universal design and so on, as should
all facilities.
But
there is a market – and a growing market – of people, whether it be older
persons or people with disabilities who like to travel, who are looking for
places to go. I would suggest that when you talk about St. John's and so on, and
Newfoundland in general, the demographic that probably want to come to
Newfoundland and explore is not the young families necessarily. A lot of the
young families, they're going to Disneyland and those places. I would say a lot
of the tourists and people we see coming to Newfoundland are generally older
people who want to come, they want to take in the whole cultural piece and all
that kind of stuff.
They're
the people who would more likely require a lot more accommodations. So it makes
sense from a business point of view, from a tourist point of view and so on, for
us to have great accessibility standards throughout our province. I say to the
Member from Humber - Bay of Islands, that was a very valid point. It's something
I've heard before from people in the disability community.
Speaker,
with that said, I will conclude my remarks. Again, I do support the legislation
– long time coming. Something that is really needed.
I say to
the minister once again, I will reiterate the point, that in terms of the
implementation of the creation and implementation of these standards, I really
think we need to do it right – we need to do it right. That's why I'm glad that
there will be a committee comprised of people with lived experience who will be
part of the creation of these standards and so on. But we need to make sure in
terms of the implementation that we try to move it up the timetable as fast as
we can. I understand it has to be done in reasonable time frames but we cannot
wait – we cannot say it's going to take us the next 20 or 25 years to get the
standards in place. I think that's not a road we want to go down.
I
encourage the minister, like I say, to get everybody working on this, get these
standards in as soon as we can. I think we'll all be the better for it. It will
be great for business. It'll be great for tourism, but it will also be great for
our own population because, as we know, we have an aging population.
There
are things that we can do now; some of the things that I sort of brought up,
issues here within our own house. I encourage the minister to get those issues –
let's address them. We don't need to wait for a standard to come up. If we know
right now that there are things within this building and within government
facilities that are not accessible, we don't need to make the excuse and say,
oh, well, we're going to wait for the standard to come up in three years' time
or the next standard for six years' time. If we know there's now, let's fix it
now.
Certainly anything we can do in that regard, I will support it and I'm sure
every Member in this House will because, as somebody said earlier, it's the
right thing to do.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers if
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development speaks now, this will
close debate of the bill.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you.
Thank
you, colleagues, for the nine speakers that addressed this particular bill. I'm
encouraged by the comments, the suggestions and the overwhelming support.
I'm
reminded of statement by Neil Armstrong on July 20, 1969: This is one small step
for man but one giant leap for mankind. I see this piece of legislation as one
small step brought to our persons with disabilities and the disability community
and it sends a very large message from this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. ABBOTT:
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I
will conclude.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 38 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act Respecting
Accessibility In The Province. (Bill 38)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 38)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 38, An Act
Respecting Accessibility In The Province.
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.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 38, An Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province.” (Bill 38)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
In
section 2(1)(c) it defines barrier to include an attitudinal barrier. Could the
minister elaborate on how this kind of barrier might be defined, identified and
removed?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
I think one of the issues
around that is just that: defining it and to remove subjectivity. If you use an
example when we see a person with a disability coming down the street, can they
or should they be able to avail of a common service: access to a bus, access to
a store. Within our society there are some attitudinal perspectives that would
suggest, no, they don't have a particular right. That is what we need to address
and that is what we will try to put aside as we develop the standards going
forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you for that answer.
Section
2, paragraph (1)(k) defines disability very broadly. Were any concerns raised
about how broad and all encompassing the definition is? Here is why I ask:
Removing certain barriers will require major investments, while removing other
barriers will take much small investments. But we don't want to be satisfied
with the smaller changes when the larger and more costly changes are
exceptionally important to the people facing certain disabilities.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
The legislation basically
looks at this almost at a two-step process. One is recognizing and defining the
disability, as you mentioned, and then is there a barrier in place that needs to
be addressed to allow the person with a disability to engage in the activity or
the enterprise. So they go in tandem.
If you
look at the legislation and the intent, and certainly my view on this, is that
it should be as broad as we can make it. We are not going to limit the
perspective around and the definition around disability. That's one of the
challenges up till now and, this legislation; we will leave it to the
accessibility standards advisory committee and the committees setting up the
standards then to delve into the specifics on the disability and the barrier.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair, and thank
you, Minister, for your answer.
In
section 8 the bill reads: “The minister may, in accordance with the regulations,
delegate a power or duty conferred or imposed on the minister under this Act to
a person prescribed in the regulations.”
Can the
minister please give an example of this?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, we have a Disability
Policy Office. We have a director of that office. For example, I could, in my
capacity, delegate some of my roles and responsibilities to that office.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
In section 9 it allows for an
establishment of the Accessibility Standards Advisory Board.
Can the
minister please outline how the members will be appointed? Will appointments go
through the Independent Appointments Commission?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, the appointment
process will be under the Independent Appointments Commission. They will make
recommendation to me as minister. I, in turn, have to bring that to the Cabinet
for ratification and approval.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
Subsection 9(9) of the bill states, “The board shall (a) hold at least 4 regular
meetings; and (b) meet with the minister once a year.” It's further noted a
report after each meeting will be available to the public.
The
minister needs to be on top of this important issue and the minister or
designate should engage in immediate conversations with the board after each
meeting.
Can we
be assured of this?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
I guess, more importantly, the legislation ensures that I do it, so yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
Section
11, and many of the sections to follow after section 11, outline the development
of accessibility standards.
Can the
minister outline the process which will be used to establish a standard?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Just a couple of things on
that question.
One is
the legislation does sort of lay out the process, but the committee, once it's
established, really defines its terms of reference. It then refers them back to
me for approval and then they will commence their work. In doing that, we will
certainly be looking at other jurisdictions to see how they do it.
To the
point made earlier by someone when we were discussing the bill earlier, I want
to make sure we can expedite the development of the standards as quickly as
possible. I think we've got a lot to learn from other jurisdictions to move that
process along very quickly.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
So will the accessibility standards apply to public buildings and private
buildings?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
The act and the standards will apply right across the board to all public bodies
and municipal organizations and what have you, once the standard is developed
and those things are taken into consideration.
In the
meantime, we have our Buildings
Accessibility Act and that will be the law of the land unless a new standard
is approved by Cabinet and put in regulation that would change or override that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
How, Minister, will you assure that the standard increases accessibility in a
way that is practical to implement and meets the needs of individuals who may
have a disability?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
I think that's going to be the nub of the issue in developing any standard.
That's why there will be people with lived experience, representatives of
organizations representing persons with disability and whomever is going to be
directly impacted will be at the table to develop that and address those very
specific questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
Section
21 reads: “Where the minister believes it is in the public interest to do so,
the minister may recommend that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council prescribe by
regulation incentive-based measures to encourage and assist an individual, an
organization or a public body, or a class of individuals, organizations or
public bodies, to meet or exceed an accessibility standard.”
Can the
minister clarify what these incentive-based measures will be? Will there be
public disclosure of the incentives required and their costs?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, in terms of the
incentive-based measures, it could be a grant, it could be a tax incentive or
exemption, what have you. It's yet to be defined and how they will play out. So
we have no cost on that at the present time.
My
department currently does provide – quote, unquote – incentive grants to
different non-profit organizations around the province to allow more facilities
and experiences to be inclusive. We have the funding for converting vehicles for
citizens and we have funding for public transportation in certain areas. Out in
Stephenville - Port au Port, recently, we just announced funding there, or at
least the funding is there and the bus is finally put in place.
That
will be for the present time; we will continue on that. But when they're
developing those standards, again, that will be built in there to say if we want
to implement this standard this is what government and others are going to have
to do to make it work.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you for that answer,
Minister.
Section
23 allows for the appointment of a director of compliance and enforcement. Is
this a current or a new position? Will this position also have the necessary
administrative and other support in order to do their due diligence?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
It is contemplated that will be a new position and it will have the resources
necessary to undertake its work, or his or her work.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
In section 23, it also states those that follow prescribed penalties for
non-compliance, they can be quite large. How will monetary penalties work when
applied to public bodies or to not-for-profit organizations?
You want
to give the legislation teeth, which means penalties, and that means an appeals
process is necessary, which is also costly. What was the thinking in setting
things up this way? Has the research shown that it is only with enforcement and
penalties that real change will happen?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, actually how we looked
at this is that would be – if there are penalties to be imposed – as a last
resort. As again mentioned by some of the Members here this afternoon, education
and awareness are going to be the tools that would be most effective for
compliance.
But that
being said, we knew we had to have in legislation a penalty clause – if I can
put it that way – and it could be, and it will be financial. We think those
measures are reasonable, but it will certainly send a message if we need to.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Section 31 is about issuing
public reports about penalties made. Is this also about shaming those who failed
to comply and using what kind of public pressure to motivate people to act?
J. ABBOTT:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Sorry, Chair.
I will
put it in the sort of affirmative: I think for us and for me it would be
transparency.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
The last question: Section 35
gives leeway to Cabinet to define many things in regulation. Can the minister
assure the people that the government will widely report on the things it does
by way of regulation so everyone is fully informed about what is being done and
what is expected of people?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
That's certainly the intent,
and also the legislation does provide that the minister has to issue an annual
report and those measures would be reflected in that report.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
In the
research and analysis that the minister has done, how many government-owned
buildings are currently not accessible to people with disabilities?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
If my colleague were here I'd
prefer that he try that one. I do not have the answer to that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
So the analysis on that
particular side of it, I guess – then my second question about what plan do you
have to fix them doesn't really count because we don't know how many we have.
Again,
the last question is: How much is it going to cost?
So,
again, there's a significant piece of work to be done here on behalf of
government. I'm just trying to get a plan of what you might have planned for the
government buildings.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
So in terms of the
legislation – and I think it speaks to a very important point here – is that
each public body now has, or will have, to have an accessibility plan –
something we don't have. That will address the building issue, the access to
buildings and everything that goes with that.
This now
has the teeth that, also, the departments themselves want, to be able to
identify and to bring those buildings and resources up to meeting the standards
as we know them. That will certainly put pressure on the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board, but we will deal with that in due course.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
I thank
the minister for the answer. So when we pass this legislation this evening, we
can look forward to a plan from government on how they're going to bring all of
the government-owned buildings that are not currently accessible to people with
disabilities or replace them, where necessary.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Minister of Digital
Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Chair.
Just for
some context in the debate, the Buildings
Accessibility Act is under Digital Government and Service NL. We've
currently asked the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board to do consultations
around changes to the act. We're received that report. The report is public;
it's on our website. We are in the beginning processes of reviewing the
Buildings Accessibility Act, which
defines specific accessibility things for government buildings, all public
buildings and private buildings as well.
Just to
add, the Buildings Accessibility Act
is different than this piece of legislation today. That is something that we are
working on. I just wanted to provide Members with that context.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
First of
all, I thank the minister for that piece of information. Obviously it's the
Buildings Accessibility Act that the
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL has referenced there that's under
review and that is the one that's going to determine whether or not we keep this
1984 rule or we scrap it, correct?
S. STOODLEY:
Correct.
P. LANE:
Okay. That's good; good to
know.
For the
minister responsible here today, I am wondering about the timelines which I
brought up in debate in second reading. Obviously, looking at other provinces as
I mentioned, I look at Ontario and I think it's 15 years ago they brought it in.
I think they're at standard three or four or something like that.
Do we
have a sense of timelines? Which standard do you intend on bringing in first, I
guess, would be my first question? There are nine different standards, I think,
the minister indicated. So I would wonder which of those nine is going to be the
first standard, because we can talk about accessibility but the minister could
talk about – maybe the first standard is going to be about employment for
persons with disabilities and we won't even be talking about a built environment
for 10 years from now. I'd like to know where he intends to start.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, I think the Member almost answered the question, because some of the
comments made earlier today talked about where, individually, we would like to
see a standard. The advisory committee set up under this legislation, that will
be their first task: to advise me, as minister, as to which standard and when. I
have my views on some of that, but I am going to wait to hear from that
committee and that will be literally their first order of business.
I am
anticipating, based on what some other jurisdictions have done, that we can pull
that best practice into ours. If you use Ontario, and I don't like the idea that
it has taken that long but I can understand because of the complexity of large
province and all the actors that would be involved. We have the benefit, being
smaller, lesser actors, many of the same issues but we can get the people in the
room very quickly to work through a lot of these processes to get those
standards in place.
One of
the things that I would like to see that committee do – and I'll talk to them
obviously once it is set up – is to actually develop a work plan and we can put
that out over the next year, two years, three years to show what we intend to do
and really keep their feet to the fire as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
I thank the minister for
that.
Just
wondering, Minister, in terms of the enforcement piece and I know that there is
recommendation – well, not a recommendation; it actually talks about the fact
that there would be a new position, I believe, the minister said around this.
Just wondering how the minister anticipates enforcement going, whether it is one
person or a couple of people. Even in the St, John's metro area, there are an
awful lot of facilities, buildings out there and so on.
Is this
going to be a complaint-driven type scenario, or will there be resources
involved in, for example, doing audits of public and private facilities, for
that matter, going out, doing audits and determining whether or not they are up
to code, whether they had plans in place and so on?
Would
that be the function of this particular office or does the minister see an
opportunity, perhaps, with working with a not-for-profit group like COD-NL or
something with people who could go out and do accessibility audits as opposed to
all government employees that would be doing it?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Chair.
A good
question in terms of that. One of the things we will be doing is certainly
building on and using existing resources, and we have different inspectors in
government services. So those and municipal inspectors – so we will be building
on existing resources from the inspection complaint side of things.
We will,
when we're doing the standards, identify how we would be looking to measure for
compliance in that so people know. Where it makes sense to do, we will engage
other organizations to help us in that task. The director's role will be largely
to oversee that and then to formally lay a complaint or charge against an
organization or business or whatever that is seen in contravention.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My final
question, I guess, relates to municipalities; this is going to apply to all
public bodies. I'm just thinking now about, you know, a lot of smaller towns,
smaller municipalities and so on that don't even have the money for safe
drinking water, as an example. I'm just wondering where this would have to be
prioritized with those needs, where they would get the funds to do so.
And, I
guess, related to the funding, is there going to be any federal assistance? We
know we don't have a whole lot of money here in this province – we know we're
into it – but is there any federal programs, I wonder, that could be availed of,
say, by our municipalities or cost shared with the province and municipalities
to assist in implementing some of these things in the small towns in particular.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, I know in terms of helping to respond to that question we'll be working
with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, as we
engage the municipal sector in getting them to build and develop their
accessibility plans.
It's not
a one-size-fits-all kind of approach here. But if you use the basic issue around
just accessing the municipal or town office to making sure, as an example, that
the materials and literature that a municipality produces is accessible; so all
very basic things that we need to look at.
The
Member for St. John's Centre talked about snow clearing. Again, we need to
figure out with them what that means, how it would look and to whom it would
apply.
We
recognize that whatever the standards that are going to be developed, they're
going to be within that, potentially, different standards for different size
organizations based on their capacity to implement. So that will have to be all
worked out standard by standard by standard, plan by plan by plan.
CHAIR:
Any further questions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
This
question goes right to the heart of snow clearing then. I'm just wondering what
the implications are of this act in terms of snow clearing and keeping
sidewalks, streets and that accessible in the wintertime.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
In the conversations,
obviously, we will have with the municipal sector guiding them around their
plans they will be dealing with their constituents, voters and taxpayers as to
what's important for them when it comes to their accessibility needs, wants and
desires.
You
represent a district – as do I – that this is a big issue, obviously, in terms
of mobility around the city and safety and those kinds of things. I'm sure the
recent court case automatically has changed how the municipalities are going to
be looking at this issue. Whatever guidance we can give when they're developing
their plans we will.
But it's
going to be left to them to determine the priority within their own municipality
for that particular issue.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
But will this act have any
say as to determining priority? For example, let's say the majority of the
citizens of St. John's decide that no, having sidewalks cleared of snow is not a
priority. It's going to be too costly. Actually, we need to scale it back. In
other words, we don't have a choice, really, blue zones are out there.
I'm just
wondering if we're going to leave it up to the city, will they have the ability
to opt out of this, if that's not a priority of the citizens of the city, if the
majority are saying no, too expensive?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, I certainly appreciate
the Member's question.
As we
have the bill constructed right now, there will be a municipal plan,
accessibility plan. That being said, on some issues, not necessarily the one
you're suggesting, but like we have for our blue zones and those kinds of
things, it was of a significant provincial interest that there is a provincial
regulation and we have that opportunity to do that under this legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
I'm just going to make a
comment.
I know
my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, mentioned about
municipalities. I just want to make a comment that over a number of years, and I
mentioned this earlier, I was involved with disabilities. I know many towns and
many churches in the area, that I'm fortunate enough to represent, have applied
for the community living grant or the Community Enhancement Program, has built
wheelchair accessible washrooms, wheelchair accessibility to get in the building
and accessibility. So there are funds available there.
The
bigger funds for, say, Sir Richard Squires Building, would be up to the
government and the minister, as you mentioned, but for the municipalities there
are smaller funds that I know a lot of town halls brought their buildings up to
wheelchair accessibility, mobility accessibility for a lot of seniors who visit
the hall. So there are funds available now that I know a lot of towns that we
applied for have been approved for that and that would help this program out a
fair bit.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Chair, just as a response.
That's
exactly what we want to do in the department and we are doing it right now.
There's a good example in the Premier's district with the Royal Canadian Legion
and they've addressed that quite effectively. We are seeing more of that. The
demand is there and the need is there. One person that is left outside because
of a disability, we recognize is wrong and we have to, obviously, correct that
immediately. The legislation, obviously, speaks to that on a broader scale, but
we know it is happening every hour of every day and we have to put that to an
end.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 36
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 36
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 36 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 37.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 37 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
I move, seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development,
that the following – it's just a friendly amendment to the bill.
Clause
37 of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: 37(1) “This act, except
subparagraph 2(1)(o)(v), comes into force on December 3, 2021.
“(2)
Subparagraph 2(1)(o)(v) comes into force on a day to be proclaimed by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council.”
It's
just when the bill was drafted, there was a minor technical error recognizing
the House of Assembly as a separate branch.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Committee will recess so we can have a look at the amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Are the
Government House Leaders ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
The
amendment is in order.
Is it
the pleasure of Committee to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt clause 37, as amended?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 37, as amended, carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting
Accessibility In The Province.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill with
amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Chair, I move that the
Committee rise and report Bill 38 with amendment.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 38 with amendment.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay, Chair of Committees.
B. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have carried Bill 38
with amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have carried Bill 38 with amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that the amendment be now
read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendment be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
First reading of the
amendment.
SPEAKER:
The hon. Deputy Government
House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister for Children, Seniors and Social Development, that the amendment be
now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
Second reading of the
amendment.
On
motion, amendments read a first and second time. Bill ordered read a third time
on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. Deputy Government
House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, back to Orders of
the Day, I call Bill 23 from the Order Paper, An Act To Amend The Automobile
Insurance Act.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that Bill 23, An
Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, now be read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.” (Bill
23)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure today to introduce Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Automobile Insurance
Act. Automobile insurance is a requirement for all motorists in Newfoundland and
Labrador. It has a soft spot in my heart because it's the industry that I came
from prior to my new life.
In 2017,
government requested the Public Utilities Board conduct a review of the
automobile insurance system in Newfoundland and Labrador. This review included
public consultations, as well as closed-claim studies, and focused on
identifying opportunities to lower rates that will benefit consumers and help
bring stability to the automobile insurance industry.
In 2019,
a comprehensive report was submitted to government by the Public Utilities Board
to support decision-making related to the automobile insurance system. This
report is available on our website.
When we
look at the auto insurance market and the review, the Public Utilities Board
commissioners told us an average of five uninsured automobile claims are
reported each year in Newfoundland and Labrador for every 10,000 vehicles
insured in our province compared to three in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and
four in Prince Edward Island.
So the
report further noted that Newfoundland and Labrador's average claim cost per
insured vehicle is $19 and was also the highest compared to $5 in New Brunswick
and $9 in Nova Scotia, $7 in Prince Edward Island.
In
relation to the Atlantic comparison, the report indicated: We assume that, on
average, higher uninsured automobile claims frequency rates are associated with
a higher percentage of uninsured vehicles. However, data to compare vehicles in
the number uninsured vehicles in each province is not available. Of course, we
don't know at the moment, Speaker, how many uninsured vehicles we have in this
province nor in other provinces.
Uninsured drivers impose costs which must be paid by drivers who are insured. As
a result, the overall cost of insurance is higher than it would otherwise be.
While the issue of uninsured drivers is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador,
the Public Utilities Board report states that this province has the highest
claim frequency and costs for uninsured drivers of any Atlantic province.
So,
Speaker, one of the changes that we made to address this gap in the
Automobile Insurance Act, effective
January 1, 2020, was the addition of section 6.01, duty to notify the registrar.
This provision requires auto insurers to inform the registrar of motor vehicles
when a policy is cancelled or expired.
My
department has been working with OCIO and the Insurance Bureau of Canada to
develop an electronic solution so that all insurance companies can let us know
automatically when a policy has been cancelled. We call that the insurance
validation program and the federal government funded that program, Speaker.
This
program allows policies to be checked at the time of registration, renewal, at
roadside checks by law enforcement and periodic checks of registered vehicles,
getting accurate insurance status much more efficiently and effectively.
To
enable this project, information comes from the General Insurance Statistics
Agency, which provides data from insurers under the
Insurance Companies Act and the
Facility Association. Which administers the residual market for automobile
insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador, which essentially, are those drivers
unable to get insurance with other insurers. These are often high-risk drivers.
If you have a lot of accidents and you can't get insurance with the companies
that we would think of, Facility is the insurer who you can get a policy with.
It's kind of like an association of all the insurers.
During
the development of this system, it was determined that while the legislative
authority already existed to request data from the General Insurance Statistical
Agency, the same authority did not exist for Facility Association data. This
amendment to the Automobile Insurance Act
is necessary to facilitate the insurance validation program access to the data
held within the Facility Association. Without this amendment, the Facility
Association is unable to share the data with us.
I guess,
Speaker, this is a very small bill. There are two pages and, essentially, if you
read the Explanatory Notes, it's pretty simple what we're trying to do. We would
like to essentially change some of the definitions and the wordings to make it
very clear that Facility Association can give us the data that we're looking
for. This amendment would allow the insurance validation program to proceed and
reduce the number of uninsured drivers on our roads.
I look
forward to answering any questions that might come up in Committee.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
First of
all, it's a pleasure again to speak in this House to represent the District of
Ferryland and I thank all the people for putting me there, all the constituents.
First of
all, I'd like to thank the minister and her department for the briefing that we
had on this. As she said, it's just a couple of pages, but we'll get in and get
those proper changes made. I'll certainly say we'll support this bill.
Not all
drivers are driving with insurance. There are still a number of uninsured
drivers on our roadways. Uninsured drivers increase the cost of insurance
premiums for all insured drivers. When a car is registered with the motor
vehicle division a policy number is asked for but the registration system cannot
check this number against an insurer's data. Likewise, if a police officer
checks a driver's insurance card, they cannot check to see if the policy card is
active. This means that some divers can get insurance, get a card and then
cancel their insurance and the driver is uninsured.
This
will bring in legislative amendments to implement the technology solution to
help prevent this. Through this legislation, a secure electronic system will be
created, which will allow the Motor Registration division to ensure that the
insurance policy number entered at registration is, in fact, an active insurance
policy. Likewise, a police officer will be able to key in an insurance policy
number to see if it's still an active insurance policy. The electronic solution
being implemented in this province is being modelled after the Ontario
legislation. This bill has allowed this electronic system to be created and give
the provision for it to be accessed and utilized.
Currently, the legislation 6.01(1) reads: “An insurer shall notify the Registrar
of Motor Vehicles of the cancellation or expiration of a policy issued by the
insurer for the type or use of vehicle prescribed in the regulations.” This
language is being removed from the legislation. This text was added to
legislation in 2019 and would serve until this electronic solution is ready and
the insurance companies and Facility Association is ready to work together on an
updated solution. As an electronic solution will be implemented, which can check
the real-time status of the insurance policy, there will no longer be the need
for an insurer to notify the registrar of any cancellation or an expiration.
I came
from a car dealership, I worked there for 22 year between service and, I'm going
to say, sales in the last 12 or 13 years. So when you come in to buy a vehicle,
once you went to the finance office, before you came back to get your car, you
had to make sure that you notified your insurance company that the insurance is
on your vehicle. When it first started, we would take their word for it. Before
I finished, in the last three or four years, our company would send a copy of
the information on the vehicle to the insurance company and when they emailed it
back or faxed it back with the proper information, that was the time that you
were allowed to take your vehicle.
But what
happened along the way, when you're there, if you came in as an individual and
wanted to buy a car for $4,000 or $5,000 and you took it off the lot; well, that
was up to you, if you were going to put insurance on it or not. If you left the
lot, it wasn't up to us. If you drove off the lot and somebody ran into you,
then you were responsible for your $4,000 or $5,000 that you paid for a used
vehicle, that would be gone.
I'm
going to say when you buy a vehicle and you finance it, the bank is the one that
is looking after your needs and looking after your vehicle. Because if you
didn't have insurance on it and you left the lot and somebody wrote it off, and
it's a $50,000 machine – and it has happened, they don't get down the road and
it has happened, I've seen it a couple of times – there would be insurance on it
and it would be written-off. The bank would make sure that it's there,
obviously, you got the protection that's needed. Right now, those banks make
sure they're covering their asset because it's theirs until it's paid off, so
that's how it's done.
One of
the other circumstances that would happen is somebody come in – and this is the
issue that we got to get to and you got to go a little bit deeper, I think, on
some of this legislation. I would say, in my opinion – and there are always
arguments against it – the last time I asked it they based it on being a costly
venture for the data and the computer system to do it, but I think a
plate-to-a-person registration is something that should happen in the province.
Because,
right now, what happens is somebody buys a vehicle, they come in and buy a $200
or $300 vehicle and they go out and get a ticket for no insurance, no
registration and whatever else comes with it – not licensed to be on the roads.
So those kinds of examples with a plate to plate would disappear because if you
took that vehicle with no plate, the only plate that you got is your own and
that should not still be to the vehicle, it should stick to the person. That is
something that I think we have to look into a little deeper.
Well,
you hear it once a week, there's $35,000 worth of fines on this person and
$40,000 on someone else. They continue to just come in and buy a vehicle and pay
$500, take it and go get hauled in, whenever they get hauled in. That's
something that we have to look at for sure.
In
touching on that example, as well, like I said, the used cars – and this will
continue if you don't stop that process; it will absolutely continue – you can
come in and buy a used car, no insurance and you're gone. Now, the dealership
that I worked at, we would sell you a car, you would not get a copy of the
registration until you came back with an inspection slip on that car. You take
the vehicle, but that car is not inspected, not registered and the dealership
wasn't on the hook for that.
It's
just something to keep in mind when we're looking at some of this legislation.
That would be about it for now. I just have a few questions when we get to
Committee.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
going to just have a few words on this here. I'm glad it's done electronically
because most people can't get into the buildings now, Motor Registration, to get
it done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. JOYCE:
I'm just glad that there's an
electronic system set up because if they had to go in, if there's a mistake with
the insurance and you have to try and get in, arrange an appointment – and it do
happen, I can assure you it do happen. If there's something in this gets sent in
that's wrong, then you have to go and try to arrange a meeting with Service NL.
You have to wait four or five weeks without insurance before you even get in the
building. That's what's going to happen. That's why we need the buildings open.
That's why we need the Motor Registration buildings open.
I just
want to bring that point out because I did see it happen where there were
mistakes made in insurance. You had to go up and go back to the insurance
company; go up and sit down with someone at the office and actually get it
worked out.
This is
great. This is a great system and I'll speak on the system in a few minutes. But
when there are flaws in the system this is going to affect people if the
buildings are closed. I can assure you that right now, as sure as I'm sitting
here in this chair.
It's
something that we're bringing in, which is good news to bring that in, but it's
going to hurt people when there are flaws, and there will be flaws. It always
happens. Maybe it's just someone sent in a typo or someone else may have just
forgot to register it or – it's going to happen.
I just
want to say to the minister that this is a worthwhile piece of legislation to
bring in. We all know the amount of people, we hear it everyday – just as an
example, there were two ATVs racing up the road and neither one of them had
insurance or liability or a licence. That's the kind of things that causes a lot
of issues in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
When it
gets to cars – and how many times do we hear of accidents where people never had
insurance? It's a major issue. This actual bill will ensure that the registrar
or superintendent would be notified if an insurance is cancelled. It will make
our streets safer. It will help out a lot of people if there are damages and
having to go through the rigmarole of your own insurance.
This is
a good piece of legislation that would hopefully allow the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador to have safer streets, streets without people driving
around without insurance. I'm not saying all the time, but usually you find a
lot of the times there's high insurance, a high insurance rate. If someone in
Newfoundland and Labrador just can't afford the insurance rates, they're going
to go off and drive and hopefully not get caught. But this here would ensure
that if any person who walks in today and gets registered and gets insurance,
then they have to carry out the insurance until they either sell the vehicle or
disown the vehicle or the insurance expires and they have to go in and get it
again.
I heard
the Member for Ferryland talking about licence plates to a vehicle. I agree with
that 100 per cent. That would save – I know this is not part of this bill, but
it's something for the department. If you take your licence plate off a vehicle
and you own that licence plate, no one can drive that car until they put their
licence plate on it.
The way
it happens now, as the Member from Ferryland stated, you can sell your vehicle
and they still got your licence plate. Once you get it inspected and get it
passed, you can cancel your insurance, you can keep driving it with that
person's licence plate on it. So if it comes up with the police or comes up in
an accident, the licence plate that's on it will be your name.
I agree
with that idea 100 per cent; that whoever wants to buy your vehicle will have to
go get new licence plates, have their name registered with that licence plate.
That is a great idea. It would save a lot of people going around with cars that
are not registered and then, hopefully, that would have to force them to get
insurance before they can put the vehicle on the road. I agree with that 100 per
cent.
When you
hear about the vehicles being not registered, no insurance, when you check it,
you always find many times that it's not registered because there's a licence
plate on the vehicle not registered. So I will agree with this piece of
legislation to have it.
I notice
the minister mentioned facilitators. Part of that facilitation is when people
have one or two accidents – and I use some people in the taxi industry; they
have a few accidents. The regular insurance company may not take you because of
the number of accidents. When you have to go to the facilitation group, it's a
group of insurers who got together which are higher cost, so the insurance goes
up. So when your insurance goes up and once you get the insurance, most people
have a tendency to say, well, this is too much – not most, some. I shouldn't say
most. But many people have a tendency, okay, I have it now through – I can't
even say the word – before that association.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Facilities.
E. JOYCE:
Facilities association. And
before you get out through the door, they're already contacting and saying,
okay, I want to cancel that because the vehicle is registered. So that happened
on many occasions. I know in my previous roles that has happened.
I will
agree with this piece of legislation. It's timely and we hear about it so many
times across Newfoundland and Labrador of people stopped with no insurance. So I
will be supporting this and I think it's a great idea. A great way to hopefully
make our roads much safer and make people more accountable.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a couple of minutes. Speaker, I'll be supporting this bill as
well. As has been said, this here really ties down to safety. To my mind,
getting some of the menaces off the road. That's not to say everybody on the
road that would be involved here is a menace; but let's face it, for the most
part, anybody who's going around without insurance and having accidents, they're
a menace to the rest of us who are trying to abide by the rules and keep
everybody safe and be responsible for their actions and be responsible if they
have an accident.
As has
been said, there are a couple of ways here that this new system would kick in:
the electronic system. The first one is you go to register your vehicle at motor
vehicle registration. Of course, as my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands
has said, these days, that's a challenge in itself. So I get a car today – I buy
one – and first thing I have to do is wait maybe about five or six weeks to get
into Motor Registration to actually get an appointment to get my vehicle
registered. Now, I do understand that an option just came out in the last couple
of days to do it online but of course we know, (a), not everybody has Internet
access; not everyone is Internet savvy or understands how to use it and so on.
Unfortunately, one of the things that can happen here is I get a vehicle and I
can't even get insurance until I get my vehicle registered first. They're not
going to insure – you want to get your vehicle registered and then you get your
insurance. Of course, we run the risk now of people who have to wait so long –
and I've actually had a couple of people reach out to me and say this: I'm not
saying I'm doing anything illegal here, but I need a vehicle to get to work and
I bought a vehicle and I need to register my vehicle and if I got to wait five
or six weeks, what do I do, not work for the next month? I got to get where I
need to go.
It's
encouraging people to take chances and actually break the law and drive around
in unregistered vehicles, because they have to wait five or six weeks to get an
appointment to get their vehicle registered at Motor Registration. That is a big
problem. One of the many problems associated to Motor Registration these days.
But
anyway, if you finally do get there, now, under this new piece of legislation,
they will know automatically, Motor Registration will, when you go to register
this vehicle they will know automatically from the insurance company that you
indeed do have insurance. You can't just go in there with a card from an
insurance company or a number and say, yeah, I'm with Johnson's, my number is
J5245 or whatever; and they just put it in and say okay, there you go, you're
done. Now they can actually check and make sure that that's an active insurance
policy.
That's
one way we catch them at Motor Registration to make sure the vehicle is insured
when they go to register the vehicle, if they can actually get in there to
register the vehicle, five or six weeks later.
The
other piece, of course, is the RNC or the RCMP. If they pull somebody over now,
right now as it currently stands the officer hauls you over – not that I would
know from personal experience, but could I see your licence, insurance,
registration type deal. Of course, you could show an insurance card and that
police officer has no way of knowing whether or not that insurance is valid or
if it isn't. Because, as has been said, I can go to the insurance company, I can
go register my vehicle, show my insurance, leave Motor Registration and cancel
my insurance policy because I don't want to pay for it or I'm not able to pay of
it, whatever the case might be, or I choose not to pay for it. So now I'm going
around with an uninsured vehicle. If a police officer hauled me over and I
showed my card, as far as that police officer is concerned, I have valid
insurance, when really I don't have valid insurance. That is, obviously, a big
issue.
As the
minister said, I think, in her commentary, one of the things that's driving the
cost of insurance through the roof is the fact that you have people going around
driving with no insurance, then having accidents with the people who do have
insurance and then that person is on the hook for it all. They're the ones who
are driving everybody's insurance up. So this is going to deal with that issue.
The
other piece in this legislation, of course, is that Facility's insurance,
there's an amendment here that would include Facility's insurance being placed
on the database. Because, as the minister said, right now, they have the ability
with this database to get the data from the insurance companies, but, without
this amendment, they don't have the ability to go to the Facility's insurance
and say we want this data as well.
That's
very important because, let's face it, a lot of – and that's not to say
everybody who's on Facility's insurance is a bad person. Some people, as my
colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands said, perhaps you're in the taxi
industry; the fact that you're driving the cab, you know, all hours of the
night, seven days a week and so on; 16, 18 hours a day or whatever, in all kinds
of weather, you're more likely to be having more accidents because you're simply
on the road all the time. So the law of averages kind of works against you.
There
are people, let's face it, that are irresponsible drivers. I think someone
referenced this as well, and it's true, a lot of times when you hear in the news
someone got hauled over and they had like thousands and thousands and thousands
of dollars in fines, what that is – not in all cases, but a lot of cases, so
I've been told from people I know in the RNC and so on; I believe the former
leader of the Official Opposition talked about it one time as well – is you get
these guys or girls, whatever the case might be, they go out, they buy a hunk of
junk for $500, or $1,000 or whatever. They take it and they don't insure it,
they don't register it and they'll drive it around for a month or two, or
whatever the case might be, until they finally get hauled over by the police;
they get caught and then the police will seize the vehicle. They'll give them a
fine for no registration, no insurance and no driver's licence, in a lot of
cases. They might get $2,000 worth of fines and they take their car. Then that
same person goes out a week or two later and they buy another hunk of junk and
they do it again. That's why they owe $20,000; $30,000; and $40,000 because it's
a repeating cycle. They keep doing it.
The
police keep hauling them over; they keep seizing the vehicle. They do it again,
they do it again and they do it again. These are the types of menaces out on the
road that are causing a lot of the problems, safety issues for the public and
driving the insurance costs as well. These are the people that the only
insurance they're going to get, even for that short period of time to try to
pull the wool over Motor Registration's eyes are these individuals, and the only
insurance they can even possibly get is Facility's insurance to begin with.
That's
why I think this amendment, in particular, is really important because it would
be a lot of the people that would be on the Facility's insurance; again, not
all. That's not grouping everyone into one category here. But a lot of the –
quote, unquote – skeets that are causing the problems, they're the ones that are
involved with this; they're the ones causing the problems. It's important to
have that Facility insurance as part of this, tied into this, so that they can't
be pulling the wool over Motor Registration's eyes, can't be pulling the wool
over the eyes of the police and being a menace on the road, causing a safety
issue and driving insurance rates up for consumers.
That's
what this legislation does; it protects people from that type of activity. It
prevents people from trying to so-call cheat the system and causing issues for
all of the responsible motorists on the road and so on.
With
that said, Speaker, I will be supporting this bill. I think it's a good piece of
legislation.
I will
conclude by saying to the minister once again: open up Motor Registration.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Like I
said, I do want to speak to this on the fact that I do think it's a good idea
that we have such a database and the ability to crosscheck and check on
insurance. It is a huge issue right now in the province is uninsured drivers. It
does cause a lot of havoc but also costs a lot as well to the province, but also
to the everyday driver who has to pay that extra fee on their insurance for
uninsured drivers on the road. If you get the breakdown of your insurance costs
there is that fee there to pay for uninsured drivers on our roads.
It's
good that we can actually now start tackling the issue head on in the sense of,
you know, people that are on our roads causing havoc, like the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands said, buys a piece of junk one day, drives around, racks up a
bunch of fines, gets it taken away and does the whole thing all over again the
next week.
We know
this is a problem and it's going to continue to be a problem until we tackle it.
So this is a good start on tackling that issue of uninsured drivers.
I know
the Member from Ferryland mentioned about the dealership having more control
over making sure you have insurance if you finance a vehicle, because the bank
will make you get insurance to cover your financing. But if you go and buy a
used car off a lot, unfortunately, there's nothing there really governing it
from the point of view, other than, you know, it's up to the individual; where
is, as is, as they say.
At the
end of the day, we should also go back and maybe have a conversation with the
dealership association and stuff about maybe there's changes that can be made
there, saying that you can't take anything off their lot unless you have proof
of insurance and your name is registered here as having insurance. There are
other ways that we could probably also tackle this issue because it costs the
province a lot of money and it costs the residents of this province a lot of
money.
The
Members from Humber - Bay of Islands, Mount Pearl – Southlands and the Member
from Ferryland all said, maybe we should start attaching licence plates to
individuals and not cars, because if we're taking people's vehicles, impounding
vehicles from people who are not paying their fines, they're not following the
rules of the road and social norms right now when it comes to having insurance
and being a safe and responsible driver. Maybe we should start taking their
plate so that they can't go out and buy a hunk of junk on Thursday, rack up a
bunch of fines and then do it all over again on Friday.
This is
where we should really have a conversation about maybe it's time to start
attaching plates to driver's licences and having that kind of said now that
we're taking a responsible approach to removing these nuisances off our roads
right now.
I'm sure
it would be better and a lot of people would enjoy it because, as insurance
rates continually climb, it is causing havoc for people who are responsible
drivers, people who actually do take the time of day to follow the rules of the
road. Yet, when they get the bill for their insurance every month, it is nipping
into their savings as it continually climbs because of hazards of the road, per
se.
So this
is a great step and 100 per cent support it, but now maybe we need to broaden
our scope and start seeing other opportunities to alleviate this issue. But also
try to get a lot of these havoc drivers off our roads and make it a safer place
for those who actually take the time to buy their insurance, be responsible
drivers and follow all the rules of the road. Because there are a lot of them
out there that are very responsible individuals that are being punished for
other people's behaviours.
So with
that, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll be
brief. I'm only going to speak on the merits of this bill, Bill 23, An Act to
Amend the Automobile Insurance Act.
According to the PUB report, one factor contributing to the high cost of
premiums that impact all of us is the high number of accidents involving
vehicles that are not insured currently. And, of course, driving the premiums up
really impacts everybody, not just the people involved with driving without
insurance. We basically pay for all the damage and injury that's incurred by a
driver who actually is not insured. That's a very important fact, and that's one
of the reasons why I support this bill.
One of
the recommendations was to put in place a process to minimize the number of
uninsured drivers. I do commend the government on coming up with this solution,
having the digital solution. Because right now, currently, you just have to have
a policy number associated with the insurance company. I've done it myself when
I went in and I couldn't remember my insurance number. I had to go back and
look. Sometimes I had the old piece of paper that was in my vehicle from a few
years ago, but I just put the number in anyway. Of course, I always drove with
insurance.
So the
problem is right now when you're stopped by an officer, he doesn't know if the
paper is valid or not, like my fellow MHA for Lab West was speaking to. This
creates a problem for everyone. We all suffer. When we have a lot of drivers on
the road who are not insured and they actually have accidents, we all pay the
cost.
When I
say we all suffer, one of my friends from university told me a story a while ago
when I was in university. She was telling me about her brother and he had bought
this new vehicle. Of course, he got the insurance; he got his truck registered.
Within a few months, he wrote the truck off. For years, he was paying on a brand
new truck that he didn't have access to. That really impacted him financially,
and also he incurred fines for driving without insurance. And he had a family to
raise. He didn't have a set of wheels. He was paying on a truck he didn't own.
He was paying off the fines.
So this
legislation I think is actually going to help everybody, because people
shouldn't have to suffer from bad choices. The digital process will prevent that
from happening. It has a real-time. It also has a way to hold drivers
accountable and ensure that there's coverage, if damage or injury occur. We all
pay for uninsured drivers, like I was saying. The periodic checks, too, I really
like that, to make sure that the insurance is current and valid.
The one
thing I do ask and I hope is that there is a direct correlation to the actual
reducing the costs that's incurred from uninsured drivers under the new system.
I hope that all drivers who pay premiums, law-abiding people, I hope their
premiums go down. I hope we actually see this as a trickle-down effect.
That's
all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I just
wanted to say a few words about this particular bill. I have some history with
it back to 2017. It's really good to see progress sometimes. I find time is an
interesting concept. Some things you can remember; I can remember the
temperature; maybe what you would have had for a meal on a particular time
several years ago. As was the case when I remember serving as minister of
Service NL and had my first meeting with the taxi drivers and other members and
owners of the taxi industry. Well, that was quite a welcome to Service NL,
because they were extremely angry.
Facility
Association is the default insurance for those high-risk clients. The taxi
drivers, owners and operators were then, and are still, now facing extremely
high costs. I want to, as with the previous bill, sort of mark progress and I'm
going back to some of my notes I was able to find here where I can remember
being quoted by the media after this. It was close. The drivers were so
frustrated, they were proposing a stand down, essentially a taxi strike here in
St. John's on a couple of occasions during that spring of 2017. We managed to
talk them down on both occasions through some pretty intense discussions, which
I feel very good about. I'm looking back at our comments and it's good.
At the
time, I remember the first meeting there was probably six, seven, maybe eight
different items that staff and the industry had agreed were sort of the pointing
the fingers at why these prices were so high. One of them was this very matter
before us here today. It is really good to see that
Their
frustration, I can recall, talking about the fact that so many folks and our
inability to actually tackle and find out who was complying, who was actually
insured on the road and who wasn't. Because we do have, I think, within Atlantic
Canada the worse performance in terms of the number of uninsured drivers who are
in accidents, and because of that whole Facility Association and the way the
calculations work and so on, by default, even for the honest taxi drivers, they
are paying exorbitant costs.
I find
myself – the habits that you develop in politics, but every time when I leave
here on a Friday morning, usually it's early morning to catch my flight back to
Labrador, I'm in a taxi and I have to ask the driver: Do you own the car? How
much do you pay for insurance? How do you feel about that? So I still find
myself gauging and keeping on top of the topic, as it were. It was back in 2017
I remember saying to saying to Doug McCarthy, one of the key leaders of the –
spokesperson for the owners. I said to him and the media: I feel your pain. It's
reflected in the frustration of those owners.
The guy
that took me to the airport last week, I asked him about his driving history and
he said that we used to own three stretch limos and another taxi in Toronto and
he said for the price of his insurance at that time that it would barely cover
one car here now in our fair province. So I was aware of some changes that were
coming, and I said: At least we're hearing you and we're seeing progress and
there changes coming.
This
certainly will help. It is going to take a little while. The briefing was
excellent, again, by the staff, as you get into the nuances and the
justification of the bill. But as we go to pass this and I'm sensing there is
going to be good support here for it, Minister, but it will still take some
time, of course, for the benefit to show up in Facility Association and the
rates of which one has to pay to insure their vehicle here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Nevertheless, we're making progress and it's good to see. I thank the
staff for all their hard work and patience with so many matters.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL speaks now, we will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker, and thank
you everyone for your feedback. I look forward to answering questions in
Committee.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is Bill 23 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 23)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 23)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
I move, seconded by the
Minister for Digital Government and Service NL, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 23, An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.” (Bill 23)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Chair.
When
will this legislation change come into effect?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
This
would take effect upon proclamation, after receiving Royal Assent.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
When will this electronic
system become available to use by law enforcement and Motor Registration – it
will probably be the same answer, when it all comes into the effect or fairly
quickly.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
We have a few more tweaks to
do with the system, so definitely in 2022. I'm hoping the earlier part of 2022.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Has the Privacy Commissioner
been consulted on the creation of the new system and what was the Commissioner's
recommendation if there was?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
So the
Privacy Commissioner is involved and sees all pieces of legislation. The IT
teams work with the Privacy Commissioner as well on Privacy Impact Assessments.
I think
it is important to understand that for the change to amend the
Automobile Insurance Act we're
debating today there is no change in spirit from the original changes that came
into effect January 1, 2020. We're just kind of doing a housekeeping revision
here, essentially, to help facilities. There's nothing here up and above what
was passed in the last round of changes to the act in terms of, like, policy
decisions. This is more of a housekeeping item.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Has the Insurance Bureau of
Canada been consulted? And what were their recommendations if they were
involved?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Chair.
There's
no impact. From a policy perspective, this would have been passed and taken
effect January 1, 2020. It's like a housekeeping revision. I don't anticipate
that the Insurance Bureau of Canada would have any feedback on this, other than
being supportive.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
S. STOODLEY:
Oh, sorry – they were a
partner in the IT project and, yes, they are involved.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
How much did this cost?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
The work
is still ongoing. A lot of the work happens for our internal team. So we have a
very small MRD team that works on the mainframe and they do all the work. The
way government IT works, which is different than my past life, we don't keep
track of the hours, like the people cost of projects. But, externally, there's
about $65,000 of funding from the federal government that we've received that is
covering any external costs that we have to pay.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
So the question part would be was it budgeted for this year or will it be in
next year's budget or how is that –?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
So that
would be this year and my hope is that the project will be completed before the
next budget year.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
So the question that I have, I'm going to say that if you have a vehicle and the
insurance expires – an example would be my daughter had a car two years ago that
was in my name and she drove it for six months with no registration and I'm
guilty, no question. And everybody else is getting registrations at their house.
How are
you going to ensure that if you – pardon that word. How are you going to make
sure that the car is insured if you forget to licence it? Like, if your licence
or your insurance expires today, how are you going to ensure that that's – is
there somebody going to be notified? That's what I'm trying to get at.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you for the question.
So
different insurance policies, I guess, would renew different ways. My personal
one auto renews. I don't have to do anything and they just send me something in
the mail and then my auto insurance renews. Not everyone's auto insurance is
like that.
Essentially, you'd have yearly insurance unless you cancel. So if someone
cancels their insurance, as an example some of my colleagues have raised during
debate, if you buy a policy and cancel the next day or the next week, the
insurance company would tell our system that they've cancelled and then at MRD
we would have internal processes to make sure that a letter went out or someone
called the person. Because if you don't have insurance like that – depending on
what you change with your insurance that could or would impact your
registration. There would be knock-on effects to your vehicle registration or
your other types of registration.
Driving
without registration is an offence. That's an important piece for everyone to
keep in mind.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I know the offence is $275, I
know that much.
Just in
regard to that. Right now, we have a system in place if your vehicle is not
registered – and I'm using the example it was my daughter's vehicle but it was
in my name – even though we were notified, other than she got hauled in, there
was no way to stop her from doing that. It's the same with insurance.
If you
have insurance on a vehicle – a bank is going to make sure when your car is
financed, no question, but if you have a vehicle that you paid cash for and the
insurance expires, then is there a system in place that you're going to call
that person and say: If you don't have your vehicle insured in five days then
the police are going to show up and ticket you or you're not going to be able to
drive the vehicle?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Yes, there would be because
you'd need at least public liability insurance to have a vehicle on the road. We
would be essentially be contacting you to say that you would no longer be
registered and then when you try to register next year, we would not renew that
either.
I can't
speak to, I guess, specifically and all the time frames and how many
communications we would make and that kind of stuff, but, yes, you would be
notified.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
The last one – and that's
what I wanted to be sure of, that somebody is going to be – because if you buy a
car with public liability and the insurance expires, then will the insurance
company notify motor vehicle that it is expired? That's the main part that I'm
saying.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Yes, so that is in the law,
then once the system is up-to-date it will be mandatory for them to do that.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Further questions?
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
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
Automobile Insurance 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?
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 Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
I move, Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 23.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 23.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 23 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and directed him to report Bill 23 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
When shall the bill be read a
third time?
L. DEMPSTER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Health and Community Services, that this House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.