PDF Version

November 6, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 14

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Good

morning, everyone.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to call Order 2, third reading of Bill 6.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I was

waiting the call of the Chair.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that a

bill,

An Act Respecting Disclosure Of Information Under An Interpersonal

Violence Disclosure Protocol, Bill 6, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 6 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Passed.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act Respecting

Disclosure Of Information Under An Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol.

(Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER:

Sorry for the wait there.

The bill

has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its

title be as on the Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Disclosure Of Information Under An

Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol,” read a third time, ordered passed

and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 4,

second reading of Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that Bill 8,

An Act To Amend The Labour

Standards Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 8,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.” (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted

to personally extend my congratulations to you in your new role as Speaker, and

welcome everybody back to the House of Assembly. It's my first time as Minister

of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

– to be able to bring

legislation before this House to be debated, and I'm very pleased to be able to

discuss a proposed amendment to the Labour

Standards Act as it pertains to parental leave.

Although

it is largely a housekeeping item that we'll be debating here this morning, it's

necessary to make provincial legislation consistent with recent changes to the

federal government's parental leave benefits, effective in March. Mr. Speaker,

Employment Insurance program, the provincial government provides the

job-protected leave through the Labour

Standards Act , and that's really important.

First,

though, I would like to talk a bit about EI parental benefits for context. The

EI parental benefits are offered to parents who are caring for a newborn or a

newly adopted child or children. There are two options available for parental

benefits. There are the standard benefits and then there are extended benefits.

Standard

parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 35 weeks and must be claimed

within a 52-week period, 12 months after the week the child was born or placed,

for the purpose of adoption. The benefits are available to biological, adoptive

or legally recognized parents at a weekly benefit rate of 55 per cent of the

claimant's average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two

parents can share these 35 weeks of standard parental benefits.

Extended

parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 61 weeks and must be claimed

within a 78-week period, that's over 18 months, after the week the child was

born or placed, for the purpose of adoption. The benefits are available to

biological, adoptive or legally recognized parents at a weekly benefit rate of

33 per cent of the claimant's average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum

amount. The two parents can share these 61 weeks of extended parental benefits.

As hon.

Members may recall, the federal government announced in its 2018 budget changes

to its Employment Insurance parental leave benefit. As a result of these

changes, effective March 2019, a new EI Parental Sharing Benefit was implemented

when both parents agree to share in parental leave. The benefit provides an

additional five or eight weeks of benefits to families when the parents of a

newborn or newly adoptive child share parental benefits.

The

Sharing Benefit is available to birth parents or adoptive parents, including

both opposite-sex and same-sex parents. Parental benefits can be accessed at the

same time or separately. Once parental benefits start being paid on a claim,

parents cannot change their duration option, but may change how they share the

weeks of benefits.

The new

benefit increases the duration of the EI parental leave benefit by five or eight

weeks, depending on the parental leave option that will be used. In cases where

the second parent agrees to take the minimum of five weeks using the standard

parental leave, 55 per cent to a maximum of $562 a week of earnings, there is 52

weeks of leave. Alternatively, families can opt for extended parental leave at

33 per cent of earnings for 78 weeks.

As women

comprise 85 per cent of all parental claims and take longer leaves from the

workplace, the parental sharing measure is intended to promote greater gender

equality by creating an incentive for all parents to take some leave when

welcoming a new child and share the work of raising their children more equally.

At the time of implementation of these benefits in March, the federal government

said this type of benefit has been proven to encourage a more balanced sharing

of child care responsibilities that goes well beyond the five-week period.

As I

benefits through the Employment Insurance program, the provincial government

provides the job-protected leave through the

Labour Standards Act , which we're

debating here today. An amendment to the

Labour Standards Act is required to allow workers in Newfoundland and

Labrador full access to the leave and greater flexibility for parents who wish

to share in the federal parental leave benefit.

Honourable Members may recall last year when the

Labour Standards Act was amended for

another change the federal government made to its Employment Insurance parental

leave. As a result of those changes, the

Labour Standards Act was amended to provide job protection for employees for

up to 61 weeks of parental leave, to a maximum combined duration of pregnancy or

adoption and parental leave of 78 weeks in total.

Prior to

the 2018 amendment, Mr. Speaker, the benefit was split as pregnancy leave, 17

weeks and parental leave, 35 weeks, for a total of 52 weeks. So this amendment

allowed for the extended-leave option, which stretched the EI benefit to 78

weeks, where the recipient would still receive the same monetary benefit but

divided over an additional 26-week period. So it is the same benefit, when that

previous amendment was made, but it would allow it to be divided over an

additional six-month period.

The

amendment being suggested today is, though, to allow for an additional five

weeks for those parents who decide to share in a 12-month option. If parents

decide to share in the 12-month option, there's an additional five weeks of

benefits that would be paid through the EI system. There is an additional eight

weeks for those who wish to share in an 18-month option.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the federal government is responsible for

the Employment Insurance benefits. Our legislation provides protection for when

employees take parental leave. Such changes ensure that there is job protection

for workers and represent family-friendly policy decisions.

Section

43.3(2) of the Labour Standards Act

currently states: “Parental leave may begin no more than 35 weeks after the day

the child is born or comes into the care and custody of a parent for the 1st

time.”

The

existing time frame, Mr. Speaker, does not ensure job protection for the maximum

possible duration of the extended leave. The current framework would also limit

the flexibility of when a partner could use their leave. So this is why we're

here today and why it's so important that, in amending the legislation, it is

our goal here today to ensure that any employee can use their leave at the time

it is most convenient for their situation without reducing the leave entitlement

under our legislation.

The

suggested amendment would remove the legislative reference to parental leave

beginning at 35 weeks after the birth of a child and would instead allow the

leave to occur within the first 96 weeks of when a child is born. I think it's

important to repeat that: The amendment here today would remove the legislative

reference to parental leave beginning 35 weeks after the birth of a child and

would allow that flexibility to allow the leave to occur within the first 96

weeks after when a child is born. I want to reiterate and make very clear for

the House that the maximum amount of leave that is attainable by any one

employee remains at 61 weeks. That is the maximum amount of time that can be

taken: 61 weeks.

What is

being proposed here today is the following. We want to repeal

section 43.3(2) of

the Labour Standards Act where

“Parental leave may begin no more than 35 weeks after the day the child is born

or comes into the care and custody of a parent for the 1st time.” We want to

repeal and replace

section 43.5: “Parental leave ends 61 weeks after it began or

on an earlier day if the employee gives the employer at least four weeks'

written notice of that day.”

Mr.

Speaker, it is also recommended that

section 43.5 be replaced with: “

(1) Parental leave ends on the earlier of (a) 61 weeks after it began; or (b) 96

weeks after the day the child is born or comes into the care and custody of the

parent for the first time.”

Then,

“

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), parental leave may end on an earlier day if

the employee gives the employer at least 4 weeks' written notice of that day.”

There's a call for action there based on the employer.

Mr.

Speaker, rather than limit the family's flexibility or reduce the leave possible

under the act, this amendment, what we're debating here today, increases the

maximum time frame in which leave can be taken to 96 weeks so that 61 weeks of

leave can be taken at the parents' choice. This is really all about additional

flexibility.

Mr.

Speaker, this amendment takes nothing away but simply increases the flexibility

for when parents choose to take parental leave. It also provides assurances for

employers in identifying when leave must end. This is important to ensure job

security for employees, while ensuring that work continues.

There

are a number of benefits as a result of this amendment here today. This will

provide the greater flexibility, as I've mentioned a few times in my speech, for

parents so they can better accommodate their child care and family planning

needs, and amending our provinces leave provisions will allow for a more

equitable sharing of parental responsibility. It affords new parents in our

province the opportunity to avail of the maximum parental leave benefits under a

federal program while being assured their job here is protected while they take

time off to care for their child in Newfoundland and Labrador. It makes

consistent with the federal changes to the parental leave benefit.

I also

understand that a number of Members here in the House of Assembly would have

received a briefing from staff at the Department of Advanced Education, Skills

and Labour. I want to thank staff at the Department of Advanced Education,

Skills and Labour for the work they have done on the legislation, especially

those that work in the Labour Standards Division of the department. They have

been working diligently on these matters.

I'm here

as well to answer any particular questions that anyone may have on this

particular amendment. You can pose your questions in debate if you wish, but I'd

be more than happy to answer them when the debate reaches the Committee stage.

encourage all Members to actively participate in this debate. This is good for

families. This is good for people here in Newfoundland and Labrador, to be able

to comply with a federal benefit that they would be able to share in parental

leave, receiving five or eight additional weeks, but also ensure that their job

is protected here at home in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat and allow other Members to contribute to

the debate here this morning.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

congratulate the minister across for inheriting such a wonderful department.

Advanced Education and Skills, I've been with for a while, 30 years or so, and

they're a fabulous staff.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. P. DINN:

Yeah, that's a while, yeah.

It's a

great staff there and, certainly, they do great work. I had the opportunity to

go over and do the briefing with them. So I congratulate the minister on getting

that portfolio.

You joke

across the way about a while, but I can go back a little while. I think when I

first started with Advanced Education, I was actually a Labour Standards

officer, so I had some exposure to the act. I know, at that point in time, there

were two main acts in the labour area that the department looks over. It's the

Labour Standards Act and the

Labour Relations Act , and sometimes

they tend to get confused.

Just for

confirmation, the Labour Standards Act

whereas the Labour Relations Act looks

more at the collective bargaining process. I know people out there, you get many

calls that would be a Labour Relations issue and you're calling Labour Standards

and vice versa. Again, the Labour

province.

This

act, as the minister stated, it's mainly housekeeping, but it's an important

piece of legislation. This bill would amend the

Labour Standards Act to ensure the

provincial legislation pertaining to parental leave is updated and aligns with

the changes that the federal government made to the EI program. The amendment

would require and allow workers in Newfoundland and Labrador to fully access

parental leave and to have greater flexibility for parents who wish to share in

the federal benefits.

The

suggested amendment would remove the legislative reference to parental leave,

beginning 35 weeks after the birth of a child, and would instead allow leave to

incur within the first 96 weeks after the child is born. The maximum amount of

leave available to any one employee remains at the 61 weeks.

I'll

quote what the minister has said or paraphrase just to re-emphasize what we're

doing here.

Section 43.3(2) of the Labour

Standards Act currently states “Parental leave may begin no more than 35

weeks after the day the child is born or comes into the care and custody of a

parent for the 1st time.”

The

existing time frame does not ensure the protection for the maximum possible

duration of extended leave. The current framework would allow the flexibility

when a partner could use their leave. Basically, it is being replaced by

section

43.5 which basically will say that parental leave ends on or earlier than 61

weeks after it began; or 96 weeks after the day the child is born or comes into

the care and custody of a parent for the first time. Notwithstanding subsection

(1), parental leave may end on an earlier day if the employee gives the employer

at least four weeks' written notice of that day.

Some of

the benefits – and this was again noted at our briefing with staff of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour. This amendment is providing greater flexibility

for parents so they can better accommodate child care and family planning needs.

It affords new parents in our province the opportunity to avail of the maximum

parental leave benefits under the federal program, while being assured that

their job here is protected while they take the time to care for their child.

Also, as I noted earlier and the minister noted, it makes it consistent with the

federal changes to parental leave benefit.

As an

example if your child was born or placed with you for the purpose of adoption on

or after March 17, 2019 and you share Employment Insurance benefits, parental

benefits with another partner, you may be eligible for five extra weeks of

standard parental benefits or eight extra weeks of extended parental benefits.

Employment Insurance maternity and parental benefits provide financial

assistance to people who are away from work because they're pregnant or have

recently given birth, parents who are away from work to care for a newborn or

newly adopted child. You could receive up to 55 per cent of your earnings to a

maximum of $562 a week. Maternity benefits, of course, are only available to the

person who is away from work because they're pregnant or have recently given

birth. They cannot be shared between parents. The person receiving maternity

benefits may also be entitled to parental benefits.

With

regard to parental benefits, parental benefits are available to parents of a

newborn or a newly adopted child. You must choose between two options: standard

parental benefits or extended parental benefits. Your choice determines the

number of weeks and the weekly amount you'll receive. If sharing, each parent

must choose the same option and submit their own applications. Parents can

receive their weeks of benefits at the same time or one after another; however,

once you start receiving parental benefits, you cannot change options.

I go

back to – and I agree with the minister on this – this is certainly a

housekeeping amendment. It's keeping us consistent with the EI regulations when

it comes to parental leave and benefits and maternity leave. I do go back to

comments that were made with regard to allowing parents to be home and caring

for their children. We know that in this province affordable child care is

ridiculous. We have individuals out there who make decisions on whether to have

another child or whether to take leave based on affordability. We have many

women out there who have careers, who want to maintain those careers and also

know that time away from work can be a deterrent for advancement in their jobs.

That happens. It's not right but it happens.

When I

look at this from a perspective of our province, an opportunity for this to help

our province and help our residents, I look at it as an opportunity lost here.

This is routine housekeeping. As the minister stated, it takes nothing away but

it increases flexibility. I agree with that, but there's more that can be done

here. There's more that can be done. We have a declining population. Our

fertility rates are perhaps the lowest in the country. We have a declining

labour force. And the women of this province make up a huge, important part of

that labour force. Giving them the opportunity to have a family and remain in

the labour force and advance in the labour force is key to having this province

as a place to stay, live, work and raise a family.

As the

minister stated, 85 per cent of those who take advantage of the parental leave

are women – 85 per cent. And this allows, as the minister stated, women to stay

longer from their job, take more time away to spend with their child. I think

that's no better time spent than spending it with your child.

However,

we look at the options here. You receive 55 per cent of your salary. If you

extend it out, I think it reduces down to 33 per cent. This is a key issue for

women who want to decide whether to work, whether to take extended leave or not,

because it goes back to affordability. There are not many out there who in this

day and age in this economy, with our tax burden, there's not many out there who

can take the time off and take 55 per cent of their salary.

Now,

we've talked about different things in this House in terms of other provinces,

what they do. We talked about equalization in terms of what Quebec gets. We talk

about the child care program that Quebec has. If you go in online to the federal

government website on EI on parental benefits, on maternity benefits, it applies

to all provinces except Quebec.

When I

met with the staff of AESL and they went through this with us, one question I

asked – and I can appreciate getting them off guard on it – but one question was

around the benefit. They get 55 per cent up to a point. If they want to extend a

little further, it drops to 33 per cent. I said, what about shortening the time

and giving them more? What about giving them an option to take less time but be

reimbursed more? Never thought of it.

Again,

women out there, and it is primarily women, who are in a job and want to

continue to work in that job – and even offering it to the other partner, let

them take that shorter period of time off at a greater reimbursement.

I know

this is a federal government program, but I mention Quebec – and I'll tell you

why I mention Quebec – because it applies to everyone but Quebec. Quebec has,

what I would think, in many programs very progressive. They offer allowance for

– in the earlier parts of maternity leave, in their basic plan, individuals can

receive 70 per cent to 75 per cent of their average weekly earnings.

If the

federal government is coming in with these changes, and these have been enacted

back in March, we should be on board. We should be on top of this. We should be

feeding into this. We should be suggesting to the federal government that here

in our province where our unemployment rate has skyrocketed, our population is

declining, our fertility rates are down, we had an opportunity to speak to our

federal counterparts and say: Can we tailor something or can you come up with a

third option here that fits in with our province in ensuring our residents have

all the opportunities to have a family, to keep their careers and to stay

employed in this province?

Again,

this is a housekeeping piece of legislation. It does increase flexibility in

terms of length of duration of time off to care for your child – which, again, I

say is no better time spent – but we also have to take into consideration the

fiscal and economy constraints on family units. We have to take that into

consideration, and I think we have to be proactive. We have to keep our eyes

open for any opportunity.

I don't

care what government is up there, if it's a Liberal minority, a Conservative, an

NDP, but if we're working with federal programs and we have an opportunity here

to make it better and tailor it better for our residents in our province – and

we can't say it can't be done because, as I say, Quebec seems to march to a

different drum. I applaud that. I applaud that, if they can do that and work for

their constituents and for their residents.

This is

a good bill, there's nothing wrong with it, but I just wanted to take the

opportunity to highlight missed opportunity. As we go forward, I think we have

to be more intent on looking at the finer details of what's coming forward,

because we can certainly look at it initially and say it's housekeeping, which I

myself would look at it and say. I think if we're looking at it, we have to look

a little deeper at some of these changes that come forward. We have to be able

to realize, what are the ramifications of this – and this is pretty positive –

but what are the other opportunities here when you're talking about options.

Like you

said, the very first one that hit me was we're extending at a certain

percentage, why can't we just reduce it as an option and give women, families

and parents an opportunity to take that lesser time off and receive more pay,

because that may fit into their situation. Not everyone can take – some can't

take any time off. We know the cost of child care. Most people take it off

because they say if I work, I'll just be working to pay child care, but they

take the time and they spend time – and time that they won't get back with their

child. I totally applaud that.

In the

future, if we could start looking at this and saying, what would work for our

residents, what can we do to ensure that they have all the options available to

them, to a mother or a father or parents who can take – well, I can take three

months off. Three months is a good time to be off. I'm going to take it off and

not lose much in the way of my wages. That's an option.

Again, I

thank the minister for his comments over there. I applaud him for bringing this

forward. He has wonderful staff and I'm sure he'll do well over there. I'm not

criticizing here but I'm just looking at options. We need to have a greater lens

on this. I know when we do Cabinet papers and such, you have to have a gender

lens on this. I think we need to start putting that on a lot of this, look at a

family lens on this and how it works best for our province.

I'll

take my seat, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll say

good morning to everyone, Wednesday morning here in the House, and we're back at

the people's business. It's a pleasure for me to stand and speak to Bill 8, An

Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act – a very important topic.

When I

looked at this bill, it took me back, Mr. Speaker, to my own experiences as a

young mother with my two children. I'm sure I may weave a little bit of that in

as I speak, but just for the purposes of anybody who may be watching. Sometimes

my colleagues say, who's watching the House Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock or

11 o'clock? But I do often get mail sometimes, Mr. Speaker, seniors that are out

in various homes and they write me, and I really appreciate it. Sometimes they

send me pictures and they ask me to send their pictures back and things like

that. So you never know who's watching on a Wednesday morning.

Bill 8

would amend the Labour Standards Act

to “remove the requirement for parental leave to begin no later than 35 weeks

….” At present, Mr. Speaker, you would have to take that leave within 35 weeks

after the child is born or comes into the custody or care of a parent.

The bill

would also amend the Labour Standards Act

to “require that parental leave come to an end on the earlier of 61 weeks

from the day it began or 96 weeks after a child is born or comes into the

custody or care of a parent.”

Mr.

Speaker, I once read somewhere there's only one thing more precious than our

time, and that's what we spend it on. I think that's relevant to the

conversation. What we're talking about here today is a very refreshing topic.

I was at

my hairdressers a few days ago and there was a new baby there, three weeks old,

and my colleague would have also met that little guy is my understanding – just

so precious. They come into the world and those first weeks and those first

months require so much attention. Just meeting the infant's very basic needs is

really a full-time job, Mr. Speaker.

When I

was having my second child, I had people that would say to me: now you have to

focus on the toddler because they need the attention – but just providing the

basic needs of bathing and feeding, and then you're exhausted. So if we can

provide flexibility to allow for the other parent to come into the picture at

the time that's most needed, there's so much value in that, Mr. Speaker.

We're

talking about, today, supporting parents with new children, and I can tell you

also, as the Minister of Seniors, we have aging demographics in this province.

We have a population pyramid that looks like this and we don't have as many

people having children as we had years ago. I grew up in a home where there was

12 of us, and my colleague behind me, I believe it was 16 or 18 in his home –

big families, Mr. Speaker. People aren't doing that anymore. We are finding that

both parents are out working. There are a lot of things to consider when you're

having a child. So if we're able to provide flexibility and to make amendments,

there's so much value in that.

As a

parent, and as the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, I'm

very pleased to stand in this hon. House to speak to Bill 8,

An Act to Amend the

Labour Standards Act, and to offer my support. I throw a bouquet to my Minister

of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for bringing this amendment in today.

We might say it's a housekeeping measure, but the intent is to ensure that

provincial labour legislation pertaining to parental leave is updated to align

Insurance Parental Sharing Benefit.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm happy to support this bill because the proposed amendments provide

greater flexibility for parents so that they can better accommodate their child

care and their family planning needs. That's another change we see, Mr. Speaker.

I grew up in rural; I grew up in a small community where if a parent needed to

go somewhere, you didn't have to look too far to find someone to watch your

child for a few minutes or an hour, if you were going to an event. In more urban

areas, people move around for work; they may not have that family support, so

the only supports that the child may have, the newborn, may be the parents. With

this proposed change, both parents have the option to more equally share in

child care by sharing the available parental leave.

While

the parental benefit is the responsibility of the federal government, it is our

responsibility as the provincial government to provide the job-protected leave

through labour standards. Mr. Speaker, there is a great expense to having a

child, and there's a much greater expense today to having a child than it was

back in the days of larger families when the kids wore hand-me-downs from the

older siblings and there was diapers, and now there's Pampers. There are lots of

things that have changed.

Parents

want to provide the best they can for their children today and they see what

other children have and things like that. The last thing you need to be worrying

about at a time in your life when you're changing from a couple into a family,

you're bringing this new child into your home, is about your job because you're

actually going to be spending more money, Mr. Speaker.

We're

talking about protecting people's jobs, but I'm so happy to see this flexibility

being interwoven. The most important job in this world – I know for me, I always

look to my children. Your greatest accomplishment is your children, our greatest

possession. I think everything that we do in society, Mr. Speaker, should be to

ensure that our children get the best support, to ensure they have the care and

the nurturing of their parents at home and for their parents to be able to spend

as much time as possible with them in those early formative years.

implementing this proposed amendment we are giving parents the choice to avail

of the maximum parental leave benefits under the new federal Parental Sharing

Benefit program without having to worry about whether or not their job will be

protected while they are taking time off to care for their child. The proposed

amendment to the Labour Standards Act ,

Mr. Speaker, is such a positive step towards us as a government to further

support family-friendly policies.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm in a department where we often talk about – the whole continuum

across the lifespan is pretty much housed in CSSD. We start with breastfeeding

consultants that are housed under my shop and we go right down to seniors and

aging in the department. We've made some really great strides, I believe, around

the province. Is there more work to do? Absolutely, there's lots more work to do

but, in particular, around baby-friendly feeding spaces.

Just a

few months ago I was up in Goose Bay. I was really pleased to spend some time

with Mayor Andersen. I applaud his forward thinking in saying: How does our

municipality come on board and be more baby friendly? How do we go out in our

community?

Mr.

Speaker, when we look back to 10, 20 years ago – well, much further than that,

maybe – that was not always supported either. Even by our elderly parents and

grandparents, that was something that you – many people didn't breastfeed. We

know that breastfed is best fed. All this ties together. We're bringing in more

flexibility around parental leave and we need to do everything we can to support

these new parents as they go down this road in their lives.

What's

being proposed and debated today is both cognizant and respectful of not only

the importance of family bonding, but also the wonderful variety that exists

within families. It's already been talked about this morning here in this hon.

House that birth parents, adoptive parents, same-sex and opposite-sex parents,

as well as birth surrogates, are all recognized in this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

As I was

getting ready to speak, I was thinking about myself taking maternity leave back

in the early '90s with both of my children and it was six months, Mr. Speaker.

I'll tell you, the first three or four I barely know anything about it because

you're so sleep deprived. Even though I was 26 years old, I didn't have much

experience with babysitting and things, so it was a big adjustment in my life.

Right at the time I started to enjoy and appreciate my children, it was time to

go back to work.

I was

very, very fortunate in that my husband, all of these years, worked seasonal. He

would work for six months of the year and six months of the year he would get to

spend with the children. So, we were very, very fortunate that way because there

is so much emphasis and importance that needs to be placed on that attachment

and that bonding in those early formative years.

With

this flexibility I was thinking about a lot of folks, constituents of mine, who

commute for work. Maybe the dad commutes for work. We have a lot of that, I

think, especially in our rural parts, Mr. Speaker. So what happens now is the

dad will be home on a turnaround, maybe in the first 35 weeks so will be able to

be with the child and now will be able to take some time off, further out, up to

the first 61 weeks. I think it's going to work very positively for those

families as well, where you have one parent that may be commuting for work and

it'll just add that flexibility.

addition, the proposed amendment can assist with enhancing well-being and

resiliency with children and family. There is a lot of interesting research

around parents and their children. According to a growing body of scientific

evidence, the foundations of a person's life-long health – think about this now,

Mr. Speaker, the foundations of a person's life-long health are largely set

during a child's initial first 1,000 days of their life. Just think about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. DEMPSTER:

If you live to be 70 or 80

years old, the health largely sits with those first 1,000 days. That's what

we're talking about here today, Mr. Speaker. We want these children to have a

fantastic start in life. We want them to grow up and be educated and contribute

to our province in a very meaningful way and thrive here in Newfoundland and

Labrador – this place that we are all so proud to call home. I'm a little bit

biased, like many of us, but I just think we live in the best province among

provinces and territories in this country.

W want

to give our children that good start, Mr. Speaker. So the more supports that we

can provide, the more flexibility that we can provide to children at the

beginning, we're all certainly going to benefit from that. By investing in our

children and our families we're setting the stage for better things to come

later in life.

Mr.

Speaker, I've been in the Department of CSSD since 2017, and housed in that

social department is also child welfare. There are some heavy things that we

deal with in child welfare, very heavy things. I go home sometimes at the end of

the day and I think how fortunate we are compared to some children and the roads

they've gone down. And you do have to wonder what happened in their life, what

happened in their parents' life. We have a huge focus right now, a new piece of

legislation that we brought into the House in May 2018, proclaimed in June of

this year, around preservation of the family unit. We're talking about those

early days.

I'm

digressing for a moment, but one of the things that really struck me, since I've

been in the department, when we're working with vulnerable families, vulnerable

parents – it's always the last resort – but sometimes when we've had to remove

children, when you reunify them with their parent, it doesn't matter what their

parent has done, if they struggled with alcohol and addictions there's that bond

there. It's so strong. It's just driven home for me as the minister that we need

to do all we can to keep the children in the home, to provide wraparound

supports to vulnerable families, because it's best for the parent and it's

absolutely best for the child, Mr. Speaker. I can't think of a better investment

that we can make going forward than into our families.

Always a

really wonderful topic – it touches close to home for me – that I love to talk

about. Because I was very, very fortunate, while I was raised by grandparents in

a very large family, had a wonderful start in life, and I owe so much to them. I

respect that not everybody has been that blessed, Mr. Speaker.

Back to

Bill 8, the changes proposed will be helpful for families that also may have

other young children in the home. And I briefly alluded to that in my opening:

managing life with a newborn and a toddler. Then I was thinking, we live in this

province where winters are long and you throw in a few snowstorms into that,

it's pretty challenging. You maybe have to get out for an appointment with your

newborn and then you're trying to get this toddler out the door as well. I know,

in my case, I had a toddler and then I had a baby that would cry until about 4

in the morning and I'd fall asleep and then you would have to get up at 8:30,

but we get through. These are the very practical things about parenting. These

are the things that we all go through in those first weeks of being a parent,

which is why we need to bring in these flexibility options, Mr. Speaker.

Then

think about parents that welcome the arrival or twins or triplets. I know a

young lady in my district now that has twins, beautiful twins, and she's pretty

busy with them. I spoke with a gentleman last night, and his triplets are now

three years old, but they were pretty busy and both of them were working outside

the home – two little girls and a boy, Mr. Speaker. Then you think about those

who have difficult pregnancies, some who have to have Caesarean sections, major

things, and you just need that extra flexibility. Then I think about the

children born with disabilities. Extra parental leave would assist with

alleviating some of the stress, the added burden of having a child born with

various, maybe additional needs that require additional attention, Mr. Speaker.

Overall,

I'm very pleased to be able to support this amendment to the

Labour Standards Act under Bill 8, Mr.

Speaker. Very happy to see that this amendment is intended to provide greater

flexibility for parents so they can better accommodate their child care and

planning needs, the amendment which affords new parents in our province the

opportunity to avail of the maximum parental leave benefits under the federal

program, Mr. Speaker.

A couple

more points here and then I'll take my place. Somebody asked earlier, why are

you changing the leave to 96 weeks? I want to say, Mr. Speaker, we are not

changing the leave. We need to be clear; it's important to be clear. We are not

changing the leave to 96 weeks; we are changing the time frame in which an

employee could take their 61 weeks of job-protected parental leave. The change

to parental leave ending within 96 weeks allows for the maximum 61 weeks of

leave to be maintained. That's just allowing the leave to be taken at any time

during the time frame that is already established in legislation.

Mr.

Speaker, something that I noted here, it is interesting that while we're talking

about supporting new parents and giving them the flexibility to find their way

through the first weeks and months of having a child, in the majority of cases,

this amendment we're bringing in means little to employers. Just think about

that. We're doing something here that's going to help parents with young

children and it means little to employers, so it only makes absolute sense that

we would do it.

It got

me thinking about how we give so much to our work life. We get up every day and

we give and give and give, and sometimes that comes with a price. It's

interesting because often you could say, at the end of your working career,

you're replaced – we get up, we come into work and we think if this isn't done,

if this isn't done, things are going to fall apart; but then when we finish our

career, we're replaced in a heartbeat and who even remembers our name, Mr.

Speaker. It's your family – sometimes when there's loss among family, that can't

be replaced. That's why it's so important for us to do whatever we can, Mr.

Speaker, to support families, to help preserve the family unit. It's so

insignificant really to the employer.

I am

very happy to support Bill 8. I want to thank the Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour for bringing in this amendment today.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the minister for his very detailed presentation of the bill, my

colleague from Topsail - Paradise and my colleague across the way, the Minister

of Children, Seniors and Social Development. I have to comment and say that I

thoroughly enjoyed her presentation there. Not only was it very factual in

detail but I love when people can draw real-life experiences to a particular

bill, a piece of legislation and apply it to real life. I, myself, and my

constituents sincerely appreciate that.

When the

Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development spoke to the most important

job, I couldn't agree with her more. Parenting is definitely the most important

job or occupation you could partake in, in all of life. While the definition of

a parent has evolved and continues to evolve from what we had been most familiar

with in decades past, parenting is more of an activity than an actual

occupation. It can be done by grandparents, extended family, newly adoptive

parents, and it's very important that we support that kind of activity because

whether we like to really see it or not, without the care and production of

children, there is no future.

Children

are our future. That's why we stand here today in the Legislature to make

amendments to legislation, to introduce new legislation to make it better for

those aspects of the future. When you look at children, that is the reason why

we have a future because there are going to be people who will mature, become

adults and fill our roles that we do today.

I'm

always a big proponent of syncing provincial legislation to reflect federal

legislation. It just removes a lot of convolutedness when it comes to

applications for employment assistance. The employer has more of a clear vision

of how the absence of a particular employee is going to affect their business.

While it

may not be considered a concern for employers because, technically, it's a

program funded by the Employment Insurance aspect, it is a concern for

employers. I know myself, as an employer, obviously, we support maternity and

parental benefits, because, as I said, it's necessary for our future, but we do

have to take into consideration how the absence of an employee will affect the

running and, possibly, success of a business.

remember as a young parent 20-odd-years ago, back then my wife took the

maternity and parental benefits, but both of us had to go back to work at a

certain point. At the time, we were working on my father's farm – and I'd like

to think it was because I was a valuable employee, not because I was my father's

son – but I was able to take my son to work. How I did it was I put a backpack

on, my son went around and I did my duties, be it working physically in the

fields or in the office. I think his most favourite thing to do was drive the

tractor.

In the

middle of the night sometimes, if I couldn't get him to go to sleep, well, I'd

figure out something to do and go out on the tractor. I had this little seat

fashioned in the tractor and away we went. He'd fall asleep and I'd get all

sorts of work done. So that was a benefit of being my parents' employee, and I'd

like to think a great employee, too.

That's

something that has evolved. Obviously, it's not acceptable this day and age to

put your son in a rigged up car seat in a tractor, but there are – we even see

it in the modern tractors that we use in our fields today, there is what we call

a buddy seat. It does have a car seat provision there, which is obviously very

important.

So I

think that employers, and businesses in general, we're 100 per cent supportive

of this type of extension and flexibility. To say it doesn't affect business

would not be, I don't think, a true reflection of the actual situation. Because

when you have a valuable employee that does leave, sometimes that puts projects

in the throes. You do have to go through the hiring process. You have to go

through the training process of a new employee – which, of course, does have

some side benefits. Now all of a sudden you have opportunity, when the other

individual returns, to possibly expand your business, because now you have two

people trained in that role. But there has to be consideration given to

employers and businesses. It does affect them.

What we

have to really also look at too, and consider, is how important – that beyond

the federally-funded portion of parental and maternal leave, we do have to look

in this province at affordable child care. We are desperate to increase or even

maintain – not even increase our population at this time. We're desperate to

maintain our population at this time.

As the

previous Members have said, our fertility rates – well, our birth rates have

gone down. Once upon a time our province had the highest birth rates. We had the

highest number of people in families, but over the past, say, three, four

decades that has drastically fallen by the wayside, and largely due to financial

restraints on having a large family.

I didn't

come from a real large family, but by today's standards it would be. There were

four of us. We often shared clothes from one – as you grew out of something,

well, you passed it on to your brother or sister, or whatever it may be. Those

kind of things are efficiencies that you can realize in big numbers. Also, back

20 years ago that was a bit more of a socially accepted practice. Now I'd like

to see everybody giving clothes and whatever type and furniture a reuse, a

second purpose. I think not only is it economically viable but it's also a great

savings on our environment.

Back to

the affordability of parenthood, it's essential that we encourage people to have

families, however means it happens, be it through surrogacy, adoption or the

good old-fashioned way, whatever way that would be. We have those financial

pillars in places such as giving parents the flexibility to fill the roles in

their child's development.

As the

minister has said, the most important days of a child's life have been almost

proven to be the first three years of their life. That is when, of course, they

do need the most care. Often, when people do decide to have families – I always

tell everybody when I see somebody with their first child, I'll always encourage

them. I say the first one is a lot of work but the second one is only half as

much. So you do see advantages to having children closer together. If a parent

is able to spend time with a newborn or a new entry into the family, it will

also afford the ability to spend more time with that toddler and create that

family bond and family unit.

One

thing I did notice, and I wasn't really clear on, and maybe the next speaker

could speak to it, is I wasn't quite sure on the clarity of if an individual or

a parent-to-be adopted an older child in their teens or in their – not in their

toddler stage but in an older stage, would they also be eligible for this type

of parental support from government? The reality is there are many children in

our system and throughout the world that are not babies, that are not toddlers,

that do need a loving home and would surely appreciate parents and the support

of a family. I do hope – and I apologize if that is clarified there, but I

didn't see it right away whether the parents of an older child, through

adoption, is also taken into consideration.

Back to

affordable child care, that has to be an extension of this type of legislation.

It's been proven time and time again, affordable child care, while it is an

expense to government and it is an expense to the jurisdiction in which it's

administered, it pays back 10 times over. It enables people to have children, it

enables people to get back to work. It enables people to consider working,

consider starting businesses. That's a huge aspect that is lacking in the

entrepreneurial world.

Yes,

there are supports there for employees, but employers also need similar type

supports. Employers also need affordable child care. The reality is when there

are jobs created, people see a future; therefore, they see a future in becoming

a parent and raising a family. We also have to look at providing the same type

of support for employers.

Again,

back to affordable child care. I don't think we can talk about it – well, I

think we've talked about it enough. We actually need to do something about it

now. I know our party's platform included an affordable child care program. I

think there are not many people who could raise an argument against such an

endeavour and such a social initiative. Affordable child care is a benefit to

all. It's a benefit to the children, it's a benefit to their parents, it's a

benefit to the community. Hopefully, it would result in some people who would

not be able to become parents, due to financial constraints, enable them to do

it.

This

type of legislation, I think this is a great step to advancing ourselves towards

affordable child care. It also is a great step to sync it with federal

standards. As I said, the more that we can align ourselves with federal

legislation the easier the programs are to administer which also result in cost

savings. It provides a clarity to not only the recipients of the support system,

but also provides huge clarity to the employer which is very, very important.

Because without stability within business and clarity within businesses,

businesses will not be as successful; therefore, not be able to maintain those

jobs that enable the funding of the Employment Insurance program and the

funding, of course, of people's livelihoods.

With

that, I'm going to conclude my speech to this. I personally support this

amendment. I think it's the first part of many steps to get to that affordable

child care legislation.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

delighted to be able to speak to this legislation. I'd like to thank the

minister for doing an excellent job of relating the federal regulations and

sharing with us how our provincial regulations will accommodate those federal

regulations.

I would

like to point out that this is simply an exercise in enabling access to federal

government programming. We are simply changing the provincial legislation to

enable individuals living here in Newfoundland and Labrador access to these

extended parental benefits. This is a very simple procedure and I'm delighted

we're able to do this now so people can start availing of this program sooner

rather than later; however, I would like to take some time to address a number

of nuances within this regulation. Certainly, I can tell by some of the noise

level here, the many other conversations, people are also quite excited about

this topic and are engaged in it.

Some

things I would like to bring up that this legislation will have significant

implications for – I know many of us here, almost all of us, perhaps myself

excluded, can relate personal stories of parenting. It is not easy. There are

late nights, there are lots of frustrations, there's enormous extra cost

associated with that. I do not need to tell you what you already know. Instead,

I would like to talk about some of the details of legislation and some of the

implications of that. I'm going to offer a different perspective on this, like

New Democrats tend to do.

In my

previous life, I was the executive officer of the Faculty Association at

Memorial University. One of my roles there was to prepare for collective

bargaining. In our collective agreement we have accommodations for parental and

maternity leave. One of the implications of this provincial legislation is going

to be how we accommodate that in our collective agreement. Some of those changes

there are quite significant.

One of

the things we're going to talk about under those collective agreements is the

number of benefits that individuals receive, top-up, access to child care; all

of these are key issues. Before I get into that, I would like to give credit to

the Member for Topsail - Paradise for pointing out that, yes, there is

potentially another option. He suggested instead of having standard or extended

benefits, why don't we have compressed benefits with a greater benefit

associated with that. Excellent idea.

How

about we go a little step further? Why don't we talk about topping up EI? We can

do that locally. If we were to look at changing the federal regulations, that is

a much more onerous and difficult task. It requires discussing with the federal

government, making sure we have agreement all across Canada. That's a much more

difficult process. If we want to make this easier for parents to have children,

and in the face of a declining population and an aging population, we need more

babies born here.

If we

want to encourage that, let's make it easier for people to have children. It's

pretty easy to have a baby; we all know it's much more difficult to raise that

child. So in raising that child –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COFFIN:

In raising that child, we have extra costs associated with that. When we're

looking at having a baby, having your second baby, having your third baby, if

you're looking at the extra costs associated with that and you're facing a year

at a salary that is at 55 per cent of what you are currently earning, not only

are you caring for a baby and it's a totally foreign situation to you, you're

doing it with almost half of the income you had previously.

You're

buying car seats and you're buying Pampers and you're buying formula. These

things are not things you're sharing with anyone else. We all know two people

can often live a little more comfortably, a little more frugally, but when we

add a child into that, we're not using diapers, we're not using baby food, we're

not using breast pumps. I'm certainly hoping we're not sharing that across the

parents. So there are extra costs associated with that, but we have less money

to do that. So a very reasonable way of encouraging individuals to have babies

and take time off to care for those children properly is by offering top-ups.

Here's

another thing I'd like to do. I'd like to thank the Member for Cartwright -

L'Anse au Clair who has stated: We need to do everything we can to help parents;

more supports we can provide to families the better; the best investments we can

make is in families. These are excellent. So here are some suggestions.

Let's

encourage the accommodation of new legislation in our collective agreements. We

all know many of the public sector bargaining units are heading into collective

bargaining right away. We've seen this in the news on multiple times. So when

help accommodate parents have more children and make that process easy for them.

Let's

talk about going into the collective bargaining process and adding employers

continuing to pay the share of employment benefits because your health benefits

and your life insurance benefits are often not covered when you're on EI or, if

you take extended EI, you lose your employer's share being paid on your

benefits. So if you take the extended benefits where you get 33 per cent of your

income for a year and a half, so you get less income for a longer time, at the

end of that you lose your benefits on top of it. So when your child gets a cold,

you can't take them to the doctor and expect your medication to be paid for, or

you pay extra with the 33 per cent of your salary that you have to have your

benefits covered. That's really incongruent now, isn't it?

So why

don't we go into our collective bargaining with a mindset of we're going to make

it easier for families to live and raise children here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Let's go in with employers having a proposal to top up employers'

share of extended health and life insurance benefits. I think that would be a

true benefit to families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let's

talk about some other things that we can have. One of the things I would like to

encourage is say kudos to government to encourage and enabling both parents to

take parental leave. We have ample evidence that suggests that both parents and

children do better when both parents take parental leave.

One of

the things that we're seeing in this legislation is not only are we accessing

extended parental leaves, albeit at much more reduced rates, but we do have an

additional benefit if the second parent takes some of that parental leave, then

they can get extra weeks – excellent, excellent, excellent idea. Let's make sure

it's easier for them and let's start topping that stuff up.

Here's

another piece: Not only do we want to cover off the employers' share of

benefits, how about we take that extra step and start talk about topping up our

EI benefits? So instead of saying I'm going to take a year off and care for my

child because that's the very best thing I can do for my child, but I have to do

that at 45 per cent of my salary, why doesn't government make this brilliant

move to say we will top up your EI benefits, so you don't have to go out with 55

per cent of your benefits and attempt to care for someone else but you can go

out with full benefits. Or maybe full benefits is a little too much. Maybe we

can start gentle and maybe we can say you take 55 per cent of your salary on EI

and government will top you up an extra 25 per cent this year and, as we move

into the future, it can top up a little bit more and a little bit more, with a

vision for 100 per cent top-up.

This

doesn't have to be instantaneous because I understand the fiscal situation that

we're in, but investing in families, as I quote the Member for Cartwright -

L'Anse au Clair, is our best investment. So let's start talking about truly

investing in families.

Again,

thanks to the Member for Mount Pearl North in pointing out that we need more

affordable daycare. I would be remiss if I did not point out that a hallmark of

our platform in our NDP caucus is that we have $25-a-day child care. This is

doable, this is reasonable and I think that this will help provide the supports

for families who want to have more than two children.

I have

heard too many stories of people who love children, want to have more children,

but cannot fathom the prohibitive cost of putting a third – let alone a fourth

or a fifth child – into child care. Let's make it easier for people to be able

to raise their children so that they are not stressed because we know the more

stress we have, the more difficult our home life is, the more difficult our work

life is, the more difficult everything is. By reducing that stress we make life

better for everyone. We also become productive as a result of that because if

we're not worrying, we can focus on the work that we actually have to do. Let's

think about some of the other things that fit into this puzzle. Yes, we're

investing in families, but there is so much more that we can do to invest in

families.

I have

one other point to make. This is a reasonable start. It is good to have families

that are doing well, who are able to avail of these EI programs and services;

however, this does nothing to address the number of children that we are seeing

on the maternity ward that are suffering from drug withdrawal and fetal alcohol

syndrome.

I have

had too many people come to me and say: Do you have some time to come to the

maternity ward to comfort these infants who are unable to be comforted, because

their parents are not physically or mentally able to comfort them? These infants

simply need us to hold them, give them a sense of security and give them a sense

of bonding. We have not addressed this anywhere and this is one of the hallmarks

of our current recession.

As we

saw our boom and bust happen, we saw a greater prevalence of drugs, we saw a

greater prevalence of addictions and a whole host of other social ailments. If

we do not do anything to help mitigate this now, this problem is only going to

get worse. I know I'm veering off just a little bit but our key thing here is

our families are, again, our best investment that we can make. If we continue to

make decisions that leave us with families broken or children crying in

maternity wards because their families have been ravaged by addiction, that is

not appropriate.

I do

look forward to the opportunity to have a more detailed discussion about how we

can craft better collective agreements, how the provincial government can

initiate better programs and services to help invest in families; but, for now,

I would like to say that this legislation or this bill has the full support of

myself and my caucus and I would like to see us get moving on this as soon as

possible.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

make some remarks on this particular legislation that we're putting forward

today. As many people have said, it is very much housekeeping. It allows us to

bring our legislation in line with federal legislation. Mr. Speaker, I will say

that the reason we're making these changes is important. We talked about

collective agreements and getting ready for this type of thing in collective

agreements.

In this

year's budget, Members may not remember, we announced changes, proactively, long

before this legislation today for our public servants. I'll get into that in a

little more detail, what we've done for our public servants, but we did that as

part of this year's budget.

Mr.

Speaker, the federal government announced the new Parental Sharing Benefit, and

I don't need to go into all the details because it's been talked about by

several Members what it entails in terms of what the federal government is doing

and how we are mirroring that in our legislation here today. Suffice it to say,

Mr. Speaker, that these changes are important for a variety of reasons.

They're

important for individuals who are thinking about having a child but concerned

about employment or the length of time they can spend with a child. I know that

my colleague who sits next to me talked about that to some degree.

I'll

speak from some personal experience. My mother, who sat as a Member of this

Legislature and some of the Members opposite remembers sitting with her, she was

known, very well recognized in this province as somebody with a lot of

compassion, with a lot of empathy for the needs of others. That was displayed in

how she conducted herself as a Member of this Legislature.

Some of

that may be as a result of the fact that she raised six children, but she had

her children in an era where is was more common for women to stay home and raise

children and men go to work and provide a living. So, she stayed home. She was a

homemaker, Mr. Speaker, and raised us – stayed home to do that.

We are

seeing a very different world today where women are working as much as men, and

rightfully so. This legislation allows for men to stay home and care for

children as much as women, and rightfully so. I think the children will benefit

from that. I think the workforce will benefit from that.

As I

said, my mother was a Member of this Legislature, and I would say a very fine

Member of this Legislature. She came from a –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, we still have work to do, but gone are the days, I hope, where a

woman has to choose between work and raising a family. And that's part of what

this legislation is about, and that's part of what we announced in this year's

budget.

As I

said, there's still work to be done in that regard, but we now allow both

parents, whether it's a man and a woman or same-sex parents, it doesn't make any

difference. We allow both parents, Mr. Speaker, to make a decision as to who

stays home, or whether or not they share that responsibility, and who goes to

work or whether or not they share that responsibility.

So it's

a huge part of what we're doing here today, Mr. Speaker. It's important that

parents are able to contribute to both raising a family and participating in the

workforce. There are a number of aspects that I'll talk about in terms of the

importance, in terms of population retention, our aging population in this

province. I don't need to speak to Members about how important that is, that we

encourage population growth and population retention.

One of

those ways, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage young families to have children and to

relieve some of the stress of those families in having children. One of the ways

is by attracting immigration to this province. One of the biggest factors in

that is diversifying the economy and creating opportunities so that people feel

better about having children; so that people feel better about moving to this

province; people feel better about staying in this province. So, as a

government, we've worked hard in that regard as well, because we need to be able

to diversify the economy and create the opportunities in order to grow the

population.

Mr.

Speaker, AESL focused very much on immigration and the Immigration Strategy in

this province, and it is showing signs of success. We still have work to do in

that regard. We'll continue to do that work.

I know

as Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, a shrinking population and an aging

population causes concern in terms of a tax base and whether or not we're able

to spread the responsibility for the tax base over more or fewer people. These

types of initiatives – all of the things we do – add and contribute to trying to

grow the economy, whether it is through births, natural population growth, or

whether it's through immigration.

Mr.

Speaker, if we want to increase our population, I've talked about some of the

things we need to do. We need to help support young families in putting down

their roots in this province, and I've talked about some of the ways we need to

do that. People need to know their job is safe when they take the necessary time

to care for their children, especially in the crucial first year. The

legislation that's being put forward today provides that extra bit of security

so that people know their job is safe.

Mr.

Speaker, in addition to my responsibility as Minister of Finance, I also hold

the responsibility for the Human Resource Secretariat. Being responsible for HRS

in this province, the responsibilities that come with that – and many of the

Members here in the Legislature, many people in the province, look at the

Minister of Finance as the Minister of Finance and minister responsible for

Treasury Board, but HRS is also a very important factor, a very important

division in my department.

As the

Minister Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat, I represent government

as the employer of the public service. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud in our most recent

budget – and I talked about that a little bit earlier – we introduced measures

to support members of our public service when they make a decision to start a

family. We did that proactively, and, in fact, we did it in consultation with

our unions. It is inserted into the teachers' collective agreement, it's

inserted into the Nurses' Union collective agreement, and because we were

looking at doing this in the budget, we proactively included it for our other

unions as well.

The idea

for this came through the collective agreement process. I will give some credit

to NAPE and the leadership of NAPE because they talked to me about this

particular issue when we were in collective bargaining. I gave the leadership of

NAPE my word that we would investigate it, and while we weren't ready to do it

as part of their collective agreement because we needed to investigate it

further, that I would focus on doing it in our next budget.

He took

my word on that, Mr. Speaker, and my word is my bond, as many of the union

leaders in this province know. We went to work on that. We did the necessary

homework to ensure it could happen, Mr. Speaker. We included it in subsequent

collective agreements but we weren't going to make NAPE or other unions wait for

that, so we proactively included it in this year's budget.

Mr.

Speaker, we extended maternity, adoption and parental leave and selected

benefits from 52 weeks to 78 weeks for public service employees in this

province. We also ensured that those who take extended leave for these reasons

are not disadvantaged in their careers as they continue to accrue service

towards step progression, and their service will be recognized to include the

time they are away.

Employees will also maintain the option of purchasing pensionable service, and

government will match those contributions. Mr. Speaker, employees can also

maintain their group insurance coverage during their leave, provided they make

their premium payments.

These

changes represent our commitment to the people we employ through our public

service, Mr. Speaker. They represent our commitment to the people we employ, and

as an employer we also work with employees who need flexibility with work

arrangements. We have a deferred salary leave program where permanent employees

with at least 12 months of continuous service may avail of a deferred salary

leave plan designed to help the plan and finance a leave of absence for periods

of six to 12 months.

Mr.

Speaker, in addition to economic diversification and trying to create jobs in

this province, we're also looking at other ways, such as those that I've just

outlined. We understand the value of supporting our employees. The legislation

we have here today speaks to that to some degree. What we've done in

Budget 2019 speaks to that as well.

As a

government, Mr. Speaker, we provide support in other ways to our families. The

Department of Finance administers the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit,

which is a provincial tax credit paid monthly to help low-income families with

the cost of raising children under the age of 18. In

Budget 2019 , we also included $376,000 in funding for the Single

Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide programs and services

to single families such as the Single Parent Employment Support Program.

Mr.

Speaker, while this legislation today is considered by many to be just

housekeeping, it is housekeeping to allow an important social program to work as

it is intended, so I'm proud to support the legislation that is on the floor

today.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to stand in the House again today, this time to speak to Bill 8. Of

course, this is an amendment to the Labour

Standards Act as has already been said. Mr. Speaker, when we think about

labour standards here in this province, primarily most workers are governed by

the Labour Standards Act . Of course,

there's also the Labour Relations Act

which governs unionized employees in the province.

When we

think about labour standards or labour relations, I think there are a number of

outstanding issues that do need to be addressed in this province. While this is

a good bill, which I certainly support, I say to the minister responsible for

Labour, the Minister of AESL, that there is much work to be done throughout the

province to deal with some of the issues that we do see raising its head from

time to time throughout the province.

I think

about some of the strikes and lockouts that have occurred in the province over

the years that went on for extended periods of time; I believe D-J Composites is

one that comes to mind. I really think in terms of looking at legislation, we

need to find ways to bring those situations to an end much quicker than they do,

whether that be some form of binding arbitration or whatever the case might be.

We see

situations in this province as an example where we've seen employees holding the

bag when a company declared insolvency or went into creditor protection. There's

absolutely a need to have legislation. I think that may require some federal

changes that we absolutely should be lobbying for to ensure that employees are

the very first to collect. Not the banks or the other creditors but the

employees who have worked and paid into pension plans and everything else, to

ensure they are the very first to collect when a company declares insolvency.

We look

at here in our Labour Standards Act

the issue of overtime, as an example. I've had constituents come to me with

concerns they have about the fact that overtime under our

Labour Standards Act is time and a half the minimum wage, not time

and a half your wage, time and a half the minimum wage.

someone making $14 an hour and then they have to work overtime and they are

expecting to get $21 an hour, when they look at their cheque they're saying

what's happening? They got $15 an hour because the

Labour Standards Act doesn't say time

and a half your pay. It's says time and a half the minimum wage. So you're

working overtime for $1 extra an hour, as an example. That's something that

definitely needs to be looked at for sure.

Then

there's the issue, of course, of the minimum wage, which my colleagues here from

the NDP have raised, and her predecessor before them, about that. Even if you're

not on board with the minimum wage issue, which I understand the challenges

around that, perhaps we should be looking at other mechanisms, whether it be

through some sort of tax credits of other assistance for people who actually get

up every day and work to support their families but they're making a low income,

what I call the working poor. Some people who are working two and three jobs to

support their families, there has to be something that we can be doing to better

support them. If not through increased minimum wage, through other mechanisms,

as I said, that can assist them.

course, another issue which came to me a while back involved a restaurant that

we would all know, that I won't name, even though I could, where it was issues

around tips, believe it or not, where the waitresses had to pay 5 per cent of

the bill. So, somebody gives you the bill, 5 per cent of the bill had to go to

the kitchen, but that's even if the person never left you a tip.

If you

get a bill and it was $20, for argument sake, the waitress had to pay 5 per cent

out of her pocket to tip the kitchen. That's the system that they had. They're

saying, overall, if it works out and you're getting your tips, it'll work out,

you'll get some tips, the kitchen will get some tips. But if you didn't get a

tip – so if you had a bunch of teenagers come in for lunch and they all ordered

drinks and everything else to drive the bill up and, of course, they give you no

tip, 5 per cent of that bill, you had to take it out of your tips, out of your

pocket, to actually pay the kitchen their tips, which is absolutely ridiculous.

brought it to the agency responsible. They investigated and they came back after

and say, well, our Labour Standards Act

doesn't quite address that so there's really nothing we can do. They threw their

hands up in the air. So that's another one that comes to mind, something that

needs to be addressed. There are lots of things that need to be addressed as it

comes to labour. I certainly encourage the minister now as he takes on this new

responsibility to look into some of these things, and I'm sure he will.

But

that's not what we're here to talk about today. We're here to talk about

amendments which are being made to address parental leave and to address

maternity leave. Of course, we've had federal changes made in terms of the EI

and extensions of time and what we need to do is make amendments here so that

employees in this province can avail of it.

Just

because EI offers a program that allows you to take extended leave, if it's not

covered in the Labour Standards Act ,

your employer can say I'm sorry, I don't care what the federal government is

offering, here's all you're entitled to, so you can't avail of that leave.

That's basically closing the gap and saying to all employers in this province

you have to accommodate these new federal changes. If the employee decides they

want to avail of this extended leave, you have to, by law, accommodate. You

can't let the employee go, fire them or so on. You can't do it.

That's a

good thing and I think it does encourage people to have children and more

children. Although I will say there has been some very valid points made around

the amount of money that's being received by somebody on EI, maternity leave and

even less money on the extended program, and most people simply can't afford to

avail of that. That's a reality.

depends on their situation. It depends on how much money the spouse is making,

for example. If the spouse is making a higher income, perhaps they can suck that

up, so to speak, and take the lesser amount and make it work. But again when

we're talking families that are making on the lower end, lower-middle income, a

lot of these families can't avail of it. I think we have to be more creative in

coming up with ways to enhance theses programs.

The

Leader of the NDP made some suggestions. On first blush, all sounds great. Now,

I know there's a cost to it – absolutely there's a cost to it, but then again,

there's a cost to not doing it too. Because we are spending money in other

areas. We are spending money in immigration and other strategies to increase the

population, so this is another way that we could be trying to deal with our

population issues that we have here in the province by encouraging more families

here to have more children and to make it something that they're able to do.

Overall,

it's a start. It's something that needed to be done. I'm glad it's being done. I

support it 100 per cent, but it is only one very, very small step in a much

larger picture that we have to address here in this province if we want to

encourage our people to have more children and to encourage our people to stay

here, because, of course, we're still seeing the brain drain. We're still

continuing to see young people leave the province.

I know,

regardless of what we do, we can do whatever we want in this province – there's

going to be a lot of young people – I have young people in my family; thank

goodness my daughters are here, but in terms of nieces, nephews and so on – that

are absolutely getting out of Newfoundland, getting out of Dodge. There's

nothing we can do that's going to change that because from their perspective,

they want to see the world. They want to be able to go and live in warmer

climates. They want to be able to hop aboard the car and just drive on down to

the States or whatever and take in the sights. They want to be able to go to a

lot of the recreational activities and so on that exist in the bigger centres.

That's the lifestyle they want. It's not conducive here to Newfoundland and

Labrador.

That's

fine, but there are a lot of people who do want to stay here, and there are a

lot of young people who do want to stay here, but they don't stay here because

they don't feel –

MR. SPEAKER:

The Speaker asks that you

stay relevant to the bill, please.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

You're drifting off.

I gave

you a little leeway.

MR. LANE:

I appreciate the leeway

because it seems like we've been all over the place. I felt there was lots of

leeway, and I do appreciate you giving me leeway as well.

Mr.

Speaker, to clue it up, because I know everybody is looking at the clock here,

it's a good bill. I'll support it. Much more work to be done.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Deputy

Speaker, and congratulations on your new position.

Welcome

back to our fall sitting. It's certainly an honour to always stand and represent

the constituents, of course, that elected us here to this great House of

Assembly. I represent the strong, beautiful, historic District of Harbour Grace

- Port de Grave.

We've

heard a lot of great points today about this bill, Bill 8, so I simply won't

belabour the point. There is a lot of great support in here for this bill. It

makes complete sense to debate Bill 8 here,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards

Act.

I'd like

to thank my colleague, the minister, for being the lead on this bill in his role

as the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. It's more of a

procedural matter that involves making necessary amendments to respond to the

creation, by the federal government, of a new Parental Sharing Benefit

introduced in Budget 2018.

The

amendment contained in this bill will provide greater flexibility for parents so

they can better accommodate their child care for their family planning needs.

And that's what I like about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the flexibility. Parents

can choose to split their parental leave right down the middle. Parents can take

20 weeks of parental leave each, if they choose. Another option would be for a

parent to take 30 weeks and the other to take the 10. So I like the flexibility

in it. Parents will be able to share the leave in many ways, and that's the

beautiful part of this bill. They can decide whatever best suits their

lifestyle.

Again,

what we're doing provincially is protecting jobs while workers take parental

leave. I've had many conversations with people who are fearful that taking the

leave will have a negative consequence on their careers. And for women in

general – in particular, Mr. Speaker, rather. Women have long been discriminated

against when it comes to parental leave, and we know that, and statistics show

that, and my colleagues also demonstrated this and spoke about this earlier in

this debate.

This

discrimination has taken many forms. From employers simply refusing to continue

employing pregnant or new mothers, to opinions in certain professions that once

a woman becomes a mother that she immediately has less earning potential and is

therefore less valued to a firm. So this is a shame, and we need to do what we

can to get more women involved in the industry.

Even in

politics, you look here in our House of Assembly, we have 40 seats representing

our great districts, only nine of those seats are occupied by women and the rest

are men here, Mr. Speaker. A lot of great men, of course, but we need more

women. It provides a healthy balance and a different perspective.

I'm glad

to say the women who are here in our Legislature are all strong women. Of

course, my colleague across the way there, the Leader of the Third Party, had a

great, delightful, animated debate in her part and raising good points, but we

need to do more of what we can to support and to encourage women to be involved

in the workforce in any profession they choose. No one should be discriminated

against for taking parental leave to build a strong and healthy family. What we

are doing with this bill is indeed protecting that right to take leave without

having to worry about losing your job while doing so.

Just to

add in a little personal story here. I'm imagining back years prior, as the

Minister of Finance said, it was typical and it was more traditional for a woman

to stay home and raise children – and to raise a lot of kids back then. My

grandmother, for example, had 13, raised 13 children; nine girls and four boys.

All of those women, with the exception of two, had careers and went into the

workforce. It's a great job, what they did, of course. My grandmother was the

homemaker and she raised a great family, but it would be interesting to see what

we're doing today if we could've done back then.

So, I

digress on that. I won't belabour this point. I think it's a great bill; it's

great legislation. It's always an honour to stand in my place to represent my

district, and, of course, to support this good legislation brought forth by

government. I look forward to the support of all Members in the House for this

one.

Again,

thank you to the minister. That concludes my remarks, and I look forward now to

taking this bill into Committee.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The hon. Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, if he speaks now he will close the

debate.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate everybody's contribution in today's debate in the House of Assembly.

It was a very productive debate back and forth. Ideas were shared, experiences

and suggestions on how we can make further improvements. It appeared there was

support, by all Members of the House that contributed, to providing greater

flexibility for parents so they can better accommodate their child care and

family planning needs so that they can not only avail of the federal benefit of

sharing the additional five or eight weeks if they choose to, but also to ensure

that their jobs are being protected.

I want

to thank the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social

Development, the MHA for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the Leader of the Third

Party, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands

and the Member for Topsail - Paradise, especially him for recognizing the good

work of the staff at Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. We do have an

incredible team. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the former minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour who worked on this legislation to get it

this far.

I do

want to say that any ideas that were presented, including that of the Leader of

the Third Party, it's something that I can take back under advisement to my

staff to review, because we all need to look at how we can present better policy

options to improve laws and legislation in the House of Assembly. The Member for

Mount Pearl - Southlands presented some ideas as well, so I want to thank

everybody for that.

For the

matters that were presented, including the Member for Topsail - Paradise and the

Leader of the Third Party around compressing the amount and increasing earnings,

I would also encourage them to reach out to their federal MPs on that particular

matter because that will require federal change to the Employment Insurance

system. With that, I'll take my seat and it will allow the opportunity for

questions in Committee.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 8 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Passed.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Standards Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

second time.

When

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

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act,” read a second time,

ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Passed.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Bennett):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 8,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.” (Bill 8)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

recognize the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A couple

of questions here: Given the difference in timing of when the federal

legislation came into effect and, of course, we're moving forward with this

bill, will this bill be retroactive to cover any parents who may have a

complaint under the Labour Standards Act

between the time that the EI regulations changed and the time that we proclaim

this bill?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Chair, the employees have

been afforded the 61 weeks of job protection under the existing act, so there's

no risk of any employee not being covered since March when these amendments came

forward previously.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What

protections are in place, if any, that protect the parents during that

interceding time?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The protections exist that

the job is protected during that period of time for any of the individuals, or

both parents, if they opt to share in the paternity or maternity leave over this

time period up to 96 weeks, pending on when it is taken.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Does the

bill fully comply with the changes made to the

Canada Labour Code which came into effect September 1, 2019; and

will the minister need to make further changes in the future as a result?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I can say to the Member

opposite that the changes that we have made is so that the additional five to

eight weeks can be obtained, but also that the flexibility is available so that

both parents can share up to the maximum amount of weeks. Depending on if

they're going to take it over a 12 month or an 18 month, they would get five or

eight weeks of additional benefits, as was outlined when the federal

announcement was in place.

This is

a federal program. What we are amending here in the

Labour Standards Act is the flexibility of when people can take it,

up to 96 weeks, as to when they choose to take the benefit. What we are doing

here in the province and what's in our control is to protect the employee and

their position during the time they are off on maternity or paternity leave.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So just

to confirm, there has been no efforts to comply with

Canada Labour Code changes with regard to what came into effect on

September 1, 2019?

CHAIR:

Any other questions?

The

Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you very much.

I just

want to elaborate on the question from my colleague in Topsail - Paradise. When

the minister said that the act would enable the 96 weeks, I'm not quite sure if

he clarified whether or not anyone who has chosen to take extended benefits or

assume that they could not avail of extended benefits because they went on

maternity or parental leave prior to this legislation being passed.

Essentially what I'm saying is anyone who was eligible and took parental leave

before this legislation is passed, would they have been limited to only

receiving protection under the standard benefits and not the extended benefits?

Because I note in the legislation, it says once you've made your choice on

standard or extended, one cannot change one's choice.

I think

that's what the hon. Member for Topsail - Paradise is saying is if our

legislation has not been changed in a timely manner or retroactively, do we have

a number of individuals that could potentially only availed of standard benefits

and not extended benefits?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

To the Member opposite's question, under the current legislation, leave must

start within 35 weeks after a child comes, either into custody of the parent or

into care. We're removing that decision of having to make the point of up to 35

weeks. We're expanding that up to 96 weeks as to when you make that decision, so

there's greater flexibility. The current rules cap the benefits, whether it's

shared by one or both parents, to 61 weeks as a maximum.

People

are already receiving the benefit; just that what we're doing in today's

legislation is removing the barrier of the 35 week decision-making to expand up

to 96 weeks. All people who would have applied for a benefit, even though people

previously would have had a more restrictive time frame because they would have

had to choose up to 35 weeks, now they have up to 96 weeks, when they choose,

and about sharing that benefit. Once they make the choice, they have to stay

within either the 12-month or the 18-month benefit. If they choose the 12 month,

they're getting an additional five weeks of benefit that can be obtained in that

particular benefit.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to go back to my last question because I don't think I received an answer

for it. There were changes made to the

Canada Labour Code in September 1, 2019, that apply to employers in terms of

granting them greater flexibility with regard to hours of work, location of work

and work schedule.

question is: Does the current bill fully comply with those changes, and if not,

will it?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

answered the Member's question that this is a very specific amendment that we're

doing today that's dealing with the parental benefits for five to eight

additional weeks to allow greater flexibility, and that is what we've been

debating here today, to comply with the federal benefit, but to offer greater

flexibility and to ensure that jobs are protected. That is what this specific

amendment is to the Labour Standards Act

today.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

certainly do understand what the amendment is dealing with, but when we're

talking about changes to the Canada Labour

Code and it deals with flexibility and it deals with work and that, which

this deals with, the simple question is – and it's just a yes or no – have we

considered changes as a result of the

Canada Labour Code ? That's the question.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I

said when I was closing debate in second reading, we're always looking for new

ideas, looking to remain relevant with legislation and we do regular reviews of

different information as to how we can make changes so that we do have great

policy in place for the employers and employees throughout this province. This

is why we're here today making change that's going to improve families here in

this province and give them greater flexibility. This is an additional benefit,

but it's also providing job protection. So this is a very important piece as to

why we're here today in the House of Assembly.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

No other questions?

Shall

clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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.

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.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Labour

Standards Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move,

Mr. Chair, the Committee rise and report Bill 8.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 8 carried without amendment.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

The hon.

Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 8 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole has reported that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed him to report Bill 8 carried without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

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

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the hour, I suggest we adjourn until 2 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Recess.

MS. COADY:

Recess.

MR. SPEAKER:

The House is now in recess

until 2 o'clock today.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

Today in

the public gallery, I'd like to welcome Ms. O'Brien's grade eight class from

Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The House would also like to

welcome students participating in Take Our Kids to Work Day, an annual event

where students step into the future for a day and get a glimpse into the work

world.

The day

involves students in grade nine spending the day in the workplace of a parent,

relative, friend or volunteer host where they experience and learn about the

world of work. 2019 marks the 25th anniversary of Take Our Kids to Work Day. The

Human Resource Secretariat's Student Employment Bureau was the lead coordinator

and facilitator of the event with employees of the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Also in

the gallery, I'd like to welcome two grade nine international exchange students

who are job shadows with the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands today. Welcome

Santiago Martinez from Spain, and Felipe Lemos from Brazil. They are both

presently attending St. Peter's Junior High in Mount Pearl.

The

Mayor of Red Bay, Mayor Stone, and one of the councillors, is also here with us

today. Lastly, I would like to recognize Florian Villaume, Director of the

Memorial Centre for Entrepreneurship, here today for a Ministerial Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Humber - Bay of

Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans and Fortune Bay

- Cape La Hune.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

today to recognize Mr. Lloyd Seaward of Bishop's Falls, now residing in a

retirement home in Grand Falls-Windsor. Mr. Seaward celebrated his 102nd

birthday on October 3 of this year.

Mr.

Seaward was born in Clarenville in 1917. At the age of 22, he quit his job with

Newfoundland Railway to join the Navy and served overseas. In 2018, he and his

son, Gerald, travelled to England to take

part in the

HMS Exeter reunion. Mr. Seaward survived the sinking of

HMS Exeter in 1942 during the Battle

of the Java Sea.

The

outdoors is another passion of Mr. Seaward's: snowmobiling the countryside,

camping in the woods and travelling the rivers in birch bark canoes, which he

spent many hours building himself.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like for all Members in this House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating Mr. Lloyd Seaward on his 102nd birthday and thanking him, and all

veterans, for their service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize 11-year-old Brygette Park of Gillams.

During

Brygette's first two years of her life, she faced many medical challenges and

was hospitalized more than 40 times at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto

with severe health issues. She was treated for inflammatory bowel disease,

infections, meningitis, developed rheumatoid arthritis in her knees, hips and

wrists, Crohn's and colitis.

Countless testing was done, including genetic testing, to try and determine what

was causing her sickness. Just before her second birthday, doctors discovered a

rare gene mutation that causes inflammatory bowel disease. Brygette was missing

a

section of her DNA – one of the first cases in the world. The solution offered

involved eight days of chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant with a 50-50

chance it would work at all.

Brygette

is an inspiration to her friends and family and became the first in Canada to be

cured of a rare disease by a bone marrow transplant.

Today,

Brygette is happy and healthy. She just started junior high school, loves

singing and acting and being with her friends. Her story was recently aired on

the CBC series: This Is My Story .

Brygette is an inspiration to all who know her.

I ask

all Members to join me in offering the best wishes to Brygette in her future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

past spring, community leaders and volunteers gathered at the Reid Community

Centre to witness the selection of Mount Pearl Citizen of the Year. As usual,

this year's nominees were tremendous community volunteers who all share a love

for Mount Pearl and an unwavering commitment to community service.

The

judges had a very difficult task in making this selection and, at the end, they

decided to choose a very deserving gentleman who is the true definition of

volunteer. Robert Hayes was simultaneously involved in five different

community-based organizations over the past year, had a perfect attendance

record and made a significant contribution to each and every endeavour.

This

included his roles as both vice-president and later president of the Mount Pearl

Soccer Association, member of the organizing committee for the Mount Pearl Sport

Alliance's very successful Chase the Ace fundraiser, co-chair of the O'Donel

High School Safe Grad Committee, co-chair of the Mount Pearl Frosty Festival

Committee and community rep on the Mary Queen of the World School Council.

Mount

Pearl is such a great to live, to work and to raise a family because of the

contributions of people like Robert Hayes. Mr. Speaker, to go off script, I just

want to add that Robert's daughter Keely is actually one of our Pages so I'm so

glad that she could be here. Although I wish she was actually here to hear this,

but she was here this morning.

therefore, ask all hon. Members of this House to join me in congratulating this

outstanding individual on receiving this honour and thank him for his unwavering

commitment to the community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to commemorate the life and career of Captain Dan

Devine. Captain Devine was born in Grand Falls-Windsor on April 25, 1945. He

attended Memorial University where he received bachelor's degrees in education

and special education. He went on to teach in many schools across the Island,

eventually teaching special education students.

After 30

years of teaching, Captain Devine retired. While teaching, in 1977 he joined the

Royal Newfoundland Regiment B Company as an officer and became Captain Devine as

the commanding officer in 1985. Captain Devine retired from B Company after 32

years of service. His military career has seen him serve in CFB Aldershot, CFB

Gagetown and CFB Cornwallis, as well as a peacekeeping tour in Bosnia. In his

later years, he went on to become the junior Canadian ranger officer where he

was responsible for 400 youth and 90 staff across the province.

Today,

Captain Devine serves as the president of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 12 in

Grand Falls-Windsor.

Please

join me today as we honour Captain Dan Devine for a lifetime of service to

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MR. LOVELESS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

congratulate Chesley and Ada Loveless of Seal Cove, Fortune Bay, who celebrated

their 71st wedding anniversary on October 20, 2019.

I grew

up in Seal Cove, and attending church was a very important part of our lives. I

always remember them attending, never missing an opportunity to share a warm

handshake, a hug and many words of encouragement. Those cherished memories will

stay with me for the rest of my life.

Chesley

is now 92 years old, residing in Seal Cove. Ada is 88 and a patient at the

Twomey Centre in Botwood, but the family ensures they see each other to continue

their lifelong devotion for one another. If you are looking for an example of

unconditional love, then look no further than Chesley and Ada Loveless.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Chesley and Ada Loveless

on 71 wonderful years of marriage together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize November as Financial Literacy Month. This year's

theme is “Take charge of your finances!” The provincial government recognizes

the importance of investment education information and encourages

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take charge of their finances by making a

budget, having a savings and debt-reduction plan and understanding their

financial rights and responsibilities.

The

Financial Consumer Agency of Canada also provides valuable information on

relatively new investment areas. For example, investing in cryptocurrency

requires attention to guidelines and taxation so investors are aware of how to

meet their tax obligations. Investors must also use caution to avoid unreliable

currencies where fraudulent activity may be more common.

Mr.

Speaker, financial literacy is important for the financial well-being of

individuals, but also for the economy as a whole. The provincial government

remains committed to helping consumers make informed and educated decisions in

the field of investment.

encourage residents to visit Service NL's Twitter page during the month of

November for a series of posts to help educate and inform Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians on investments and financial literacy.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased

to recognize Financial Literacy Month.

We all

recognize the value and importance of encouraging individuals to take charge of

their finances. A person's level of financial knowledge directly affects their

financial well being. Understanding how money works and how to manage personal

finances is something that can benefit people of all ages.

I would

hope at some point in time, from being a former salesperson, that they would

encourage that, they'd have a day or two in school to teach the kids in 11 or 12

just some general ideas of finance. It would be great for their knowledge and

wealth going forward. I'd love to see that at some point in time.

Mr.

Speaker, knowledge is power and we support any initiative that aims to raise

awareness and strengthen financial literacy for the people of the province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for an advance copy of her statement. I join all hon. Members in

recognizing Financial Literacy Month.

This

year's theme, Take charge of your finances!, is an important theme for everyone

and their families and individuals. The need to expand financial literacy

education in our high school curriculum is vitally important so Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians can better manage their household finances and avoid costly

mistakes and debt.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

week I have the honour of addressing participants at Mineral Resources Review –

Eastern Canada's largest mineral industry conference and trade show.

This

event is a partnership between our government and the provincial branch of the

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. It provides the

opportunity for industry to come together as we plan for further mineral

development in our province.

The

conference will include technical sessions, networking opportunities, a

discussion on updates to our quarry legislation and the Geological Survey's

annual public lecture. Also featured this year, for the very first time, is a

Women in Mining workshop – an opportunity for women pursuing post-secondary

education to learn about career opportunities in mining from women who are

working in the industry.

Mining

is one of the province's most important industries and is creating significant

employment, generating new opportunities for local businesses and improving

government's ability to invest in programs, roads, education and health care, to

name a few. Our plan, Mining the Future

2030 , will continue momentum as we achieve our vision of being a globally

competitive, top-tier jurisdiction for mineral exploration and development. We

look forward to continue working with our partners and embracing the tremendous

potential that exists in our mining industry.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I agree with the minister

when she notes that mining is an industry with great potential and benefits to

this province.

I look

forward to speaking with the participants at the Mineral Resources Review, and I

especially am pleased to hear about the Women in Mining workshop; however, I

would like to take this opportunity to encourage the minister and the Department

of Natural Resources to continue investing in the geoscience geological survey

and other exploration type work which is critically needed to continue

developing our mining industry in this province.

Every

mining operation starts with geoscience. I look forward to talking to the

participants.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

I thank the minister for an

advance copy of her statement. I represent the district with the largest mining

footprint in the province. I know the importance of mining. These events are a

good way to share knowledge and promote this vital industry. My district has

some of the most skilled tradeswomen in the province, and it's continuing to

grow.

This new

women's workshop will be the most important aspect of this conference. I look

forward to listening to the miners, prospectors and women in trades on all their

takes of the future of this vital industry.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize an incredible achievement by Memorial University's Centre for

Entrepreneurship.

I am

proud to say the Centre, or MCE, was acknowledged by the Global Consortium of

Entrepreneurship Centres, as one of the top five emerging entrepreneurship

centres in the world. In fact, MCE was the only Canadian post-secondary

institution recognized.

From an

initial intake of 20 students, MCE now provides programming for over 300

students interested in entrepreneurship. In just over three years, the centre

has secured $4.7 million in funding from local businesses, donors, and the

provincial and federal governments.

MCE has

been instrumental in the emergence of several impactful local start-ups

including Mysa, CoLab Software and BreatheSuite. Mysa is one of only 10 Canadian

companies to be accepted to the Lazaridis Institute's ScaleUp Program; CoLab

Software is the first company from Atlantic Canada to be accepted into the

prestigious Y-Combinator accelerator; and, BreatheSuite recently secured over a

half million dollars in venture capital. Combined, these three local companies

have attracted $5.5 million in investment.

Mr.

Speaker, fostering a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation is important to

our government, as we work to help create an environment that captures the full

potential of our province's many riches.

Congratulations to Florian and his team, and to Memorial Centre for

Entrepreneurship for their global recognition and for playing a key role in

supporting entrepreneurs and innovators in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask

all hon. Members in the House to join me in recognizing this incredible

achievement.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

I'd like to thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Official Opposition, I join with the minister in congratulating Memorial

University's Centre for Entrepreneurship. The growth and success of the MCE is a

testament to the bright future that this province can have when resources,

information-sharing and mentoring is provided to our young business leaders and

innovators. Creating a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship is important

to the future of this province. A strong culture will help us attract new

business and help grow our population.

Mr.

Speaker, I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate Mysa, CoLab

Software and BreatheSuite and wish them every success as they grow their future

businesses. The success of these three start-ups is inspirational, and I hope

they motivate other young professionals to seek their dreams and develop their

products within this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We would like to

extend congratulations to Memorial Centre for Entrepreneurship for this

important acknowledgement from the Global Consortium. The centre has fostered

many innovative start-ups and I wish it continuing success.

University centres such as these play a vital role in our province. We must

continue to adequately invest in the underpinnings that make this role possible,

such as decent infrastructure, quality research and affordable education.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition Leader.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had a

tragic death overnight of a young man in downtown St. John's on the steps of a

for-profit emergency centre, which highlights the connection between our broken

system for dealing with homelessness and crime in the city.

In view