PDF Version

February 26, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 44

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I'd like

to welcome everyone, including those in the gallery and all our MHAs, back to

the spring sitting of the second session of the 48th General Assembly.

I'd also

like to welcome back our Pages. Today we have with us Mohammad who is now our

most experienced page, and we have, somewhere in the room, Catherine and Jeremy,

so I'd like to welcome them back.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we're going to be

hearing Members' statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits,

Torngat Mountains, Stephenville - Port au Port, Placentia West - Bellevue and

Terra Nova.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge Mr. Arthur Snow of

Botwood and his 60 years of voluntary service with the Botwood Lions Club, for

which he was presented with an award for long-time service, the Milestone

Chevron Award, from Lions International in October of 2017.

Art's

interest in the Lions Club was initiated at an early age when his family

received a gift of kindness from the Botwood Lions Club. In 1952, Art's family

home burned to the ground, which was devastating to all 12 people in his family.

The Lions Club of Botwood compassionately gave his father $1,500 towards

rebuilding their home. Art joined the Botwood Lions Club some years later and

has been an energetic Lion ever since.

At 84

years of age, Art is still very active in the Lions and is currently the only

person to have achieved 60 years of service. He takes great pride in knowing he

has been involved with helping so many people in his community, as well as

across the globe.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating Mr. Art Snow

for his 60 years of service to the Botwood Lions Club.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize Dr. Rawluk, a well-known and respected obstetrician and

gynecologist who retired at the end of the 2017 after many years of service to

the residents of Labrador.

Dr.

Rawluk, who came to Canada from Poland, spent 50 years as a health professional.

In 1986, he accepted the position in St. Anthony and, in 1989, he was asked to

go to Labrador for one year. He never left. He says he stayed because of the

beautiful land and the wonderful people.

It's

hard to say how many babies Dr. Rawluk has helped deliver, but it is estimated

to be in the thousands, including those from the communities in my District of

Torngat Mountains. In fact, Dr. Rawluk delivered my own children and several of

my grandchildren.

Dr.

Rawluk's patients describe him as compassionate and caring. His colleagues at

Labrador-Grenfell Health say he has an incredible work ethic and is a positive

role model for younger doctors. While he is retired from full service, he

continues to do some clinical work at the Labrador Health Centre.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking Dr. Rawluk for his dedication

to the families in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Mr. Speaker, in the Town of

Kippens they refer to her as their “golden girl.” The rest of the province and

the national and international swimming community know her as Katarina Roxon.

The highly accomplished Paralympian has represented Canada in Beijing in 2008,

London in 2012 and Rio in 2016. She took home a gold medal from the games in

Rio, which followed her dominant performance at the Parapan Am Games where she

took home six medals.

addition to her success in the pool, Katarina is a true role model for young

women and athletes across the country. For the past three years, Katarina has

served on the Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with

Disabilities and has represented the Canadian Paralympic Committee, the Canadian

Olympic Committee and the War Amps of Canada at speaking engagements across the

country.

Katarina's latest accolade was being named to the Order of the Newfoundland and

Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour of joining Katarina and her

family at Government House where, at the age of 24, she became the youngest

person to receive this prestigious award.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Katarina Roxon on receiving the Order

of Newfoundland and Labrador and wish her all the best as she heads to the 2018

Commonwealth Games in April.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, she's done

it again.

From

silver in Sochi, to gold and bronze in Pyeongchang, Marystown's own Kaetlyn

Osmond has soared to new Olympic heights. Kaetlyn dazzled audiences in Korea,

and her Olympic pursuit easily captured the Canadian imagination with her

unrivalled class and grace.

In the

stadium were her parents, Jeff and Jackie, she received roaring cheers from

Canada, from her siblings Natasha and Gary, her grandparents, and, of course,

all of her loyal Marystown fans, including yours truly.

From the

early mornings on the ice in Marystown, to her mainland training, to the

devastating injuries that nearly derailed her career, nothing has held this

young woman back.

Over the

weekend the Premier and I had a chance to speak with Kaetlyn by phone. We

conveyed to her the overwhelming support for her in Marystown, and across all of

the province. We will be working closely with her and her family as we

coordinate her return to the province in April.

We will

be honouring her in a very big way, and I will keep the House informed.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me and the people of Marystown,

Newfoundland and Labrador, and Canada, in saying congratulations to our hometown

champion, and the latest Olympic gold medalist from Newfoundland and Labrador,

Kaetlyn Osmond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

It's certainly hard to follow

that act, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to acknowledge the outstanding accomplishments of a modern

day Florence Nightingale, Major Annette Vardy.

While

only in her 20s, Major Vardy joined the Salvation Army; training as a nurse at

the Grace Hospital. Throughout her life, Major Vardy has lived on mainland

Canada, London, England, and India, where spent 30 years as a medical

missionary.

January 21, in honour of Major Vardy's 100th birthday, the community came

together at the Salvation Army Citadel in Clarenville.

During

the celebration, Major Vardy's frequent balcony-style commentary was a testament

to her comical and witty personality.

Annette

was recognized as one of the 150 faces of Clarenville, which honours those who

have had measurable impact on the community through their contributions,

accomplishments and perseverance.

addressing the crowd, Major Vardy said, “I don't know how much longer I have, I

don't care too much, but I say, Lord, just a little bit longer.”

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Major Annette Vardy on her 100th

birthday and our gratitude for a lifetime dedicated to the Salvation Army and

the people of India.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I

begin with my statement, I want to wish one of our Pages, Catherine Bennett,

happy birthday today. The first day, she said she would never forget the opening

of the House of Assembly this year because it was on her birthday.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commend the hard work and the

dedication of those who responded to the severe storm and flooding on the West

Coast last month.

On the

morning of Saturday, January 13, residents of the communities in the region woke

up to what was unseasonably high temperatures and torrential rain. By the end of

the day, seven routes had been closed due to flooding. This included the

Trans-Canada Highway at Little Rapids and Route 450 in the Bay of Islands, both

of which had sections that were completely washed out.

Rising

water levels that cut off roadways forced six communities in the region to

declare states of emergency, all the while work was underway to keep people safe

to prevent further damage and reconnect communities as quickly as possible. By

that evening, there was a temporary route that had been established at Little

Rapids. On Wednesday, Route 450 was reopened and on Friday all four lanes of the

Trans-Canada Highway at Little Rapids had reopened.

Mr.

Speaker, I commend the outstanding efforts of those who came to the aid of

thousands of residents during last month's storm despite the devastation that it

caused. Many individuals and organizations gave their dedication and their

expertise when it was needed the most. Due to their quick and effective

responses, we were able to repair closed roads and bring aid and service to our

communities quickly and safely.

I ask

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to join me in thanking the many

individuals, including our public sector employees, the volunteers, emergency

management partners, community organizations, municipalities and contractors for

their tremendous contributions during the flooding.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are well known for their resilience and quick

action to support our neighbours in a time of need. Time and again we rise to

the challenge in the face of adversity. It is one of the many reasons why we all

proudly call this province our home.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement

today. All of the province watched in shock as images from the West Coast of the

Island emerged on January 13. No more was the shock and destruction and impact

more felt than within the six communities that were forced to declare states of

emergency, as well as others that were impacted by the flooding.

While

the circumstances were dire, first responders, public service workers,

contractors, municipalities, community groups and countless volunteers pulled

together, as we've seen happen in our province so many times in the past, they

pull together to assist those in need. Through their co-operation and incredible

work, a bigger tragedy was avoided. We know, Mr. Speaker, the impact was

significant. The results could have been far greater if not for all those who

pitched in to help out.

closing, we urge the government to expedite any financial assistance programs

that may assist residents who are still feeling the effects and we wish all of

those on the West Coast all the very best in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the Premier for an advance copy his statement. I'm very happy to join him in

commending the efforts of the many individuals and organizations who responded

to flooding on the West Coast in January. We know their efforts enabled many

communities on the West Coast to quickly regain access to essential public

services, which they can only reach through using the Trans-Canada Highway.

With my

colleague from the Official Opposition, I again commend the immediate response

but say to government, I hope that all the necessary supports will continue to

be in place as restoration work continues.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to highlight Advance 2030 – a growth plan for the oil

and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador which was launched last Monday.

presented in The Way Forward , our

government committed to work with industry to position the province globally as

a preferred location for oil and gas development. As part of that commitment,

the Oil and Gas Industry Development Council was established to advance

opportunities and actions. We thank them for all of their work to date.

By 2030,

the Advance 2030, the provincial government envisions: more than 100 new

exploration wells drilled; multiple basins producing more than 650,000 barrels

of oil equivalent per day; shorten time from prospective to production; direct

employment of more than 7,500 people in operations; a robust, innovative global

supply in service sector; commercial gas production, and renewables in oil and

gas integrated in a world-glass energy cluster.

More

than 150 industry leaders were engaged in the review and development of Advance

2030 including operators, supply and service industry, labour, educators and

federal and provincial departments.

Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous opportunity in offshore oil and gas. By

focusing on our competitiveness, driving exploration, ensuring innovation and

working together we can achieve the vision we all want of a thriving, growing

oil and gas industry.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, too, on

this side of the House certainly agree our province has tremendous potential

within the oil and gas sector, and previous efforts in seismic work has enhanced

land sales and exploration off our coast as well.

But I do

note, in the first two years in office, this Liberal government said that oil is

not a policy. They failed to proclaim the generic royalty regime in a timely

manner, they created an uncertain economy which has impacted investment in the

industry and they still cannot provide answers on the United Nations royalty

sharing regime.

Instead

of advocating for our offshore oil and gas industry, this Liberal government is

accepting a new federal environmental assessment process that may slow

exploration and production in our offshore, and certainly raise further

uncertainty.

Since

1985, the Atlantic Accord has stated that our province should be the principal

beneficiary of our offshore oil and gas, and we must always ensure that we

protect our shared jurisdiction for the authority that we now have.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. And I'm glad to see that the

government has brought people together to envision a future oil and gas

industry, but I ask: When are we going to get figures based on facts on how

these visions will be achieved?

Mr.

Speaker, I say to the minister, if I wanted visions, I'd go to a desert and get

a hermit to tell me what she sees.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL and Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, workplace

injuries have long-lasting physical and emotional impacts on many individuals

and families throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. While the lost-time injury

rate at 1.5 per 100 workers is the lowest it has ever been, we know that, in an

instant, a person's life can change forever because of a workplace accident.

Our

government is continuing to take important steps toward improving the lives of

injured workers in the province. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce amendments

to the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Act , which will increase the income replacement rate for

injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, or their dependants, from 80 to 85

per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

The income replacement rate

is the percentage of a worker's pre-injury net income that is covered by the

workers' compensation system. Wage-loss benefits will be calculated at 85 per

cent of an individual's net, after tax, earnings. The individual's gross income

is capped at the Maximum Compensable Assessable Earnings which is $64,375 for

The

increased rate will help improve benefits to injured workers and dependant

spouses without increasing the average assessment rate charged to employers.

With these amendments, our province will achieve parity with the other Atlantic

provinces in calculating wage-loss benefits.

Mr.

Speaker, these changes are another step along our path to help reduce the

financial, emotional and physical impacts workplace incidents are having on

injured workers, their families and their communities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. We support the

recent announcement regarding the increase in the income replacement rate for

injured workers. We're also pleased that the cost of this initiative will not be

a burden to employers and the rates will become more in line with other

provinces in Atlantic Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, I know individuals who have been injured on the job and I've seen the

difficulty they had with life after their injuries. Any initiative that can

improve the quality of life for injured workers and relieve some of the stress

and strain on these individuals and their families is a good thing. I look

forward to debating these amendments in the coming days.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I'm very pleased that

finally we have the 85 per cent income replacement four years after the

statutory review recommended it. We will no longer have the lowest workers

compensation rate in the country, and that's really good news. Though the

maximum income used to calculate this benefit is ninth lowest in the country,

this cap should be removed or at least raised when the statutory review takes

place in 2018.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker,

and thank you very much.

Mr.

Speaker, this past Friday when discussing our government's harassment-free

workplace policy, the Premier stated silence is never the answer.

I ask

the Premier if he is aware and can he confirm that an alleged sexual assault was

reported at the Muskrat Falls site in November of 2017 and, as a result of that

complaint, an on-site worker has been charged.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

say to the Member opposite – I mean, that is very concerning. It's the first

that I've heard of it, to be honest with you, but certainly we will look into

that issue. Harassment in the workplace cannot and will not be tolerated.

Our

government has put in place a policy, just last week, after several months of

work and jurisdictional scans and consultation with the Women's Policy Office

and Justice and Public Safety, to ensure that people can feel free to work in

their workplaces safely and being respected as they do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for his answer. My understanding is the Minister of Natural

Resources may be aware of this.

I ask

the Premier, or the minister, if either can confirm if the worker is or is not

still working at the Muskrat Falls Project site?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for the question. Harassment, abuse and violence are never acceptable in any

form, any place, any time. And this government certainly is doing everything it

can to ensure the safety of our people in this province and working with our

community partners.

With

regard to the question that has been put before this House, I can say that I

have been made aware that there has been a complaint within a subcontractor –

not the Nalcor but within a contractor's company that works for Nalcor – and

that there is an investigation ongoing. I believe it's before the courts,

actually, as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the

matter is before the courts. The individual has been charged and the court

records from Happy Valley court confirm that. Mr. Speaker, my question was

asking if the individual is still working on the site or not. I'm aware that the

individual who reported the sexual assault has been terminated by her employer.

I ask

the minister: When did she first become aware of this matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple

of weeks ago I had a phone call to my office. I have since returned that phone

call. I've been speaking with the family members of the person involved; I've

reached out to Nalcor to see what the situation is from Nalcor's perspective. It

is with a subcontractor to Nalcor. I've reached out to Nalcor to get further

details of what's occurring from Nalcor's perspective, Mr. Speaker.

I do

know it's before the courts. As I said, never is it acceptable for harassment,

abuse to happen in the workplace, at home, anywhere, in any location or at any

time.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

been advised that the minister was made aware of this as much as four weeks ago

that this matter had taken place; a person had been charged under the

Criminal Code and has appeared

in court.

I'm asking the minister: I understand she spoke to family

members today, why would it take four weeks to respond to a family in a matter

so important as this?

MR. SPEAKER: The

Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY: Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

The phone call that I understand came into my office came

in on February 13. That was the note I received, Mr. Speaker. I did return the

phone call today. I have been

unavailable for the last week.

It is an

issue that is ongoing. There has been a discussion with the subcontractor. I

understand a full investigation has been ongoing with the subcontractor. I've

reached out to Nalcor because the contractor, of course, works on behalf of

Nalcor. I've reached out to Nalcor to get further details and to see where they

are with this process, Mr. Speaker. I do know it is before the courts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Friday, during the announcement – and I agree with the minister and the Premier,

it's a very serious matter – the minister herself said: Violence and harassment

are not acceptable in any form, at any place or any time.

I ask

the minister, if she's actually contacted the CEO of Nalcor about this matter.

If so, does she have any indication yet what Nalcor intends on doing with this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as soon as I had

the opportunity to speak with family members, I did reach out to Nalcor. I've

spoken with a senior vice-president on the matter who is responsible for

corporate affairs. They are investigating this matter and have gotten back to me

to say that they would like to speak with me later today. I'll find out more

details as to what has occurred on behalf of Nalcor. Again, I'll reiterate, this

is under investigation and before the courts.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate that it is before the courts. I'm not asking any questions regarding

the specifics of what's taken place. I'm more interested to know in response of

Nalcor and government after this allegation and this alleged event has taken

place.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister if she can confirm if other workers at the

Muskrat Falls site have been informed of this assault allegation and the charges

or charge that has been laid.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

He is

absolutely right; we take this matter very, very seriously. That's why, as soon

as I had a chance and opportunity to speak with the family, I did do so and I

have reached out to Nalcor.

Mr.

Speaker, several people were involved in the investigation I understand, and

that the person involved in this did reach out within the organization and

within the subcontractor.

Mr.

Speaker, I would anticipate and expect that Nalcor is fully on top of this. The

harassment policy that was released on Friday, as the minister responsible, the

Minister of Finance indicated that this would be something that we would look

toward all of the entities: the agencies, boards and commissions of the

government to actually put into place as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, do you have any insight – and if you can, maybe you can share with us

– of what Nalcor's policies are, generally speaking, concerning harassment,

workplace harassment or sexual assault as alleged in this particular case? What

is the policy around how you handle employees on the work site when it comes to

these types of allegations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY: Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, Nalcor has a harassment policy and is always on

top of this matter. This incident – that I understand has occurred back in the

fall – was with a subcontractor who has taken the matter seriously. I understand

they have done a full investigation, Mr. Speaker.

It is a terrifically difficult situation at any time when

harassment, or abuse, or violence is involved and should not be tolerated. It is

not acceptable. It is not acceptable in our society, and I appreciate the Member

opposite bringing this matter to the attention of the people of the province

because I think informing everyone how unacceptable this is, is very, very

important so that society as a whole can address the issue of harassment and

violence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 2017, a near miss with an iceberg

on the FPSO SeaRose could have been a major disaster; 84 crew were onboard when

an iceberg came within 180 metres of the SeaRose.

I ask the minister: When did you become aware that the crew

was told over loudspeakers to brace for impact?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY: Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board

is taking this matter very seriously. Safety and security of offshore personnel

is our number one priority of the province, of C-NLOPB, and, indeed, all of the

people of our province, operators included.

Mr. Speaker, the incident occurred, as the Member opposite

said, on March 29. On March 30, C-NLOPB called the operator in question in for a

conversation discussion. I'm sure it was a difficult one. They then moved

forward with putting in a notice of non-compliance and an order to comply with

the ice management system. The chief safety officer was heavily involved. I

became aware on that time, as did the public, Mr. Speaker, because there was

public notification on March 30.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB receives daily updates from

operators on tracking of icebergs.

I ask the minister: When did you find out that an iceberg

had entered an alert zone one that the ice management plan had breached, which

is the most serious alert in the ice management plan criteria?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY: Mr.

Speaker, my department is in discussions and constant engagement with C-NLOPB

with regard to these alerts. Of course, the C-NLOPB makes

these alerts public. So they

would be aware on a timely basis, Mr. Speaker.

With

regard to the non-compliance with the ice management plan, we were aware on

March 30. The event occurred on March 29. We were aware on March 30, as were the

public. It's incumbent upon C-NLOPB to ensure the public are engaged.

Mr.

Speaker, I will say the chief safety officer is tasked and charged with the very

important responsibility of ensuring safety and they took this matter very

seriously. That's why they issued the order of non-compliance and the order to

comply immediately thereafter.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister indicated there was notification given of the incident. I'm not so sure

on that.

On March

30, when the C-NLOPB had reported in some of its documentation about the miss,

why wasn't that disclosed that the crew was told to brace for impact in the

actual details of what had happened? Why was this critical information withheld

from the public at that point in time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to

speak on behalf of C-NLOPB in the House, but I will say there was an incident

bulletin released on March 30. They did follow the practice and exercise of

doing so. The incident was reported publicly from there. The chief safety

officer issued the notice of non-compliance, and from there, Mr. Speaker, an

investigation took place.

Once the

chief safety officer was comfortable enough that the safety breach was under

control, that people were no longer in a safety concern situation, they started

the investigation. The first phase of that investigation is the operator

themselves do an investigation and comes back to C-NLOPB with their results.

From there C-NLOPB, not being satisfied, started their own investigation, Mr.

Speaker. During that investigation they found out the details.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it is the offshore installation manager's decision to take emergency

measures to shut down the installation due to safety reasons. It has been

reported that the offshore manager did ask the SeaRose to disconnect but was

overruled by onshore officials.

I ask

the minister: Can you confirm whether this is accurate?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, C-NLOPB did

their investigation. They do have a preliminary report. That's why the issue to

suspend operations in late January was made.

Senior

executives from Husky Canada came to town. There have been multiple personnel

changes at the operator because of this serious situation. They had to reassure

and show and produce a plan that really did meet with the expectations of

C-NLOPB. They had to meet to satisfy the C-NLOPB. That's why they lifted the

suspend operations.

This is

an ongoing investigation. C-NLOPB is continuing to monitor to ensure that the

safety and compliance of the ice management plan is there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

indicated that a preliminary report, I guess, she has seen or was made

available.

I ask

her again: Can she confirm that the offshore installation manager on board that

facility did indicate a shutdown but that was decision was overruled at another

point in time by officials? Can she confirm or deny whether that's accurate?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

preliminary report is with C-NLOPB. They are tasked and have the responsibility

under the accord acts, especially under the chief safety officer who has that

autonomy and responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

I have

spoken with both C-NLOPB as well as the operator responsible and I have been

assured and repeatedly assured that they are managing this very serious

situation. The C-NLOPB feels they have the matter under control. They are

working through; they're finalizing their investigation, Mr. Speaker, and

working with the operator in question to ensure this never happens again.

I think,

Mr. Speaker, it's very important to note that this was the responsibility of

C-NLOPB and they acted within their authority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

also make the minister aware that there's authority rested in the provincial

Minister of Natural Resources, whether it's the federal one, and there's

availability to issue minister directives as well under the legislation.

ATIPPA

information indicated that the chair of the C-NLOPB board said that the

non-shutdown was economically driven. Minister, is this your understanding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under

ATIPPA there was an email exchange between officials who reported on a

conversation that they had. I can't comment. I was not privy to those emails nor

was I privy to the conversation. But I will say there is no reason why the ice

management plan should not be followed.

That is

what C-NLOPB has found in their report and that is why they issued the suspend

operations to show to the operator responsible, and indeed to all operators, how

critical this is to follow the plans and the actions that are required under

that plan. Mr. Speaker, when an operator fails to do so, there are

responsibilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I do agree with the minister,

this should never have happened because the ice management plan briefing I had

from the C-NLOPB was quite clear. The plan is laid out on what the requirements

are in Zones 3, 2 and 1 and what actions need to be taken.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll ask the minister: When will the results of the C-NLOPB

investigation be made available and made public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

As I understand it, Mr.

Speaker, the investigation is ongoing. I will speak with C-NLOPB to determine

when they feel they may be able to be in a position to finalize the report. It

is an ongoing issue, because of course they're continuing to meet with Husky to

ensure their compliance, to ensure that everything that has been done is being

done.

Mr.

Speaker, I will say this, that economics never trumps safety. Everything must be

done to ensure the safety of our workers offshore, and that is exactly what the

C-NLOPB is doing.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the minister: Why did it take from March 29, almost 10 months later, for action

to be taken?

And

based on that I ask you, Minister: Did you have confidence during that time for

that 10-month period that offshore workers would be definitively protected under

the ice management plan of all operators off our coast?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Immediately after this incident occurred – again, March 29 – March 30 C-NLOPB

did take action. They called the operator in question in to see them right away

to denote the seriousness of this. They issued the order of non-compliance; they

issued the order to comply. The chief safety officer made a determination that

he was actually confident enough to allow operations to continue while there was

an investigation.

It was

important, Mr. Speaker, that people understand that the initial response by the

C-NLOPB was to issue the order to comply. Immediately, they said they must

comply. Then following that, at the end of the investigation or when they had

the preliminary report is when they suspended operations to ensure they had

Husky –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Last

week the federal government took 25 per cent of the Arctic surf clam quota being

processed in Grand Bank and gave it to a company in Nova Scotia to harvest,

process and market.

Minister, I understand you finally got a chance to speak to the minister on

Friday night. Did he explain why he's eliminating the hundreds of full-time,

year-round, middle-class jobs on the Burin Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

will want to say that this RFP goes back as far as September of last year.

There's been a considerable amount of dialogue and work that has gone on, on

behalf of this government. We've had our MHAs from that area that have been

writing letters, have facilitated meetings with local leaders in Grand Bank.

We've also met with all our MPs. We met just recently with Seamus O'Regan, the

minister, of course, our regional minister right now.

Just

this morning, the minister and I had a long conversation with indigenous

leaders, all five groups in our province. This raises concerns and questions for

us around the decision making in all of this, Mr. Speaker. And we've agreed now

on behalf of our indigenous leaders, and indeed people all across our province,

that we will be reaching out to the minister requesting a meeting for

clarification around this process that has been currently put in place last

week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I remind

the Premier, that this started in September. It's a little bit late now to be

going to have your conversations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

When I asked you in December

about the decision to relocate the surf clam quota, shared arrangements is an

important component of fisheries policy, that's what the minister stated.

Do you

think it's right now that the federal government and the federal minister to

share Grand Banks surf clam quota?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to clarify what I just said. I said this process started in September. Within

days there were meetings that were facilitated with MHAs in that region, with

the local leaders in Grand Bank, with the Minister of DFO. We did not wait for

this decision last week. As a matter of fact, we'd even question if this is a

final decision today, I would say to the Members opposite.

We've

had our federal minister involved. Mr. Speaker, we are actively engaged in this

file. So for the Member opposite to suggest otherwise, it is simply not true. We

have not forgotten about the fishery, unlike the previous administration who

could not close any deal –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

– who could not close any

deal with their federal colleagues.

We are

concerned about this. We are concerned about it from many fronts. The issue

around Grand Bank of employment, no, we do not agree with that. We're concerned

about it around reconciliation with indigenous groups in our province. That has

not been appropriately done yet, I will say, too, Mr. Speaker.

So the

Member opposite, his opening comment was a little ingenuous for the people of

our province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unless

I'm mistaken, I think the minister made an announcement on this last week;

indeed he did.

You have

boasted in the House about a commitment to collaborate with the federal

government on fishery policy.

Did the

federal minister consult with you before deciding on relocating the surf clams

quota?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we've had many

successes in dealing with the federal government including the Atlantic

Fisheries Fund, looking at the ground fishery, rebuilding it, and, yes, we have

had our issues as well with the federal government.

actually attended many meetings with the federal minister. Not only have I

written him, not only have I called him, but I've met him face to face and I

have relayed our government's concerns surrounding the process of reallocating

surf clams, looking for a framework for definition, greater definition as to how

this process can begin.

One of

the things, Mr. Speaker, that we did acknowledge, and we both agree on, is that

indigenous communities and nations in Newfoundland and Labrador need to be

respected, that there must be reconciliation. We do, indeed, also need to look

at and consider the framework around existing incumbents within the industry.

That process is still ongoing.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, we've heard you

say about how you lobbied to the minister, wrote letters, phone conversations,

direct meetings, yet you still came up with no surf clam quota result. Your cozy

relationship with the federal government has failed.

How has

this been so ineffective?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, for 15 years

that government – that former government – had absolutely no relationship with

the federal government whatsoever. They not only agreed not to agree on many

things, but they just had no conversation whatsoever.

Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we have accomplished much together. There's more to accomplish. Yes,

there will be times, serious times, when we will disagree with the federal

government. This is one of those times that we feel a stronger process, a better

process, could have been initiated.

We agree

with the federal government on indigenous reconciliation. We agree with the

federal government that there must be respect. Mr. Speaker, that government –

that former government – did none of the above.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, as they always

like to do with the former government, but this has absolutely nothing to do

with the former government. It has to do with your ineffectiveness to do what

you can for the people on the Burin Peninsula and the people of Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's what this has to do

with. There are 140 and 150 good full-time jobs in Grand Bank and there are

three vessels who crew 60 to 65 people working in the surf clam industry.

What is

your plan to minimize the impact of this decision on the people in Grand Bank

and the people on the Burin Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the

hon. Member will want to get on his feet next to explain exactly what happened

in Marystown, explain exactly what happened on several other communities around

Newfoundland and Labrador, when the actual decision making was exclusively

within his own jurisdiction and his own decision-making capacity as a former

government.

But I

will say this: What this government is doing, we have already pulled together a

meeting request for the federal minister gathered with indigenous. We have

already outreached directly with the Town of Grand Bank, with Clearwater, with

others. We are looking for a solution that meets in the best interests of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We continue, Mr. Speaker, to lobby and advocate for

adjacency to be a prime consideration within all fisheries allocation decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Premier told the Noia annual general meeting he would like to see oil production

doubled in the next 12 years – a risky plan and one over which he has little or

no control.

I ask

the Premier: What is his plan B for realistically lifting this province out of

its economic quagmire?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

made significant progress in the last couple of years and it's not always

attached to oil, I say to the Members opposite. I will also want to remind the

Member opposite about the work that's been done with a number of sectors. Just

on Friday of this week, we announced a technology sector at a summit when there

were so many young people – as a matter of fact, maybe we should have even

invited you, or you were probably watching. We did invite you to watch on

FaceTime Live. I'm sure you did that. So that was publicly communicated, Mr.

Speaker.

We had

many young people there that were under the age of 30 years old. We have seen

unprecedented increase in the agriculture industry in our province. We're seeing

some progress in the aquaculture industry. Growing the oil industry because we

have significant reserves out there – untapped reserves, Mr. Speaker, I would

say to the Member opposite. So it's our job, working with the department and

working with the officials, to make sure we uptap that potential.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I now

look forward to invitations to things that I think the Opposition should be

invited to.

The

Premier recently wrote the prime minister asking for an early start to the

Atlantic Accord review, scheduled for completion by the end of March 2019. It

seems the only revenue generator the Premier anticipates for the province is

increased oil production without a long-term fiscal plan.

So I ask

the Premier: Why does he think the prime minister will just pass over more money

to this province without seeing a solid fiscal plan for future economic

stability?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

want to remind the Member opposite when you talk about invitations we put out

the most important invitation to both parties just prior to the closing. We

actually invited them to come in this House of Assembly and speak on the budget

and she refused to show up; deliberately refused to show up. And here she is her

first day back, the Member opposite, the first day back wondering about what our

plan is.

Mr.

Speaker, we are engaged with every sector to bring benefits to create jobs for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what we are working with. It's about

partnership; it's about working together.

If the

Member opposite refuses to work together and refuses to show up at a public

consultation on the budget, why would I expect her to show up to anything that

we would put out with any sector, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, last week

government released their Procurement Act, proudly proclaiming it modernized.

Unlike many other leading jurisdictions, however, there was no mention in the

act or regulations of either a social benefits clause or diversity and gender

clauses – things that would help award contracts to social enterprises and other

targeted groups.

Government promised to embed them, at least in the regulations. Procurement

purchases are around $4 billion a year. This is a significant missed

opportunity.

I ask

the minister: What happened? Why hasn't she incorporated these values into at

least the regulations to benefit the people of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, the new act was

developed based on extensive consultations. We gained insight into what the

public wanted and into what investors wanted, Mr. Speaker. We will allow

opportunity for such as we develop the policies with the Advisory Council.

This new

act is equitable, Mr. Speaker. It is transparent. It is open and it gives

everybody an opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, it continues to

be state of the ark instead of state of the art. Government is giving a lot of

lip service to social enterprise, even unanimously passing a private Member's

motion to support it.

I ask

the minister: Will she grab this opportunity to maximize the power of

progressive procurement for the benefit of our people and recall the act and

truly modernize it as has been done in Scotland, Wales and other provinces in

Canada? Let's really modernize this act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Government Purchasing Agency.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, this act

provides value for money and it gives everyone an equal opportunity. It is open

and it is transparent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister yet again: Will she meet with local social enterprise experts to review

and amend the Procurement Act in order to maximize the benefits for the people

of the province? They've made a commitment to social enterprise. It doesn't

appear anywhere in their act.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Government Purchasing Agency for a quick response, please.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, we have met and

consulted with the organizations. In fact, this act does give opportunity to

everyone to be able to be – it's open. It's transparent. It's value for money,

Mr. Speaker. It's a new Procurement Act.

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports

by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

here a report of the Standing Orders Committee dated February 26, 2018.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

reports by standing and select committees?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial

Administration Act I am tabling five orders-in-council relating to funding

pre-commitments for the fiscal years 2018-19 to 2023-24.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

reports by standing and select committees?

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move

the following private Member's motion, seconded by my colleague for Conception

Bay East - Bell Island:

BE IT

fairly credit to our province all green initiatives such as Muskrat Falls, Upper

Churchill and Bay d'Espoir hydro developments in relieving Newfoundland and

Labrador of any obligation to pay carbon tax.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, in accordance

with our Standing Orders, the private Member's resolution just read into the

record by the Member for Conception Bay South will be the one that we'll

entertain on Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The

Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information, Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

I give notice that I will ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act –

believe it or not – Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 31.

Secondly, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015, Bill

And

finally, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion, that

the following Standing Orders are amended to come into force on the date of

their approval.

Number

1, Standing Order 24(3)(

b) is amended by adding immediately after Standing Order

24(3)(b)(iii) the following: government orders.

Number

2, Standing Order 25 is amended by adding immediately after Standing Order 25(2)

the following: (3) a Member may make a statement about any subject of interest

or concern to him or her; (4) the subject matter of a Member's statement may be

an anniversary, historic event, some particular accomplishment, the death of a

notable person, matters of local, provincial, national or international

significance of a non-contentious nature; (5) statements by a Member shall not

be used to comment on aspects of provincial governmental policy or to reflect on

the decision or direction of the House; (6) statements shall not pose a question

but rather express the opinion of the Member; (7) statements are not debatable,

do not lead to the introduction of a motion and are not responded to by any

other Member.

Mr.

Speaker, I further give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following

provisional change, that the following Standing Order be amended on a

provisional basis for the spring sitting of the House.

Number

3, Standing Order 92 is amended by renumbering it as Standing Order 92(1) and by

adding immediately after that the following: (2) a minister in his or her

discretion may reply to a petition, and the minister shall occupy no more than

90 seconds in so doing; (3) a minister's response under Standing Order 92(2) may

be given on the day the petition is presented or the next sitting day only; and

(4) where in a session multiple petitions of the same subject matter are

presented a minister may respond to each petition in the manner contemplated

under Standing 92(3), but only one response to a petition with the same subject

matter may be made on each sitting day.”

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, a petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Route 60 is the main highway that runs through the Town of Conception Bay South

and is a vital artery in the provincial road network; and

WHEREAS

Route 60 is the most heavily travelled road in the province; and

WHEREAS

Route 60 has been deteriorating and requires major upgrades;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to allocate funds to upgrade Route 60.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this is an issue for me. Route 60 in my district is one of the biggest

issues I deal with on a daily basis with concerns from residents. As I've stated

publicly many times this road, I think, is around the fifth busiest road in the

province. It's not just a community road; this is a very, very busy road, in

excess of 20,000 vehicles per day.

It's

come upon me – day after day after day people are crying out about this road,

numerous potholes. There are a lot of safety issues. On any given night you're

getting email after email of broken tires, broken rims, what have you. People in

this area – it's the second largest municipality in the province and it's the

fifth busiest road in the province – are coming to me as their representative.

Why is this road in the condition it's in? Why can't we get funds allocated to

fix it?

fairness to the minister, I've spoken to the minister on numerous occasions on

this and the previous minister as well. I had some repair work done last year

but it was only a small portion. Mr. Speaker, there needs to be more attention

paid to this road because of the simple fact it is a very, very busy road. The

road is deteriorating and the people deserve better.

One

other point, Mr. Speaker, while I'm speaking on this, I've asked the minister

and his officials – I want to know where Route 60 scored on the five-year roads

list. It's always out there and is scored, I'm asking a simple question. Not for

every list, just to my own district. Tell me where it falls on the list. Is it

number 10, 20, 50? Give me a number. I want to know where that fell on the list

so I can tell the people who are coming to me every day and asking me why isn't

it done. I can say at least it's number 30 or it's number 20.

response. It's falling on deaf ears. I've asked over and over again to the

previous, now I'm asking the current minister and his officials. I don't think

my question is unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. Any Member of this House should be

able to get an answer to that question. It's an issue of importance to me and

the residents of my district. They deserve an answer from the minister and this

government.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of

(inaudible) district and residents related to the Witless Bay Line, Route 13, a

significant piece of transportation infrastructure. It's a main highway and

plays a major role in the commercial and residential growth of our region.

Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and

perform immediate maintenance to this significant piece of infrastructure to

ensure safety of drivers and improve the flow of traffic to and from the

Trans-Canada Highway.

Mr.

Speaker, I've certainly spoken to this before here in the House in regard to

immediate maintenance and care that's required for this significant piece of

infrastructure that sees a lot of traffic on a day-to-day basis. Over the past

number of years we've been able to do various parts of upgrades to that highway,

but it's a significant piece of roads infrastructure with costs. We certainly

understand you do it over a period of time. Unfortunately, over the past two

years there has been very little work done with that piece of infrastructure.

The

immediate concern right now with people I've heard from: calls, emails, people

who I run into in the area, talk about the condition of it, certainly in the

nighttime with potholes and as well with requirement for brush cutting and some

of the sightlines and those sorts of things.

I have

emailed the Minister of Transportation and I do acknowledge that he's gotten

back and said for the immediate time they're looking at doing some immediate

work. Again, as my colleague has said behind me, we certainly look at where this

highway is rated in the roads program that the government on the other side

always talk about. If your road is not listed in it, you can't find out where

it's rated so you don't know comparably where it is with any other road in the

province.

This

highway, we'd certainly like to see – the people in the district and from the

area – where it's rated when you look at things like safety, like use, like

those other variables that supposedly they use in their analysis of where it is

on the list and when those people who use that highway, significant for Route 10

and the Southern highway, linking it to the Trans-Canada Highway, so people have

the care and safety they require when they're travelling the highways.

certainly call on government to move on this, to move on the immediate repairs

and move on long-term infrastructure under the roads program.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

If I

just may ask of the Members' indulgence, apologies for the audio system. There's

a certain plane on its way to Mississippi that I think I want to turn around and

maybe have come back, but what I would ask you to do, until we get the situation

fixed, I'd just ask you to speak a little louder and clearer, please. Hopefully,

Hansard will be able to pick you up.

Thank

you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Bell Island ferry provides a vital transportation link; and

WHEREAS

the Bell Island ferry is only eight minutes from port at any given time; and

WHEREAS

government's recently implemented policy related to mandatory exiting of

vehicles will put people at a higher risk of injury than the possibility of

having to evacuate the vessel due to an emergency; and

WHEREAS

Transport Canada regulations do not require individuals to exit their vehicles

during this commute;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to conduct a full and thorough risk assessment to

clearly identify all risks and liabilities associated with such a policy

decision, after which public release any and all results and details for review.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, back in October when we opened, I brought this to the House of Assembly

because it's a policy that was implemented without any consultation with the

general public and without a thorough risk assessment to the impact it would

have on the travelling public.

What's

missed here, while we all advocate for safety, particularly on vessels, and

we've heard horror stories around the world of vessels sinking and people not

being able to be evacuated properly, and we understand the risk associated with

that, but you have to also take into account the risk associated with particular

vessels and where they travel and those who are travelling.

In this

case, because at any given time we're eight minutes from port, after over 1

million trips we've never had to evacuate the vessel itself. We have an aging

population with people who have to travel from Bell Island to the St. John's

area for medical procedures, who are doing dialysis on a daily basis. We have

people who have Parkinson's who are coming for various treatment. We're having

people who are having day surgery. We're having people who are having all kinds

of other interventions health-wise. As a result, for them to have to evacuate

their vehicles, puts them at a much higher risk. We've had that from the health

professionals telling us this.

When

people have to leave their vehicles, when they're either under sedation or they

have a particular alignment, and we've had people with their legs broken and who

have just had surgery. Because it's encompassing, when we have minimal access to

ambulances, to have them travel at a case to bring somebody back to Bell Island

when there could be an emergency happen at that given time and not having an

ambulance available. We have some issues there because things have changed in

the last couple of years about the ambulance service, the availability and the

amount of funding put forward to that.

What

we're doing, we're talking about people's quality of life. We have people in

their 80s and 90s who have to get out with an oxygen tank to go up, yet we know

there are attendants with them, they know the setup of the ferries and they know

because of the size of the ferries and they know the ability to evacuate, which

could take anywhere from 20 minutes to half an hour, that they're in much less

risk of having to be a safety issue by them staying in their vehicles, having

their attendants there, and dealing with their medical issue at the time.

It's

about quality of life, it's about their dignity, but it's also about their

actual health and well-being. This hasn't been taken into account. We asked the

government to do a risk assessment. I understand it's being delayed and it's out

there, the tenders haven't even closed and what the process would be. I'm also

worried that it's being carved to get the answers that the government wants

versus what's really needed and would really evaluate what's there.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll get to speak to this again, but I do urge government to move

immediately on this.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and

minimum-wage workers can earn poverty incomes; and

WHEREAS

proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the

wage is too low to start with; and

WHEREAS

women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low

minimum wage; and

WHEREAS

the minimum wage only rose 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many food

items rose more than 20 per cent; and

WHEREAS

other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage

as a step towards a living wage;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum

wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial

inflation.

And, as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we see a movement afoot across the globe, really, looking at the whole

issue of living wage and minimum wage. We have not only governments speaking to

it, but we also have many Opposition parties speaking to it and we have private

industries speaking to it as well.

People

realize that the wage gap across the world is widening and we are seeing more

and more people slipping into poverty. Legislated minimum wages are not keeping

up with the cost of living when we look at the increase of the cost of food, the

cost of housing, the cost of electricity, the cost of transportation. Everything

is going up at a far higher rate than the very small incremental increases that

we see in minimum wage.

We saw

only last week what our government proposed, and it's $6 a week for our minimum

wage earners – $6 a week. That's two bus tickets. That's really all it is, is

two bus tickets a week for those who are travelling by public transit. It's not

enough. Again, what we see is more and more people slipping into poverty.

We know,

Mr. Speaker, that poverty is expensive. People earning living wages, people

earning wages that allow them to live with dignity and with health – because

healthy food is expensive – saves us in the long run. Poverty is expensive, and

we know that. The studies have been done. So this is about, in fact, an

investment, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Order of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, we've just,

prior to petitions, given notice on a number pieces of legislation. For those

who are watching that are not aware of procedure, you're unable to do multiple

readings of a bill. That being said, I'm hoping that with leave of my colleagues

across the way that we'll be able to proceed on a couple of pieces of

legislation today, primarily Bill 30, starting off, and possibly Bill 29.

At this

time, I would ask for leave from the House Leaders and my colleagues across the

way that we could do first reading on Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER:

I look to the Opposition. Is

leave granted?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

The

Government House Leader has leave. Please proceed.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the co-operation from my colleagues.

I would

move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act,

Bill 30, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL shall have leave to introduce

a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation

Act, Bill 30, and that the said bill shall now be read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL to introduce a bill, “An Act

To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act,” carried. (Bill 30)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Today.

MR. SPEAKER:

Today.

motion, Bill 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by

leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, with

leave, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that

Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be

now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

Does the minister have leave

to continue?

I'm

looking to the Opposition. The minister has leave?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay. Thank you.

The

Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I'm pleased to stand today to

speak to the amendment to Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER:

Excuse me, order – it is

moved and seconded that Bill 30 entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health,

Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And

Compensation Act.” (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I'm pleased to stand today to

speak to the amendments to Bill 30,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety

and Compensation Act.

We know

that workplace injuries have long-lasting physical and emotional impacts on many

individuals and families throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Before I speak

specifically to the amendments we are bringing to the floor of the House today,

I would like to highlight the new five-year Workplace Injury Prevention Strategy

we launched last week.

The

Prevention Strategy, developed in consultation with our injury prevention

partners and stakeholders, represents an opportunity for everyone to help

protect workers from hazards in the workplace. It was developed over 15 months,

led by WorkplaceNL and the Occupational Health and Safety Division of my

department, in consultation with safety partners and stakeholders. This included

research on the prevention initiatives across Canada and other countries, focus

groups and feedback provided on a discussion paper.

The

strategy identifies 50 opportunities built around five outcomes: safety

leadership, industry collaboration, education and training, occupational health

and safety programs and systems, and regulatory and enforcement practices. We

know there have been significant improvements in workplace safety in our

province. More and more workers are returning home safely to their loved ones at

the end of their work day.

In 2016,

the lost time injury rate of 1.5 per 100 workers is the lowest it has ever been,

and it is among the lowest in Canada. The 2017 statistics is expected to be

consistent with this. Ninety-two per cent of employers in our province are

injury free. This is a direct result of the co-operation and hard work from all

safety partners including employers, workers, labour, industry, safety

associations, training providers and government.

As an

example, our province now has 10 mandatory safety training programs that are

standardized and regulated for over 60,000 workers each year, about 25 per cent

of the workforce. As a result, the rate of falls from height has declined by 31

per cent. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province with a provincially

regulated occupational health and safety high school course: Occupation Health

and Safety 3203.

We've

had a dedicated focus on creating awareness among young workers and we can now

proudly state that workers aged 15 to 24 lead the province in workplace safety.

They consistently have a lower lost time incident rate than the provincial rate.

Mr. Speaker, these young workers are our future. We must continue to arm them

with workplace safety fundamentals to carry forward throughout their careers.

Back in

2000, the injury rate was more than double what it is now. If it had remained

the same we would have approximately 35,000 more injured workers in our province

than we have now. Instead, these workers have received safety training, are more

informed on how to identify workplace hazards and are using safe work practices,

but we also know the devastating impacts that workplace injuries are having on

workers and families in our province today.

WorkplaceNL serves approximately 13,000 injured workers in our province each

year. On average, 14 workers are still being injured or falling ill due to their

workday. In an instant, a person's life can change forever. For some individuals

the effects are felt for a short period of time and they are able to return to

work relatively quickly but for others it may last a lifetime. Reducing

workplace incidents is everyone's responsibility and together we must continue

to find ways to ensure that everyone returns home healthy and safe at the end of

the workday.

WorkplaceNL remains committed to maintaining a sustainable workplace injury

system for workers and employers in our province. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am

very pleased that today in this hon. House we will debate an amendment to the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Act to allow for an increase to the income replacement rate for injured

workers in the province from 80 to 85 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

The income replacement rate

is the percentage of a workers pre-injury net income which is covered by the

workers' compensation system. Once these amendments have been made, the rate

will be calculated at 85 per cent of an individual's net after tax earnings.

Within

the wage loss benefit calculation, the worker's growth before tax income is

capped at the maximum compensable assessable earnings which is $64,375 in 2018.

At present, Mr. Speaker, this threshold in Newfoundland and Labrador is the

highest in Atlantic Canada. The higher income replacement rate will help improve

benefits to injured workers and dependent spouses without increasing the average

assessment rate charged to employers. With this legislative amendment, our

province will achieve parity with the other Atlantic Provinces in calculating

wage loss benefits based on 85 per cent of income.

The

workers' compensation system in our province is fully funded at 126.1 per cent

as of December 31, 2016, and its financial position continues to improve – 2017,

Mr. Speaker, enter a correction there. It can now sustain a benefit increase for

injured workers without increasing the average base assessment rate paid by

employers. In fact, the average assessment rate for employers is lowered to

$1.90 per 100 of assessable payroll for 2018. That, Mr. Speaker, is a 31 per

cent decrease since 2013.

As I

referenced earlier, Mr. Speaker, the positive trends in workplace safety across

our province, along with the lost time incident rate at an all-time low of 1.5

per 100 workers, have resulted in fewer claims. This in turn has led to the

lower employer assessment rate. Together with employers, workers, industry,

safety associations, employer and labour advocates, we are working toward

building an even stronger culture of safety in our province.

We know

this legislation is welcomed by many injured workers in our province or their

dependents, Mr. Speaker. It is one more step along our path to help reduce the

financial, emotional and physical impacts workplace incidents are having on

injured workers, their families and their communities.

Mr.

Speaker, back in December 2016 we announced implementation of presumptive cancer

overage for career and volunteer firefighters. Our government recognized the

need for a benefit that firefighters have been seeking for more than a decade,

and was already provided in most other provinces.

Today

represents one more positive initiative in our efforts to improve the workers'

compensation system for both injured workers and employers in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We are

also turning our focus to other important issues for workers in our province

such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Work-related mental stress conditions

such as PTSD are impacting workplaces across Canada.

Late

last fall, I met with stakeholder's to seek input on the prevention of and

compensation for work-related mental stress. We have initiated a review of the

WorkplaceNL's mental stress policy, with a goal of modernizing our approach.

This involves a two-stage process, with the first involving an immediate policy

review, and the second a review of PTSD coverage across other jurisdictions.

Workplace health and safety is everyone's responsibility, and we will continue

to work together with everyone who plays a role in keeping our workplaces safe,

as well supporting our injured workers. We will also continue to be proactive

and work toward creating a safety culture in our province.

Our

government is proud of the amendment we are debating today, proud of the

difference and increase in the income replacement rate will make in the lives of

injured workers or their dependents.

As I

have stated previously in this hon. House, it is important that we constantly

review and amend our legislation to ensure it is meeting the needs of the people

of our Province. I am pleased that we are here today to debate this amendment to

the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Act .

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

pleased today to get up and talk about the new amendments that have been brought

forward here today. Mr. Speaker, I'm first going to start off by saying that we

all know of individuals who have been injured in the workplace. We all know of

the stress and the strain it's put on families.

When I

first became elected in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, in my first couple of

weeks I had a person come to my office. You don't realize the impacts it has on

individuals, people that want to work and people that want to be in society and

contributing to society. And all of a sudden because of a workplace injury,

whether it's the fault of themselves or it's a fault of the environment they're

in or whatever, they're left with this stress, strain, you name it, on their

family and on themselves.

It's a

great program we have and it's a program that will hopefully bridge that gap

from being injured to being able to afford the things of life. When this happens

to individuals and happens to families, the strain is just unbelievable. So any

time we can increase their benefits in any way at all just to make it easier –

now we're going up 5 per cent – that's a good thing. It really means a lot to

those families and individuals who are put in the circumstances.

Like I

said, there were individuals I've been dealing with over the last almost 10

years now, they had different claims and stuff like that and appeals. The whole

process and your doctors' appointments, having to go see your specialist, having

to get a letter and having to get this done and that done to be able to qualify

and be able to get your workers' comp is so important to individuals. This is an

important thing to so many people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm very

pleased today to also know that times have changed in our society. I have

friends now that are trainers on sites. I know at one time – and I know the

minister just mentioned that time that it was a 31 per cent decrease now in

what's happening with heights, people falling from heights and getting injured,

whether they're falling off a scaffold or they're falling off a roof.

remember a real good friend of mine, one time he was shingling a roof with a

company and at that time there was no need of harnesses or anything. He slid off

the road. Even today he is still not back to where he was. He broke both of his

arms when he landed on the ground. Back then that was just part of the job he

was doing. He was shingling a roof and that was it. You went up there and

circumstances – you didn't have to have these things, but today through

regulations and through standards we've put out here – and what our government

did, our government has done a fantastic job over the last number of years.

We've

come in line with all this new technology that people have to have, new ways of

doing things. It's important that these standards and regulations are

implemented in the workplace because no one wants to hear of a family member, or

do they want to be that person who gets injured at the workplace, and it can

happen so easy. In just a matter of seconds people's lives are turned upside

down.

By doing

what is happening here today, increasing the benefits is a positive thing. It's

a positive thing because I am sure most workers that get injured on the work

site really don't want to go on workers' comp. They don't want to be out there

and have to have a decrease in their salary at all because people have payments,

people have house payments, mortgage payments. They have children going to

school and they have groceries to put on the table. There are all kinds of

different factors of why we work and why we work so hard.

Again, I

want to just say a little bit about what the minister first said where she

talked about what is happening in the field today. Again, I mentioned that I had

some people, friends of mine, real good friends of mine actually that are

trainers. What they do, they have to go to these work – whether it's Muskrat

Falls, or it's out on the oil rigs, or down in Vale, or it's anywhere at all,

people have to be trained. Any unionized person in this province right now

basically has to be trained.

Even if

you see local construction now, you'll see that scaffolding is done differently.

I know I go back to a time when I was very – it's a long while ago now. I got a

job one summer painting the school in Flatrock. We were up on a wooden scaffold

where it was just two pieces of board shoved in there into the side. We went

along a piece of 2 x 10 and painted the school. At that time it was under the

school board, the people who were contracting that. That's what we worked on,

but I'm glad to see – and it's the reason why we're noticing that the rates are

down.

I know

earlier when the minister said how they changed from the rates – and now even

the fund itself, and the reason why the fund has increased. I think back in the

'90s it was at 60 per cent and now it's up to 129 per cent funded by the

employer.

Our

government has reduced the rate to employers in this province. Anything we can

do to help our employers also, because they're the people who generate the

economy in this province. If we can reduce their rates to make sure they're

paying less that they can, and obviously they're paying their share. Now it's up

to 126 per cent. The burden on employers is huge. So I'm pleased with that, too.

Just the fact that it's reducing, the fact that people are more aware of what's

happening in the workplace and the fact that, I guess, it's a result of people

getting wiser.

Even

when we do contracts and do different – I know government does it. I'm sure most

of the oil industry and all the megaprojects have certain standards and stuff

like that in their contracts. Today all that has changed, and it's important

that it did change because this is the result. The result is less people are

getting injured in the workplace.

What

we've done here today, and I agree with the minister and I support it, but what

the minister is doing here today, I feel that any time a person is working in an

industry and they get injured, that they get compensated. It's not their fault

they got injured. So they get compensated to the maximum they can. Increasing

this will do that.

We were

back in – I think it was the '90s where it was changed. One time back in the

'90s it was at 90 per cent and then it got moved down into – maybe it was

earlier than that, maybe it was the '80s. Then it got moved back down to 70 per

cent and then it came back up again, I think it was in 2003, to 80 per cent and

now to make this increase today. So we're going in the right direction.

Again,

it's important that we make sure people abide by the regulations and there are

safety officers out there to make sure that when they see stuff that people are

aware that this can't happen. Anytime there are standards and regulations put in

place, we have to make sure we have people in place to implement those standards

and regulations and to ensure workers, especially the families – we have to

ensure the families know their loved ones when they go to work in the morning

are going to come home safe in the evening. That is what this is all about.

Again,

increasing the amount of money they can get through workers' comp – meanwhile,

it is capped I believe at $63,400 is what the minister said. So that's capped.

Now this effect will have on I'm sure most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but

some people who are really high income, they will also – it won't affect them as

much because they are at that high threshold and that will be the maximum they

can obtain from workers' comp.

Mr.

Speaker, over the years there are 13,000 – I think 13,000 people that this will

impact. It will also impact on deceased family members and the families of

people who were injured. So it will increase their benefit also, which again is

a real good thing.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate that we will be supporting this.

Anything we can do for injured workers in our province, to make it a positive

place for them to go to work and ensure them that if something does happy, they

will be compensated.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to speak to Bill 30,

An Act to Amend

the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. Thank you to the MHA for the

beautiful – I'm surprised he didn't say that today – District of Cape St.

Francis for supporting this bill. I think that's an important thing that he's

made a decision to go that way.

Like all

MHAs in this House, we've heard the stories of workplace incidents that have

forever changed the lives of our constituents. Too often relatives, friends or

neighbours have been impacted by events in the workplace that have far-reaching

impacts on their physical, emotional and social health.

A while

back, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with a gentleman who had damaged two discs in his

lower back when a truck wheel fell on him at his workplace several years ago.

His condition failed to improve and his health actually continued to decline.

While his physical condition was very obvious, the emotional strain from his

injury also came to forefront during our conversations. He spoke of the hockey

games his son played that he will never be able to watch and the family

activities he could never participate in because of the pain he was living with

each and every day.

Mr.

Speaker, since I became the parliamentary secretary to the Minister Responsible

for WorkplaceNL, I've had the opportunity to see workplace injuries from the

other side. I see first-hand the tremendous efforts that are underway by the

many, many dedicated individuals to help improve the lives of injured workers in

our province.

Last

week, I attended the launch of a new five-year workplace injury, illness and

prevention strategy. As the Minister of Service NL stated earlier, this plan was

developed in consultation with injury prevention partners and stakeholders and

is aimed at helping protect workers from hazards in their workplace.

Mr.

Speaker, serious injuries have increased by 21 per cent over the last decade.

These types of injuries can be devastating to injured workers and their

families. More people are now willing to come forward, discuss and address

mental health issues in the workplace. Workplaces need to be ready to provide

environments that are supportive of the mental wellness for its workers.

As well,

all of our workplace safety programs need to respond to the aging demographic of

our workforce. This is a real concern as our province has the oldest population.

Soft tissue injuries continue to represent almost 70 per cent of the injuries

reported to WorkplaceNL and, therefore, continue to be a main focus of the

Prevention Strategy. While we also know that young workers, those ages 15 to 24

years of age, have a lower injury rate than the provincial rate, we need to

continue to provide a solid foundation for safety awareness so that generation

will carry that proactive safety culture forward throughout their careers.

While we

need to maintain a focus on preventing workplace injuries, we must also maintain

a focus on those who have already been injured. Mr. Speaker, the increase to the

income replacement rate we are introducing into the House today is a wonderful

example of this effort. I could not agree more with the Member for Cape St.

Francis when he spoke earlier about the stakeholders and how the injury rates

have gone down. It's a direct reflection of the education and training that all

the stakeholders and the primary focus they have placed on making workplaces

safer for workers to work in. An increase from 80 to 85 per cent of the

pre-injury net earnings will certainly benefit injured workers and the people

that count on them. This is a very important step to help these families.

Mr.

Speaker, the ability to improve the lives of approximately 13,000 injured

workers or the spouses of deceased workers is significant. It is especially

significant given the wage loss benefits for injured workers have not been

increased since 1998. That changes now.

I'm

proud to stand with my colleagues today on Bill 30 that will have such a

profound, positive impact on the lives of so many injured individuals, some of

the most vulnerable in our society. It reminds me why I choose to serve the

people of my district in the province in the first place: to make a difference.

Increasing the income replacement rate to 85 per cent is a key recommendation

from the statutory review in the act and is one that will make a difference. It

represents one more important issue we have tackled as a government, along with

presumptive cancer coverage for firefighters and a reduction in employer

assessment rates. These are tangible actions that we have committed to and

delivered on.

As the

Minister of Service NL indicated, we have also initiated a review of the

WorkplaceNL mental stress policy in order to explore options to modernize the

approach to work-related mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress

disorders. A review of the mental health-related policies of other Canadian

workplace compensation boards, as well as a consultation with workplace primary

stakeholders, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour and the

Newfoundland and Labrador Employers Council, will also help to inform this

policy. In the long-term, Mr. Speaker, the review of post-traumatic stress

disorder coverage will be informed by formal research and input from interested

parties.

WorkplaceNL is also in discussions with Memorial University to conduct a

literature review of PTSD as it relates to workplaces in Newfoundland and

Labrador. These reviews will help guide our government in terms of possible

changes for work-related mental health injuries, which is in keeping with our

government's focus on improving in all programs and services.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how delighted I am to rise in this House today to

speak to these amendments which will see the income replacement rate for injured

workers or their dependants rise from 80 to 85 per cent. We will continue to

work towards improving the workplace compensation system in our province for

both injured workers and employers. We will also continue our efforts to help

keep safety at the forefront for everyone. One workplace injury is too many, and

everyone deserves to return home to their families and friends at the end of

each and every day.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to stand and take a few minutes to speak to Bill 30,

An Act to Amend the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act and, as has been talked about, the

income replacement ratio in the insurance system that all jurisdictions and

territories across Canada have. They're provincially driven, the systems

themselves, and are funded through employer's assessments rates.

As we

know, if an economy is buoyant and there's a lot of payroll in that economy,

there's a huge opportunity then to generate income for the injury fund through

that percentage and that percentage is arranged through an assessment rate to a

whole range of rate codes for various industries. Then, through all of that, you

get your average assessment rate and that generates the monies in the fund to

fund the system.

Now, if

we go back, I guess – and William Meredith who originally, I think, was in

Europe, came up with the system. It was based on the fact that, in respect of

not being able to sue, employers would fund the system to take care of injured

workers, from the full gamut of an acute injury to medical care, to long-term

disability, to long-term care. All of those are factored into the system. It's

very consistent across the country, in provincial jurisdictions and territories.

While

some had some very different coverage, some jurisdictions may have 95 or 96.

We're very high in this jurisdiction in regard to the amount of workers that are

covered. There is coverage for them. I think it's maybe 97 or 98 per cent, if I

remember correctly, as opposed to other jurisdictions and what that coverage is.

In terms

of our fishing industry here, we have coverage there. That's not based on

payroll. It's based on the amount of resource that's sold. Then that generates

funds to go into the actual injury fund.

that's what the system is. From time to time we do statutory reviews. My

understanding is some of what we're talking about here today are discussions

that evolved from a statutory review in regard to looking at the assessment

rates, looking at the injury replacement income and at various times over the

past number of years it has varied. This is about bringing it to the 85 per cent

range in terms of earnings replacement, weekly net earnings.

For

those out there in the system, in regard to people identifying what their

earning replacement is, there's a maximum insurable earning, annual earnings

that's used to calculate someone's weekly rate once they're injured in the

workplace. That has moved up to, I think it's about $64,000, in that range, if I

remember correctly.

I know a

number of years ago, our time in government, I think we tied it to the consumer

price index in regard to having it flow through each year. Instead of doing ad

hoc analysis every year, or every statutory year, how much you're going to

increase it by, it was tied specifically to the consumer price index. Whatever

that was, 1 or 2 per cent, whether that was the amount it would be, every year

would be recognized, the inflationary costs. That would be tacked on to the

maximum insurable earning.

So then

that would be the amount that was used for calculation, what we're talking about

here today in regard to the 85 per cent net. I think it originally used to be 13

weeks they would do an initial assessment rate and a long-term rate after that,

but that gross amount would be used to determine. It would be normal deductions.

CPP, EI would be taken out as if you were working. That would get you to the 100

per cent of net. Then from there, what we're talking about here today would be

applied to that 100 per cent of net to make the determination of what that

weekly rate would be. That weekly rate through this bill, as I said, has gone

from 80 to 85 per cent. So, obviously, it's a greater percentage of that net

that's identified. That's a greater return to an injured worker who is receiving

benefits.

I also

was interested to note, too, it's in the actual act, whether this was just what

they call temporary earnings loss, which would be for someone that's just had an

injury at work, they're receiving medical care and treatment. That amount would

be paid to them while that would happen with the intent they would move back

into the workplace and return to their pre-injury position.

Extended

earnings loss; and that's long-term disability. Someone's deemed that maybe they

can't go back to their pre-injury employment. They're assessed on what they

could do. They could be deemed capable of another position and receive

offsetting earnings of what the pre-injury earnings were and what they're

capable of earning today. That would be extended earnings loss. Or it could be –

unfortunately, someone could have a serious enough injury that they couldn't

return to any kind of employment. Again, there would be a calculation done on

what their long-term benefit would be.

understanding is this change we're talking about here would also affect those as

well. So it's short term, those that are receiving medical care from their

injury, but it's also those that, unfortunately, may not return back to their

pre-injury employment. Maybe they return to some other employment and could get

compensated, or the injury may be significant enough that they cannot return to

any kind of employment. They would receive full – I think it was called extended

earnings loss. It may still be. That would apply in this particular case as well

in regard to a determination of 85 per cent.

mentioned to both sides, this system is funded through an injury fund which is

generated through payroll and assessment rates and calculations of what's paid

on an annual basis by all employers. In this province you're mandated to

register and to have your payroll assessed to make sure that all employees in

your business are covered. You pay into the system to cover what we're talking

about today to make sure that injured workers have available to them benefits –

not only wage loss, but certainly related to medical treatment, medical care,

and the full gamut of what's available to help them recover from their injury

and/or a very serious injury that may not allow them to return to pre-injury

employment, or not employment at all, but to care for them if they were to be on

long-term disability or extended earnings loss.

As I

said before, some years ago we tied the increase on an annual basis to the

maximum insurable to the consumer price index, which allows a percentage

increase each year. My colleague for Cape St. Francis mentioned about all those

workers that are affected by this, and it's not only workers. Unfortunately,

it's the families or spouses of deceased workers and dependents and what their

calculation would be if something unfortunate was to happen, lose someone in a

particular industry. This would be used as well in regard to that dependency

benefit, is my understanding, if something were to happen, and for someone to be

awarded benefits and taken care of from that perspective.

again, it's a significant piece of legislation looking at our system, the

workers' compensation system in our province and how we continue to look at how

we service those in our province in regard to the system. As I said, I think

there's still a statutory requirement review every so many years that allows all

the stakeholders that are involved to come forward, to make recommendations, to

look at what's transpiring in the system under the legislation, under the

regulations, under the policy, to hear people's experiences and encounters with

the system.

Certainly, those that are employees and those that are employers, they come

together and can make a recommendation as we move forward. I guess this is the

result of one of those as we balance it out. As was mentioned earlier, I think

the fund is now well over 120 per cent – 126, I think, per cent funded. That's

significant. Then it allows us to look at the stability of the system going

forward.

The

actuarial analysis is often done in regard to generating a payroll, injury cost

over a period of time. All of those are factored in to make sure we have a solid

injury fund. We certainly do today. This bill looks at how we make adjustments

to make sure we're doing that balancing act in terms of running a system and

make sure we can do what we can for injured workers and people employed in our

province.

finish, just from the perspective of assessment rights – I know my colleague

spoke to that as well – in regard to employers. It's always good to be

competitive in regard to what employers pay. This is one element as well of what

an employer would pay to register in our province, pay taxes, along with

corporate tax or small business tax, but they would pay a premium here. We have

a system that's in the shape it's in today that bodes well for our employers and

for our employees that we can be competitive with other jurisdictions in what

we're charging. So it's good for both sides of the equation, and it's something

we would support on this side with regard to this bill and this amendment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm very

happy to stand today and speak to Bill 30. It's a welcomed bill. The amendments

that are being brought in are based on the recommendation going back to the

Statutory Review Committee in 2014. So we've been waiting four whole years for

this recommendation to be paid attention to, and right on the heels of another

review in 2018. I do hope that with whatever comes up in the 2018 review, we

won't be waiting for four years after that to see recommendations being dealt

with.

Having

said that, I'm very happy that finally this amendment is coming to the floor,

especially the amendment which will increase the injured workers income

replacement rate from 80 per cent to 85 per cent. One of the realities is that

when the injury fund ran into trouble back in the 1990s, there was a major drop

in what the rate of payment would be and, up until then, workers received 90 per

cent of net pay. In the 1990s, because of a major drop in the injury fund, the

payments declined to 75 per cent and then gradually started increasing to 80 per

cent. So with this amendment, we're up to 85 per cent, but we're still not at

where we were in the '90s before the bottom fell out of it, in some ways.

I think

it's really important that now in 2018 when the review is done we need to look

at can we go back up to the 90 per cent. As has been pointed out both by the

minister and by other speakers, our injury fund is in really good condition

right now. And again it has been pointed out it's 126 per cent of the fund in

2017, and that's good. In the briefing we got – and I thank the minister for the

briefing; we had an excellent briefing. In that briefing, we were told that the

plans are there for ensuring that that fund remains healthy. The investment

plans that are in place look really good. I think that's what we have to be on

top of now is making sure that the investment plan maintains and that the injury

fund, again, remains stable as it now is, even better than stable.

I wanted

to know at the briefing why things have gone so well. I was told by the

officials from the department, first of all, there's been a real growth in the

payroll base – that's good; that means that people are making better money in

the province and I'm glad to see that – and a decline in injury rates. I was

delighted to hear that. I was also told in the briefing that there are plans in

place to prevent injuries, more plans in place for education in the workplace

and with employers to be preventative in the approach with regard to injury so

that we can bring the rate of injuries down even more.

Where it

is, is very good, but it would be wonderful to bring it down way more. We know

it will never be zero. There will always be accidents that will happen, but I

was really pleased to hear about the plans for education in the workplace and

with employers, because preventing is obviously the first to go – prevention as

much as possible.

And I do

know that in some of the – well, all of them I guess – large industrial work

areas, they do pride themselves on keeping signs up showing how long they've

gone without an injury. I think that becomes a real incentive to workers, but

they need the support, of course, of the workplace and the support of government

in getting that mindset that you can prevent injury.

I want

to come back – before I go further into that – to talk about the part of the

amendment that I'm not quite happy with and that has to do with the assessable

income cap. So the cap that is put on, the amount of money you can earn and be

covered under workers' comp is now $64,400, approximately, here in the province;

$64,375 –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the Member, as I indicated in my opening remarks, that we're to deal with the

relevance, so not to go into the clauses of the bill. I'd ask you to speak to

the principle in second reading.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, well then I think the

principle I'm speaking to – I was just giving a detail on it – is having a cap.

There are provinces who have a cap; there are provinces who don't. I think that

we need to look at that. I think in the review in 2018, we seriously need to

consider actually removing the cap.

We can

do things that are done in other provinces. I can go into details on that when

we go into Committee of the Whole, but other provinces have other ways of

dealing with not having a cap. We have to be careful about comparing apples and

oranges; I understand that. But if there are provinces that have been able to

remove a cap, then I think we need to consider that as well or, in the interim,

to work towards it, but in the interim to make sure that our cap is not too low.

I think the principle should be that we look at having a cap that is

commensurate with the salaries of workers who are covered under our workplace

health and safety. That is a principle I think we need to look at.

We need

to look at the changes that have happened, if the payroll base has gone up.

According to the officials, the payroll base has gone up, then I think we really

have to question why we have a cap which is I think the 10th lowest in Canada.

This is something that really needs to be looked at.

Coming

into the injury fund, as I said earlier, keeping the injury fund in good shape

has to be a priority for the department and for the officials. I think the fact

that over the last five years the employers' assessments declined considerably –

they declined by 31 per cent actually over the past five years – yet we still

have a really healthy injury fund, one has to ask why there was no corresponding

increase in the benefit paid to workers that over those five years while the

employers were getting breaks, the workers still had to maintain the lower rate

that they were getting if they were injured. All the more reason that this

change is coming in and the rate is going up to 85 per cent so that the workers

getting corresponding just treatment when compared to what the employers were

getting over the last five years. From that perspective, I'm very, very glad

that we have put it up.

looking at the replacement rate in Canada, we are still the lowest in Canada. I

know it's good to compare to the Atlantic provinces, but the Atlantic provinces

are not always the best examples of best practices. When we compare ourselves to

Atlantic Canada, we may look really good because perhaps the rest of the

Atlantic provinces aren't, as I said, up to par.

So it is

much better for us – if we want to improve, it's not to compare ourselves to

Atlantic Canada but to the rest of the country. Not all the provinces in

Atlantic Canada are comparable with us when it comes to our economic situation,

I realize that. But I have to look at why, for example, with the increases that

happen annually under the consumer act – I can't get the word I want, the CPI.

Why under that we would be looking to the rate used by the national level when

our own index is much higher most years than the national level.

There

are provinces that use their provincial CPI as the CPI to increase on an annual

basis, not the national CPI. I think this is something that needs to be looked

at as well in the review that's going to be done in 2018, why the national CPI –

in actual fact, some years there's a whole point percentage difference between

the provincial one and the national one. Provincially, our people are dealing

with a rate of inflation that's much higher than some other provinces, yet

they're only getting an increase based on the national average CPI. So I think

that really needs to be checked out in the review.

I know

there are many groups who have spoken to that, many groups who are concerned

that the benefit is too low. Our goal should be, as some of my colleagues have

said, making things as good as possible for people who are injured.

There

are some areas in which we would like to see more work done. I'm really glad

that we did see, brought in recently, new initiatives to prevent and treat

musculoskeletal injuries and mental distress. I think the principle for me there

is keeping up to date with our modern workplace, keeping up to date with new

technologies, because there are new technologies that in actual fact can be good

on one level, but on another level could cause injuries.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I just

ask everyone if they could respect the Member who's speaking, please. If you

have to, take your business outside.

Please

and thank you.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

talking about modernizing criteria, we have to look at workplaces from that

perspective. I think one of the reasons why we seem to have a higher degree of

soft tissue injuries than we've had in the past is because of technology in

offices and people using electronic communications in a way that can very often

cause soft tissue injuries. That's a common expression for the musculoskeletal,

but the soft tissue injuries are a serious situation. Not that they didn't exist

before, but it's very high now. So looking at the reasons why people have these

injuries and then trying to create preventative measures is extremely important.

The

other thing that's rising – and this is disturbing, and I think it's something

that will have to be looked at in the review as well – is traumatic injury rates

arising, especially in long-term care. In long-term care we find that workers

are becoming injured more and more. There are many reasons for that. I certainly

would not be able to name them all. I think one probably is that we have more

people in institutionalized long-term care. So that's one reason. Another might

be that injuries weren't reported before. Certainly it's a major area and it's

an area that does need to be studied.

We need

to be dealing with – while we have to deal with a very concrete thing of what

the rate of payment is and we have to deal with how much money one makes, what

the cap might be, how far you can get compensated, that's all important, but in

doing the review we are going to have to deal with these other broader issues. I

know the minister is aware of that and others are aware of it, but we have to

make sure it happens. We shouldn't have to wait four more years until we deal

with some of the issues around the, as I put it, modernizing criteria for

assessment. What is working and not working in the compensation system has to be

looked at.

We get a

lot of phone calls from workers who need help in doing appeals for worker's

compensation. Maybe we need a review done of the number of appeals that are made

on an annual basis. Maybe we need a review done of how many appeals are won. If

we saw, for example, a very high percentage of appeals are won, then one has to

question: well, why did they have to appeal? Why couldn't the right decision

have been made in the first place? So I think there really does need to be in

the statutory review, a review has to be done of these kinds of things.

What is

the number of appeals? Is it higher than in other areas? Are more appeals won

than lost? Why should appeals have had to happen? Why couldn't a better decision

have been made? I think there needs to be that kind of assessment. Certainly,

based on the phone calls we get and the cases we get through our constituency

assistants, it is an issue and I think it needs to be dealt with.

I think

the new review committee that gets set up has to have public consultations to

hear from workers and unions and employers. They will be the ones who can speak

well to what is working and not working in the compensation system.

Mr.

Speaker, these are my main points. I am in favour, obviously, of the change.

I've given some detail about the principles that I think need to be dealt with

when the statutory review this year is put in place.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

take this opportunity to stand in this House to support this bill. I commend the

minister for working so hard to get this done and to bring it forward for the

injured workers.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll just go back in my number of years in government. Mr. Speaker,

back in the '90s when the fund was almost dissolved, it was down almost to 62

per cent, 63 per cent at the time. They had to bring it back up to a level to

ensure that the fund didn't go bankrupt. That is why at the time the rate was

pushed down, Mr. Speaker, because of the fund within the rate.

Through

worker's compensation and the people working there, they work hard. There are a

lot of files that come over their desks that are very complicated; there are

some that are straightforward.

I know

in my time as the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL, there's a dedicated

staff at WorkplaceNL who honestly try their best to do what they can to help out

injured workers. We always get a complicated case which sometimes can't be

solved or it takes a long time to get solved. We always have a difference of

opinion.

And I

speak to the Leader of the Third Party's question, talking about appeals; I've

represented a lot of people at appeals at WorkplaceNL. I did it before and our

office, we feel confident, and we would help any worker through an appeal

process. Sometimes it is a daunting task for someone who is not familiar with

the system to get the appeals.

I'm well

aware of it and sometimes it's pretty gruelling on the staff also because they

are bound by legislation of what they can do. But my hats off to them because I

was down there, I went through it and I met a lot of them, met most of them

actually, and I know what their limitations are and they are bound by

legislation. But I'm a firm believer that they try their best for the injured

workers.

Mr.

Speaker, another big thing with WorkplaceNL is about – again, I know the

minister followed through on this a lot – prevention and education. That's a big

part of it also. I'm going back to the '90s and had it all developed and now

there's a great education program, there's a great prevention program with all

the workers and with all the employers, employees in the province. That has been

a great benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to our employees and

to employers.

Mr.

Speaker, as we know, we decreased the rates. The board decreased the rates for

the employers recently. So the rates are going down also for employers and the

benefits for the employees are g