PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

December 4, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 48

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers, please.

I have

some special guests today that I'd like to recognize for the Members. First of

all, over in the Speaker's gallery I'm very pleased to welcome Ms. Lynelle

Cantwell. Ms. Cantwell has received a special award and will be recognized in a

Member's statement this afternoon. She is joined by her sister-in-law, Courtney

Cantwell.

A great

welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I've just been out in the

lobby and am very pleased to welcome a group of rugby players. They are members

of the Roncalli Central High School ruby team from Avondale and their coach,

Noel Strapp. They will be mentioned in a Member's statement this afternoon.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also in the public gallery

today we have Mayor Tony Ryan and Councillor Mack Lavers of the Town of Port

Saunders.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I see Mr. Jerry Earle up in

the audience. Thank you for coming, Sir.

I also

see Mr. Waylon Williams, the communications officer with Happy Valley-Goose Bay,

and finally I'd also like to identify Mr. John Duggan who is a member of the

legal community and he will be recognized in a Ministerial Statement today.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we will hear for the Members from the Districts of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi,

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, Harbour Main and Cape

St. Francis.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

more than pleased to recognize a major achievement of author, former journalist

and Labradorian Anne Budgell – the publication of

We All Expected to Die , her documentary of the Spanish influenza in

Labrador in 1918-1919.

On the

100th anniversary of this disaster, Anne Budgell puts the spotlight on the

almost total wipeout of the Inuit villages of Okak and Hebron, where the

mortality rate was 71 per cent.

Publisher ISER Books describes Budgell's book as “powerful and uncompromising”

in its depiction of the deadly havoc of the pandemic in these isolated

settlements.

She uses

diaries, journals, newspaper reports, official documents and the recollections

of survivors to tell the story of the flu's horrific impact in Labrador and how

authorities at the time did not provide assistance.

The

importance of Anne Budgell's work is being recognized by her presence at the

Canadian Immunization Conference where she is today signing books.

I ask

the hon. Members of this House to join with me in thanking Anne Budgell for her

amazing piece of work.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I

rise to pay tribute to a very special, former school teacher, principal and

former mayor of Bay Roberts, Mr. Wilbur Sparkes, who passed away on November 25

at age 90.

Mr.

Sparkes was the longest serving mayor in the town's history, elected in 1981 and

remaining in the position for 24 years. He was born in Massachusetts in 1928 and

moved to Bay Roberts with his family when he was four.

studied education at Memorial University and taught for almost 40 years; 33 of

which he spent teaching at Amalgamated Academy in the community where he was

also principal.

Mr.

Sparkes was also known and admired for his ability to play sports such as hockey

and baseball. He was especially known for his times as a pitcher with the Guards

in St. John's Senior Baseball in the '50s. He kept in shape, Mr. Speaker, by

playing rec hockey well into his seventies.

Wilbur

Sparkes was inducted into the St. John's Baseball Hall of Fame and was also

inducted to the Bay Roberts Sports Hall of Fame. His legacy lives on through the

Wilbur Sparkes Recreation Complex in the town, which was named in his honour

when he retired from municipal politics.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask that all hon. Members send sincere condolences to the Sparkes

family.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to extend congratulations to Ms. Lauren Carter of Harbour

Breton for her recent accomplishment as winner of the Anaconda Mining Volunteer

Activity Award, and the Wing'n It George Street Community Pride Award presented

at the Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Scholarship Awards Gala in

November.

This

industrious young lady, through her elementary and high school years, was a peer

tutor, canteen worker, Sunday school teacher, fun skate coach, play-for-fun

coach, Community Youth Network board member, and the list goes on. She also had

time to play volleyball, softball, ball hockey, minor hockey and more. She

served as vice-president of the student council at both St. Joseph's Elementary

and King Academy high school. She has always shone in local speak-out events and

was the first-place senior division winner at the Lions Annual Speak Out in

2018, as well as a guest speaker at the Aquaculture Summit in 2017.

From

winner of the Mayor's Award for highest academic achievement to Memorial

University's HORIZONS Scholarship and MedQUEST participant, Lauren demonstrates

an incredible work ethic and we are confident that this very well-rounded, young

woman will continue to be a strong leader of today's youth. Lauren, now in her

first year at MUN, is also currently on the Premier's Youth Council, which

provides advice to government from a youth perspective.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating and thanking Lauren for her tremendous

community spirit and being an outstanding role model to young women all across

our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize the girls' rugby team from Roncalli Central High

in Avondale. The team was formed in 2011 by Harbour Main resident and teacher

Noel Strapp. From the beginning, this team had to overcome being inexperienced

and playing against larger schools with established programs.

However,

the team had a lot of energy and their enthusiasm made learning how to play and

compete so much easier. Within two years, Roncalli has made it to their first

provincial championship, but fell just short of a first title. Since then ,

Roncalli has won four of the last five provincial championships, and made female

rugby a mainstay in the school's program. Roncalli recently played in its sixth

straight provincial championship game, with a team largely composed of

inexperienced players, and defeated Prince of Wales Collegiate by a score of 34

to 5.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

PARSLEY:

Nationally and globally, women's rugby is one of the fastest growing sports in

the world. With the skills, talent and enthusiasm created from these girls, the

sport will continue to grow and there will be success for years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Lynelle Cantwell from

Torbay for receiving the Canadian Red Cross 2018 Young Humanitarian Award.

Mr. Speaker, Lynelle is 20 years old and she is already

a powerful, anti-bullying advocate and motivational speaker. Lynelle made

international headlines several years ago after she was a target of

cyber-bullying and chose to respond to her bullies with compassion.

Since then, Lynelle has spoken to tens of thousands of

youth across the country about bullying and body-shaming, and was recently

featured in the documentary “ Rising Above:

Stories of Courage and Hope .” Lynelle has also been a youth advocate for the

Canadian Red Cross's annual Pink Day, and she is a youth ambassador for TELUS in

partnership with WE Day.

Mr. Speaker, Lynelle has taken a stand against bullying

that has inspired people across the country and around the world. She has set an

example to us all.

I congratulate Lynelle on being chosen as the 2018 Red

Cross Young Humanitarian, and I ask all hon. Members to join with me in wishing

Lynelle success as she continues to combat bullying with a positive voice for

others who encounter the same challenges.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

And

speaking of strong women, I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that

Mary Shortall is joining us in the audience. Nice to have you here today, Mary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR.

DAVIS:

Mr.

Speaker, I recently had the honour of welcoming a visiting delegation from the

Vietnam Skills for Employment Project to our province.

Newfoundland and Labrador was the final stop on their

latest cross-country tour of Canada's public college systems. For the past four years, the Vietnam Skills for

Employment Project has been working in partnership with the College of the North

Atlantic to develop a world-class public college system in Vietnam.

During

the visit, they were able to tour the College of the North Atlantic's facilities

and to get a first-hand look at how it supports economic growth and prosperity.

I am proud to inform my hon. colleagues that at the conclusion of this

cross-country tour, a member of the delegation told my officials that their

collaborative relationship with the College of the North Atlantic is the best of

all their relationships with the Canadian public colleges.

Vietnam

shares our belief that a world-class education is the key to economic growth and

prosperity. The College of the North Atlantic's partnership with the Vietnam

Skills for Employment Project helps ensure the success of our students, schools

and the economy on a global stage.

I ask

all hon. colleagues to join me in extending our gratitude to the delegation for

the honour of their visit and in commending the College of the North Atlantic

for raising the province's profile internationally.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I wish to thank the Vietnam

Skills for Employment Project for taking time out of their

schedule to visit

Newfoundland and Labrador and tour the facilities in our province. I'm delighted

to hear that the delegates consider their collaborative relationship with the

college as the best of all the relationships in Canada. This is further evidence

of a successful partnership that the College of the North Atlantic is forging

internationally. The College of the North Atlantic is a world-class institution

and its continued success internationally is a testament to the hard work,

dedication and ingenuity of our people.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy. I applaud the College of the North

Atlantic as it continues to play a role internationally in post-secondary

education. But while this government worries about the global success of our

schools, I hope there will be equal concern with the affordability and quality

of post-secondary education in this province.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to highlight the launch of Text 911 or T911. The system

assists 911 call takers to communicate quickly and clearly with persons who are

deaf, late deafened, hard of hearing and others who may benefit by using

wireless text messaging.

I was

pleased to be joined for the announcement by my colleague the Minister of

Advanced Education and Skills, as well as Kerry Power, Executive Director of

NL911; and members of the community who will benefit from this new service.

As the

minister responsible for emergency services, I am pleased to say that this

increased access to services will ensure the safety and security of residents

during an emergency situation. T911 will enable users to access 911 services

more quickly and more easily, and provide peace of mind that emergency services

are now accessible by text.

I would

like to extend special thanks to the staff of NL911 Inc. for leading this

initiative. I would also like to recognize those organizations that contributed

their support and involvement, including: the Department of Children, Seniors

and Social Development and the Disability Policy Office; the Provincial Advisory

Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities; the Canadian Hard of

Hearing Association-Newfoundland and Labrador; the Newfoundland and Labrador

Association of the Deaf; and the Coalition of the Persons with Disabilities

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Through

improved, quality emergency services that meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, our government continues to act on our commitment to ensure the

safety and well-being of residents, families and communities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker,

obviously, this is great news. We welcome any measures that result in improved

access to services in an emergency situation. It's very important to have steps

that individuals can feel safe and make sure that potential life-saving help and

assistance is available.

We would

also like to thank all the individuals and organizations involved in making this

important initiative possible. I'm certain there was a lot of hard work required

to do it. I would like to thank all the residents and anybody who participated

in this. This is a vital service to the residents of our province.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm delighted that we

finally have the Text 911 system in this province and I'm sure that many

residents will be breathing a sigh of relief. We have to do everything we can to

ensure that all Members of our society are safe in an emergency.

I look

forward to the minister reporting on ongoing work with the organizations he's

already working with in getting the information out so that everyone who needs

it can access the service.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, following a

tremendous amount of work by our government, working group and advisory

committee, the new Drug Treatment Court pilot project in St. John's has been

established.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

This court is intended for

offenders with serious drug addictions, who commit on non-violent,

drug-motivated offences. It brings together judicial supervision and treatment

services for substance abuse and establishes long-term supports outside the

criminal justice system. This problem-solving approach offers an alternative to

traditional criminal justice responses by addressing the underlying issues that

contribute to crime by offering court-monitored treatment, random and frequent

drug testing, incentives and sanctions, intensive case management and social

services support.

Mr.

Speaker, I have thanked them before but it bears repeating. I would like to take

this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the working group, particularly

Mr. John Duggan, as well as the provincial court judiciary, whose commitment and

dedication to this project was essential in establishing this court. I would

also like to recognize the advisory committee, which consisted of various

government agencies and the private bar. A critical component to the court's

success will be the continued collaboration among community partners.

Mr.

Speaker, our government recognizes the important role of restorative justice and

continues to explore innovative approaches to the administration of justice.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I would thank

the minister for his advance copy of this statement. We also welcome the start

of the Drug Treatment Court which was announced a year-and-a-half ago in May.

The Drug

Treatment Court model has proven to be effective in other jurisdictions in

diverting certain offenders with serious drug addictions, if their offences are

non-violent, into supervision and treatment that targets the addiction, the root

cause of many of the problems.

It is in

their best interest, and society's collectively, to treat the addiction. We also

commend Mr. Duggan, the working group, the advisory team of public agencies and

the private bar, and the many others whose work over the years has brought us to

this point.

Collaboration and team work will be required as this rolls out in order to

ensure its success. We trust that the court will prove to be successful and

lives will be saved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. The province is seeing an escalation in drug related crimes with

numerous repeat offenders. A drug court is long overdue.

applaud this government for finally taking the steps to establish this

specialized court, and congratulations to John Duggan, the working group and

advisory committee and judiciary and private bar. But the success of a drug

court rests with comprehensive, intensive and specialized treatment programs for

court-mandated treatment.

I am

concerned that the robust programs that make this court work are not in place,

and to plead guilty with the expectation of real help and to not get that help

is a violation of human rights.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands made allegations during debate last night of a most

serious nature, reflecting on the integrity of the Office of the Premier and the

integrity of this House of Assembly.

Did the

Premier have numerous telephone conversations during a four- to five-month

period during which the investigation of Code of Conduct violations was being

conducted by an independent officer of the Legislature? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Leader of the Opposition asked a question about a process that we started in

this House in April of this year that ended in October, just a few weeks ago.

I said

publicly, Mr. Speaker, outside of this House in recent interviews that I've

done, that I have had conversations with all our MHAs, including the MHA for the

District of Humber - Bay of Islands. I've never ever denied having those

conversations, Mr. Speaker. It was the proper thing for me to do to make sure

that everyone that was engaged would do so in a very fulsome way, that

information that would have been required to make sure that the appropriate

process – the best use of the process that was established.

So, yes,

we had those conversations, Mr. Speaker; but, I've also said in this House of

Assembly that the reports were one thing, what came out of those reports, but

also about how responses were done in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I

spoke at length here, as the Leader of the Opposition did as well. We must do

better, and I've made a commitment that we would never go through this same

process again.

The

Committee on Privileges and Elections are doing their work and will come back

with a number of suggestions on how we can improve it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank you, Premier, for

that confirmation.

Did the

Premier tell the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands at the beginning of the

complaints process, or at any stage of the process, that the allegations made by

the Minister of Service NL were ill founded? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

would assume that the Leader of the Opposition would have spoken to his own

Members as well.

Mr.

Speaker, as I said, I spoke to all Members of this House of Assembly when they

would have reached out to me or in some cases I reached out to them proactively

as well, as they were dealing with the process that they were involved in. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I encouraged people – if you remember – publicly to

come forward if there were any allegations that would have been made by MHAs

that exist in this House. I also said that people that were involved in

responding should come forward with the information that was required so that we

can get the result of the outcome that was required.

Mr.

Speaker, the allegations – when you look at Rubin Thomlinson, we spent days on

the floor of this House of Assembly. The MHA that the Leader of the Opposition

has talked about that Rubin Thomlinson themselves said the allegations were not

unfounded; but, indeed, the Commissioner came back and said there was a breach

of the Code of conduct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Did the Premier tell the

Member for Humber - Bay of Islands at the beginning of the complaints process,

or at any other stage, that the allegations made by the Minister of Service NL

were ill founded? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we went through

a lengthy debate. There has been respondents and there has been people that have

responded to the allegations, those that put allegations forward. Coming out of

the process, the Leader of the Opposition himself said that this should not be

carried out in the public sphere. And here we go again, no lessons have been

learned by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, about what should happen

with Members that exist in this here.

Rubin

Thomlinson made a decision that the allegations did not see any violations, did

not see that the member had done anything in terms of harassment and bullying.

There was no consequence of that. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner themselves said

there was a breech in the Code of Conduct. Those were the types of conversations

we had.

encourage people to bring forward with their respondents with the information

they would have had, as I did with people that have had allegations, to bring

them forward on behalf of any Member of this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Again, Mr. Speaker, I can

only repeat the question, which in my submission was not answered.

Did the

Premier tell that Member for Humber - Bay of Islands that the allegations were

ill founded, or words to a similar effect? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the

conversations I would have had with any MHAs were based on the information that

they would've had, the allegations that were put forward in this particular case

about MHAs. Mr. Speaker, the conversations I had about allegations and what the

respondent would look like, I had never seen what the responses would have been

like.

Mr.

Speaker, the allegations even changed when they first came to me, because if you

remember, they were going to come to the Premier in the beginning. The reports

never did come to me.

received the reports – well, I can't say for you, the Leader of the Opposition,

I don't know when you had them, but I had the reports when they became public.

The allegations that were put forward by the Members in this House of Assembly

and all the reports that came out were shared and debated in this House of

Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Any

information around the allegations, if they were unfounded or not, I've always

said that what people should come forward with is the information to support

their responses based on the –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

– allegations, and they

should do so in a very comprehensive way.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I would submit

to any member of public watching that the question was not answered.

Did the

Premier discuss with the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands removing the

Minister of Service NL from Cabinet? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, who sits in

Cabinet would be a decision that was made by the Premier. And I made those

decisive decisions just a few days ago. The information that would have come

forward to me based on phone calls or chats that would have been had never came

out in the responses. That never came out. That was discussed on the floor of

this House of Assembly. You participated in those debates. The information that

I had when I made the decisions who should go in Cabinet, who should not go in

Cabinet, were made once the debates were over.

Mr.

Speaker, early on in this discussion, I said the reports would be one thing, the

reaction and the responses would be another thing. I make my decision based on

zero tolerance, respectfulness and professionalism, just like the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, respect from all Members in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Again, Mr. Speaker, the court

of public opinion will have to decide if the question was answered.

Did the

Premier agree with the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands to be a witness on

behalf of that Member, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, if the

Commissioner or anyone wanted me to participate in those areas, I absolutely

would have been there – absolutely would have been there. I was not called; I

was not asked to participate in the reports. But if I had received a call from

the Commissioner, I definitely would have been there. It's my responsibility to

do just that. Just like it's my responsibility to make decisions based on

Cabinet. That is what I did.

Mr.

Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I gather, I do believe in a

restorative process. I do believe when all Members of this House of Assembly,

those that have been impacted, can demonstrate to me, as the Premier here, that

they're willing to work together to advance the agenda of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, I do believe in a restorative process. But only when all Members

are willing to participate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, we all

believe in restoration, when possible.

Did the

Premier go over the Member's written response to the allegations against him,

and coach the Member on what he should put in his response, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the written

responses were supplied; they were made public here. That's when I would have

seen the information that would have come out from the Commissioner.

Mr.

Speaker, that is the process that I participated in. And it was the one I

participated in the debate very early when I outlined what I would expect from

all Members in this House of Assembly: zero tolerance, respectful,

professionalism and a restorative process. I still believe in a restorative

process.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't give up on people. Once they demonstrate their ability to work

together on behalf of people in our province, that is how the restorative

process would work. It's been successful with other associations. It's been

successful in other jurisdictions. But what has not been successful is for us to

engage in a debate, in a public sphere, in this House of Assembly. We have

learned a lesson from that, Mr. Speaker. I challenge why the Leader of the

Opposition who, himself, and his own party said that this should change, why

that he is not (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Did the Premier coach the

Member as to what he should put in his response, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what I said to

all Members if there's an allegation against any MHA or any of their colleagues

in this House of Assembly, I've always encourage them to come forward. I also

encourage those that are going to respond to the allegations, on the

conversations that I could've had with them, was to make sure they do a good

job.

As a

lawyer, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, I would guess that that's the

same advice that he would give to anyone: Make sure you do so in a very

detailed, comprehensive way. I would expect those that are responding to do

that. I would expect those that are coming forward with allegations to do the

same thing.

As a

matter of fact, I also encourage those to get legal advice if need be, if they

feel they should actually do that, Mr. Speaker. That is the very non-biased

advice that I would give to everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

So are we in this House

hearing that the Premier did assist the Member with what should go in his

written response?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker.

Let's be

very clear: The responses and the allegations and the back and forth that

would've occurred between the Commissioner, I first found about them when those

reports were tabled.

What I

always said to those that are responding, and those that have come forward, to

do so with the best information that you would have available to actually

participate in those allegations or in the responses.

Mr.

Speaker, that is a fair thing to do. I think everyone in this House, when this

process was started – I see Members opposite shaking their head. Maybe they

don't believe in that. But what I've said to anyone that was participating to

make sure you do so in a very comprehensive way. The information that was

required, we knew this was going to be made public, and I wanted to make sure

that everyone that was involved did so in a very comprehensive way that is a

fair and unbiased thing to do.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

If the allegations the Member

for Humber - Bay of Islands made in this House last night were to be true – not

saying they were – if they were to be true, would this be consistent with what

the Premier said on May 2, 2018, and I quote: “This is an independent process.

It must maintain the integrity and the confidence of those who are dealing with

it.”

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Of course it was an

independent process, Mr. Speaker. But just like any Member of this House of

Assembly, if they were asked to participate by the Commissioner, which I wasn't,

they would do that.

But just

like every MHA that I spoke to, if it was someone that was putting forward an

allegation, I encourage them to do so if they felt there was an allegation that

they wanted to actually proceed to the Commissioner. The Commissioner then, when

you think about it, took those allegations, did their own assessment, if indeed

that this is something that needed to be explored further, which they did on

several occasions, Mr. Speaker.

Then,

those that would respond, I think it's very fair for me, as Premier, the leader

of this party to, even if it was someone in the Opposition, like maybe someone

in your own office, to do so in a very comprehensive way to make sure that the

information is out there so the Commissioner, and then later on the MHAs that

sit in those chairs, could made the best decisions that were possible.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

If the allegations the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands made in this House

last night were to be true, would they constitute conduct bringing the integrity

of the Office of the Premier into disrepute, contrary to Principle 1 of the Code

of Conduct, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, in this

particular case here, where MHAs or individuals would reach out to me, I was not

involved in this. The reports were not coming back to me. I think that's a point

that we need to understand. These reports were not coming back to me. There was

a different process there coming back to the House Management Commission.

So, I'm

not denying that there conversations that would have occurred, appropriately so,

nevertheless I wasn't a coach. What I was saying, that people should put their

responses in at a very comprehensive way, with the level of details.

Mr.

Speaker, I think anyone would suggest that if you're actually responding to an

allegation, you'd want to make sure that the information that could actually

respond to those allegations was done very detailed, and I would expect those

that were putting forward those allegations would actually do the same thing.

I think

as a lawyer, the Leader of the Opposition would expect and explain that to

anyone that he would've been speaking about as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

For clarity, Mr. Speaker, is the Premier informing the House that he did offer

assistance of the nature he described to the hon. Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands in how to conduct himself in making his response?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't

say that. What I'm saying is that any conversations that I would've had would've

been for people who put in the responses with the information that I would've

had.

I don't

know if the Leader of the Opposition got involved with the Member that is in his

caucus right now, if he had helped her or not. I would not know that. Maybe

that's a question that he could ask. He's a lawyer, maybe she reached out. I

don't know what would have happened there, Mr. Speaker.

But, for

me, anytime I was asked those questions it was just simply to make sure that the

reports and the respondents and those that put forward allegations have all the

necessary information so that they would put that to the Commissioner; hence,

that would come back to the floor with this information, Mr. Speaker, so that we

can make the decisions.

Mr.

Speaker, with that said, there is a restorative process for all Members of this

House of Assembly. I believe that when everyone agrees that they can work

together, Mr. Speaker, I still believe that restorative process can work.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Did the Premier reach out to

the Member by telephone on one or more occasions to assist him in the way he

describes?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I think it's

been – I've shared this publicly many times right now. The Member that the

Leader of the Opposition is talking about was someone that I considered a friend

for a long time – still do – and that friendship evolved over time.

Mr.

Speaker, when people are dealing with situations, like all other Members in this

House of Assembly, I would have actually chatted with them. That is, I think,

the responsible thing for me to do as a human being. I would do that as a human

being, Mr. Speaker.

wasn't about providing the advice and the direction, but it was simply about

making sure that the information that they put out there, Mr. Speaker, did so in

a very responsible and a fulsome manner to get – and no different than with

those that put forward allegations, said to them, Mr. Speaker, on many

occasions, yes, get the legal advice. Make sure that the allegations as they go

forward would have as much information that the Commissioner could actually make

a decision; therefore, come back to this House of Assembly that would

(inaudible) all of us.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I'm sure the Premier will

appreciate that the content of the allegations made by the hon. Member last

night are at variance with what he has informed the House today.

If the

allegations made by that Member were to be found untrue, would that represent a

violation of the Code of Conduct?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to

deal with questions from the Leader of the Opposition that puts forward

hypothetical situations. We deal with the reports that come in.

If the

Leader of the Opposition would remember, those reports were accepted within this

House of Assembly. There was some concurrence and there was – the Leader of the

Opposition, as an example, voted against the measures that were put in place, if

you remember that correctly – around the individual harassment that would have

been, that the Members were asked to do.

These

are the Members opposite, the Leader of the Opposition being one, that voted

against this. So the reports were delivered to the House of Assembly. They were

debated here for a significant number of hours, Mr. Speaker. Then the so-called

consequences, or what was expected from the MHAs involved, then they would have

been dealt with. And I have no idea yet if those things have been followed up

on.

Mr.

Speaker, like I said, I believe in a restorative process, and at some point all

of us, as MHAs (inaudible) Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in a process that

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

We, on the Opposition side,

moved an amendment for more stringent penalties which was voted down by

government Members.

November 1, the Minister of Finance said he would endeavour to find out who owns

the numbered company which is benefiting from Canopy's $40 million subsidy from

government.

Have the

minister's endeavours yielded fruit?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

answered that question. I've answered it out in the media area. I believe one of

your staff were out there and heard the answers. It was widely reported in the

media. There was a director put in place under the laws – I believe you're a

lawyer, you should know this.

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind the Member to direct

your answers to the Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe the hon. Member of the Opposition is a lawyer. He knows that a numbered

company has a director, and we are not able to find out who's behind that. I did

endeavour, that's my answer. It's my final answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

We have on prior occasions,

several of them, pointed to the contract and the question of arm's length, and I

leave it at that.

Media is

reporting that through an access to information request, the numbered company

has connections to suite 301 at 7 Plank Road.

I would

ask the Minister of Finance again: Do you know who the shareholders of this

numbered company are? Does that bit of information assist?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said in the House of Assembly multiple times, that when it comes to the Registry

of Companies, which companies have to register in Newfoundland and Labrador,

there's documentation that is required, but when it comes to finding out the

share structure of a company that is information that is not available. It is

not something that government has, and this particular numbered company that he

is referring to, government does not have a contract or a relationship with. The

contract that we have, performance-based contracts to grow our cannabis industry

here in Newfoundland and Labrador, would be with Biome and Canopy Growth.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

As the minister may or may

not be aware, according to media, the permitting application for the numbered

company originated in the same suite as three companies owned by an individual

by the name of Dean MacDonald, generally assumed to be an individual with

Liberal Party connections, in a building where Canopy Growth also has an office.

I would

ask the Premier: How do we refute the suspicion in the public mind that this

numbered company is benefiting because of ties to the Liberal Party?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

can say is that the Department of TCII or government, we do not do permitting

for the City of St. John's when they issue building permits because they're in

the business of getting business happening in their city. That's why we would

not have any information on that.

What we

are doing, and what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is that we've entered into a

contract with Canopy Growth and with Biome to be able to grow an industry here

in our province. We have a good business deal. We do not have any relationship

with the private business matters that Canopy Growth or Biome or any other

company is doing. We have a performance-based contract. I've answered the

details.

The

Member opposite is bringing in hypotheticals and what ifs that is irrelevant and

is not part of the conversation of the contract with government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Does the Minister of Justice

know who stands behind the numbered company?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Does the Minister of Health

know who the shareholder is of the numbered company, maybe?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

I'm delighted to take the opportunity to rise and answer his question, Mr.

Speaker: Ditto.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Does the Minister of

Transportation know?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not know who owns the numbered company.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I can predict the further

answers if I were to work my way down the rest of the bench.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

We received, Mr. Speaker, amendments to the Canopy Growth contract yesterday in

the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

I will not tolerate any

further interruptions. That is a big warning.

Please

proceed, Sir.

MR. CROSBIE:

As I was saying, we received

amendments to the Canopy Growth contract in the House. The 90-day time frame to

purchase land has not changed; however, we know that Canopy is leasing land and

did not purchase land.

I ask

the minister: Is Canopy following the contract or not following the contract?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I would say to the Member

opposite that people need to judge us on the deal that we have. He's making this

about politics; that's simply not about what's actually happening with our

contract with Canopy Growth or with Biome.

We are

creating an industry here. What they have done is that we have clear details in

the contract that I've explained time and time again that if the company is

leasing land, then that is not an eligible expense. If they're leasing a

building, that is not an eligible expense. We have the mechanism with the

contract with Canopy Growth and that's the only company that we are dealing with

there that if they do not have eligible expenses, they will not receive any

benefit.

At the

end of the day, the provincial government and the Treasury will receive

significant benefit from the 200-plus jobs that are being created and all the

investment that's happening here in our economy. They are taking the risk, not

us.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Order,

please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, yesterday

the federal Natural Resources minister said there are serious communication

problems between Husky and the C-NLOPB and problems with protocols and

procedures during storms. Now the Premier and the federal minister are both

waiting for the C-NLOPB's review of Husky's report on their oil spill. So a

review of a review by a self-regulated company and an offshore board with weak

protocols.

I asked

the Premier: These are serious issues. How can he guarantee this province that

we are going to get the full picture on this oil spill?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do

agree on one thing; these are serious issues. As I've said time and time again,

safety and environmental protection are paramount to our offshore and we are

going to and continue to ensure that is the case. C-NLOPB is in midst of an

investigation as to what occurred when the weak link in the flow line did have a

collapse, Mr. Speaker.

We are

very concerned about this and we're going to do absolutely everything to ensure

that this type of accident does not occur again, but we have to wait for the

investigation to know exactly what occurred so that we can take the mitigation

measures to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I was

asking about the confidence and guarantee that the picture that we're going to

get is a full picture. The recent Husky oil spill shows the plans in place for

dealing with oil spills are clearly inadequate. Research also shows that oil

companies do not have the ability to clean up oil spills in storm conditions.

So I ask

the Premier: What is this government going to do to address the fact that we

don't have adequate information for drilling safely in deep water where spills

could be catastrophic?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For 30

years, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, we've had a fairly good record, I

would say, and I believe Members in this House would agree, a very good record

offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

There

have been issues around environmental protection and things have evolved. We

have made sure that there are regulatory processes. If there is something that

needs to be further taken to ensure that the environmental protection is the

absolute best it can be, absolute best in the world, we are prepared to take

that policy direction.

We are

awaiting now the investigation by the C-NLOPB and by Husky to understand, Mr.

Speaker, what has occurred so we can make sure it never happens again.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

With

$1.3 billion in exploration bids made for deep water oil and gas exploration in

our province, we learned that some of these bids are in a marine refuge area

where another important offshore industry, the fishery, has been restricted from

operating for conservation purposes.

I ask

the Premier: What is the point of a marine refuge if you permit oil companies to

conduct seismic testing and drilling while fish harvesters respect the rules of

marine refuges?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe the Member opposite would understand that there are Marine Protected

Areas in which no activity can occur, and there are marine refuge areas which

really is under the Fisheries Act to

ensure a rebuilding of the fisheries.

So yes,

some of the bids that took place earlier this year or this month for the $1.3

billion in exploration were in marine refuge areas. They are protected areas in

fishing, not Marine Protected Areas that are devoid of any activity in the

offshore.

So I say

to the Member opposite that the difference is, one is a refuge area that

protects the fishery; the other's a Marine Protected Area that makes sure that

no activity can occur. And we know, from the federal jurisdiction, that

activities in the oil and gas can occur in that area.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi for a quick question, please.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I say to

the minister that seismic testing can affect fisheries. She better check that

one out.

MR. SPEAKER:

Quick question please.

MS. MICHAEL:

So I ask her: Would she agree

that if a marine refuge is created to protect the environment, it would make

sense not to allow offshore exploration in that area until such time as

government can prove that these activities will not harm that environment for

harvesters?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources for a quick response, please.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Marine

refuge areas are different than Marine Protected Areas. The federal government

has been doing a review of those. I can say to the Member opposite that the

federal government has made determination to allow and permit oil and gas in

these areas. They are protecting the fisheries, not the oceans, in those areas.

They understand the offshore oil and gas areas have a responsibility for

environmental protection and will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

for Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels

of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased

bankruptcies and many are being forced to choose between food, heat and

medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are

continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities

Board. Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to

further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizen of

our province. While government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to

mitigate rates, they've provided no detailed plan as how they intend to do so.

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

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all the potential

options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal

with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to

the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential

suggestions for improvement.

Mr.

Speaker, I continue to present this petition on behalf of the people of our

province. Today, we got about 140 signatures or so and, actually, they're pretty

much all from one community, the community of Lawn on the Burin Peninsula. I'm

not sure what the population of Lawn is, but an awful lot of the people there

have signed this petition for sure. It's because they're concerned, Mr. Speaker.

It's not just the people of Lawn. The people all throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador are concerned about power rates.

As I've

continued to say, we continue to see what's unfolding in the Muskrat Falls

Inquiry. It's very disturbing indeed but, at the end of the day, regardless of

what has happened and how we got there, we are here now and people are concerned

about where power rates are going.

The

government has indicated that they are working on a plan and everyone is glad to

hear that. I'm glad to hear it; I know everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is

glad to hear that. The problem is that at this point in time it's kind of we're

working on it, trust us, we'll do something between now and 2021, and I think

people would like a little more information than that so they can have some

comfort that something actually is being done. They would like to see what are

those plans, what exactly is it that you're planning on doing, let us know, let

us have some feedback into that process so that we can go to bed at night and

keep our heads on the pillow and not be worrying about how we're going to stay

afloat in the next couple of years.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources for a response, please.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

I've spoken to this petition on many occasions. I will say two things: Number

one, you are correct I would say to the Member opposite that we are all

concerned of what's coming out of the Muskrat Falls Inquiry. The level of due

diligence that was required for such a project certainly is paramount to

ensuring that project was on track. We now know that it wasn't until this

government came into play, into being, that a plan was put in place to make sure

that that project was at least moving in the right direction.

I will

say this to the Member opposite as well, his petition does say that a plan as

soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, we are working diligently. The very first thing

we had to do was get that project on a better course, a better direction. We had

to, as the expression goes, put it between the ditches, we had to make sure that

everything that could be done was being done to ensure that project finishes in

a better place than when it started.

So we

have now turned our attentions to a plan to make sure that we can pay for

Muskrat Falls and lessen the impact or lower the impact to as little as possible

to the people of this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Here are

the reasons for this petition: Our licensed child care system is a patchwork of

private for-profit centres, non-profit community-based centres and family

daycare, plus a small number of education and workplace-based centres. It is

nowhere near meeting the child care needs in our province.

Child

care programs have both social and financial benefits for society. Studies show

that high quality child care and early childhood education programs result in

better cognitive, language and numeracy skills. They help economically

disadvantaged children transition to school on the same level as other children.

For every $1 spent on early childhood education, the benefits range from $1.50

to $2.78 – many studies, including TD Economics.

Investing in child care creates jobs; $1 million invested in child care would

create 40 jobs, more than in any other sector. A gender-based analysis of the

provincial budget would have indicated the need for a public child care program

as a key way to close the wage gap between women and men in this province.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly as follows: We

call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to take immediate steps to put in place a plan for a gradual transition

to a universal, regulated and publicly funded and fully accessible child care

and after-school care program.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm always happy to stand and speak to petitions with regard to child

care because it's such an important issue. The lack of adequate child care is

such an important issue in this province. The government keeps taking tiny steps

with regard to subsidies for families and subsidies for child care centres, et

cetera, but it is nothing to putting in place a full child care program.

I would

love to see, in the upcoming plan from this government, a step-by-step plan for

working towards a full, publicly funded and regulated program, one that will

help all children in this province and all families in this province, not just

those who can afford it.

The

subsidies that got put in place last year with the government's graduated scale

does nothing for low income and low, middle-income families, nothing at all. We

know that children who go through child care when they go into grade one or into

kindergarten are a step ahead of children who have not been able to access child

care.

If we

really believe in justice in this province, if we really want to see all of our

children being treated fairly and justly, then this government would start

taking steps for putting in place a plan for a fully, publicly funded and

regulated child care program.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

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 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 only 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 an hour

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, I've stood and spoken to this petition a number of times in the House.

Again, an MQO poll that was done in November showed that 87 per cent of the

public in Newfoundland and Labrador support government raising minimum wage to

$15 an hour.

Again,

I'd like to say it's happening in several places across Canada. I don't know how

this government can justify saying that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

the working people of Newfoundland and Labrador, do not deserve to be paid

properly to their counterparts across Canada.

Government says well, we're going to be indexing, but our minimum wage is so low

to begin with that we will never catch up to that $15 an hour minimum wage. We

have made, Mr. Speaker, proposals to the government. In 2014, the NDP here, we

tabled a motion in the House of Assembly to raise the minimum wage to make up

for lost buying power between 2010 and 2014, during which time the minimum wage

had remained $10 an hour for over four years. It didn't move at all.

So, what

we have is working people, if not already in poverty, getting closer and closer

and closer to the poverty line. I can't imagine that this is what this

government wants for the working people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We

certainly don't want that. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, 87 per cent

of them, they don't want our working people to be living in poverty or living

near the poverty line.

A study

just came out, Mr. Speaker, that shows that the price of food is going through

the roof, so we're seeing our workers working full-time and slipping more and

more into poverty.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation for a response,

please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for presenting the petition. Our government has been working very

closely with stakeholders. The Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Labour, they had consultations. There were lots of engagement and there was

dialogue about indexing. But one of the very important things that we need to do

in Newfoundland and Labrador – and as the Industry Minister, I listen to small

business owners time and time again and they talk about the cost of doing

business, they talk about the importance of ensuring that if they're a small

business owner the impact of raising the minimum wage and what it actually has,

not just on the cost of their business bottom line, but on how that needs to be

passed on to all of their consumers, everybody else in the economy. So then, the

prices of products, goods and services also would increase.

When we

look at where we are in Atlantic Canada, it's very important that we be

competitive in our Atlantic provinces. When it comes to Newfoundland and

Labrador with the minimum wage of $11.15; Nova Scotia, $11; New Brunswick at

$11.25; and PEI at $11.55, we review on an annual basis this amount.

What I

will say, Mr. Speaker, is we've been creating jobs here in our economy that are

far above minimum wage, like S&P Data, 500 jobs in the City of St. John's that

are going to be paying $15 or more an hour with benefits – Canopy, Biome –

looking at competitiveness and productivity. These are very important, and we'll

continue to create high value jobs in our economy because that is important.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, a rent-to-own

agreement is a contract to buy or sell a home or property over time. As part of

the contract, there is an agreement that payments will be made over a period of

time and that the title to the property will not transfer until the end of the

payment schedule. Because of the way this contract is set up, landlord sellers

may try to evict tenants/buyers at any point during the agreement. As a result,

many tenant/buyers may not end up actually owning the home despite many years of

investment into the home or property.

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

call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to implement a legislative requirement for rent-to-own agreements to be

registered with the provincial government at the Registry of Deeds.

Mr.

Speaker, since my tenure as MHA, I started a year ago, I've had four cases of

families that have actually been evicted from their rent-to-own agreements on

the basis of the original landlord could get a higher sale price because of

market change. A couple of them had been a family break up resulted in the sale

of the property. Another one was bankruptcy. And because of the economic duress

which our province now finds itself in, these types of situations are occurring

more and more. We now have one of the highest rates of bankruptcy, family

breakup and insolvency in the country, and these rent-to-own individuals are at

peril.

So, as

the petition states, we feel that if these agreements were to be registered with

the Registry of Deeds that would provide a means of safeguarding the rent-to-own

tenants' investment in their properties.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand up and respond to petitions. And as someone who has sat on that

side, I certainly value petitions because it's a great opportunity to put

forward concerns that are being expressed to you.

someone that actually used to draft rent-to-own agreements in my previous life,

I certainly know their importance. What I would also suggest is that a lot of

the points that the Member puts out there are concerns to the Minister

responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and the Minister Responsible

for, I think it might be Service NL or AESL when it comes to the landlord and

tenancy board.

What I

would suggest is I think we're willing to work to see if there is something that

can be done there, to do a legislative review on that. I never heard all the

first part of the petition talking about a possible solution, but what I would

suggest is if we could get a copy of the petition after, I'm certainly happy to

have legislative counsel, lawyers look at this and say what are the issues with

that and see if there's something that can be done to help people.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

I call

Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 41,

An Act To Amend the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and

Labrador Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and

Labrador Act. (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic

Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act,” read a third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

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

An Act To

Amend The Marriage Act, Bill 46, and I further move that the said bill be now a

first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

No.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm sorry.

It is

moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Marriage Act, Bill 46, and that

the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Marriage Act,” carried. (Bill 46.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Marriage Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act Respecting The Supreme Court In the Province, Bill 47, and I further move

that the bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act Respecting The Supreme Court In The Province, Bill 47, and that

the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act

Respecting The Supreme Court In The Province,” carried. (Bill 47)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Supreme Court In The Province. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5

from the Order Paper. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that the House

not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 4.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that Bill 35,

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 35)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I am pleased to rise in this

hon. House to once again introduce amendments to the legislation that governs

our workers' compensation system.

A couple

of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of introducing amendments to the act regarding

retirement benefits for injured workers in our province. The changes meant that

as of January 1, 2019, injured workers will now receive a one-time, lump-sum

benefit when they reach 65 years of age.

Mr.

Speaker, since 2015, our government has had a dedicated focus on improvements in

all programs and services for the people of the province. In our government's

vision document, The Way Forward , we

committed to maintaining a sustainable workplace injury system for both workers

and employers. To that end, we have made a number of enhancements that balance

both the needs of workers and employers while also recognizing the significant

impact workplace injuries have had on residents of our province.

December of 2016, we announced the implementation of the presumptive cancer

coverage for career and volunteer firefighters. This coverage represented a

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

already provided in most other provinces. Qualified firefighters can now receive

wage loss and health benefits, including medical aids, through WorkplaceNL,

while health care costs associated with firefighters' cancer treatment are paid

through the Medical Care Plan.

Last

spring, we introduced legislation to increase the income replacement rate for

injured workers in the province from 80 to 85 per cent. The income replacement

rate is the percentage of a worker's pre-injury net income, which is covered by

the workers' compensation system. As a result of the amendment, the rate is now

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

initiatives help reduce the financial, emotional and physical impacts workplace

incidents may have on injured workers, their families and their communities.

November of last year, we also lowered the average assessment rate for workers'

compensation coverage from $2.06 to $1.90 per $100 of payroll for employers in

Newfoundland and Labrador. This represented a 7.8 per cent decrease. From a

prevention perspective earlier this year, we launched our five-year workplace

injury prevention strategy: Advancing a Strong Safety Culture.

For the

first time, mental health in the workplace has been included in a provincial

workplace injury prevention plan. It is a joint initiative of WorkplaceNL and

the Occupational Health and Safety Division of Service NL. The strategy focuses

on helping employers and workers create supportive environments to mitigate the

risk of mental health injuries in the workplace. We know that work-related

mental stress conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, are

impacting workplaces across Canada.

Late

last fall, I met with stakeholders to seek input on the prevention of and

compensation for work-related mental stress. At the time, we initiated a review

of WorkplaceNL's mental stress policy to explore options to modernize the

approach to work-related mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress

disorder.

Changes

were made recently to the policy to recognize that work-related mental health

issues may be caused by cumulative reaction to multiple traumatic events. The

policy now also includes events that are an inherent part of an occupation, such

as first responders witnessing fatalities. The revisions allow the policy to be

applied more fairly across all occupations, including first responders.

With

this policy change, WorkplaceNL evolved its approach to meet the realities of

today's workplaces and awareness of mental health issues. The policy is now

aligned with that of 10 other Canadian jurisdictions, recognizing a cumulative

reaction to traumatic events.

These

revisions were informed by consultation with WorkplaceNL's primary stakeholders,

the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Employers' Council and submissions from interested parties. At the

time, we also committed to a review of PTSD coverage in legislation.

To help

inform this review, WorkplaceNL looked at coverage in other Canadian

jurisdictions and partnered with Memorial University on a literature and

jurisdictional research initiative. The review of PTSD coverage was also

informed by input from interested parties, and WorkplaceNL accepted these

submissions.

I want

to thank all stakeholders and interested parties who participated in the review

on this very important topic. So today, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to

introduce amendments to the Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Act to provide presumptive coverage for

work-related PTSD for all workers in Newfoundland and Labrador covered by the

workplace injury system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

This progressive legislation

simplifies the claim process and allows the workers' compensation system to help

injured workers receive the assistance they need dearly and earlier, Mr.

Speaker.

This

will lead to better outcomes in improving the workers' overall health and

well-being, as well as options for returning to work when appropriate. The

amendment brings Newfoundland and Labrador in line with the important movement

taking place across the country to update workers' compensation legislation to

recognize work-related mental health injuries.

The

presumption applies to all workers covered under the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act . This presumptive

clause in the legislation will come into effect on July 1, 2019. Presumptive

legislation has a defined scope in an effort to help ensure that benefits are

distributed appropriately. As an example, the legislation we introduced for

firefighters in 2016 covers 11 defined types of cancer.

Mr.

Speaker, a worker who experiences a traumatic event or multiple events at work

will be presumed to have developed their diagnosed PTSD as a result of their

work. Regardless of a worker's occupation, the presumption will apply when a

worker experiences a traumatic event or multiple events at work over a period of

time, and being diagnosed with PTSD. The diagnosis must be made by a

psychiatrist or registered psychologist using the most recent addition of the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders .

This

presumptive legislation is inclusive and recognizes that the risk of traumatic

events can exist in all workplaces. WorkplaceNL took the cost of this change

into consideration when determining the assessment rates to be paid by employers

in 2019. Given the injury fund is currently fully funded, average assessment

rates will actually be lowered in 2019. WorkplaceNL will be applying a 21-cent

discount to the average assessment rate in 2019 to reduce the rate from $1.90 to

$1.69 per $100 dollars of payroll for employers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, claims for

work-related psychological injury not included in this presumptive legislation

today will continue to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis under

WorkplaceNL's recently revised mental stress policy. The policy includes acute

stress disorder, adjustment disorder or an anxiety of depressive disorder caused

by exposure to one or more related dramatic events.

It is

imperative that we, as a government, ensure our decisions are fiscally

responsible and meet the needs of injured workers. I am committing here today

that our government will revisit this presumptive coverage after July 2020 to

consider expanding coverage to include claims for work-related psychological

injury.

Under

our new workplace prevention strategy, WorkplaceNL and Service NL will continue

to work with employers to help develop supportive OHS programs to help prevent

mental health injuries, especially for higher risk workplaces. Awareness and

prevention continue to be crucial in our efforts to help prevent traumatic

workplace events.

All of

us in this hon. House know of the devastating impacts that workplace injuries

have on workers, families and employers in our province. Some of these injuries

such as PTSD are not often visible, but their impacts are no less. I feel a

great sense of pride in the legislation we are debating on the floor of the

House today. It truly signals another tremendous step in helping improve the

lives of injured workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our

government made a commitment to better outcomes for the people of the province.

The bill we have introduced today is in response to a very important matter that

was brought to our attention and will help improve the lives of injured workers.

I want

to thank everyone, once again, for their efforts in helping us reach this goal.

It is important that we, as a government, remain progressive and responsive to

today's workplaces. Addressing the realities and effects of PTSD in the work

environment help us achieve these aims.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a privilege to speak on Bill 35. This is a fairly comprehensive

package, Mr. Speaker, of amendments that will extend presumptive workers'

compensation coverage to workers diagnosed with PTSD. In a nutshell, I guess,

this bill would amend the Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Act to include, as the minister just stated,

presumptive post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, coverage for workers.

We would

become the ninth province to include presumptive PTSD coverage for workers,

after Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta

and BC. In our research, Mr. Speaker, it was evident that each province's

approach is unique, but these eight provinces do offer presumptive PTSD coverage

to at least some of their workers in specific circumstances. At present,

currently before this bill is passed, Newfoundland and Labrador currently does

not offer presumptive PTSD coverage at all; though, non-presumptive coverage is

an option in our current legislation.

Mr.

Speaker, last year – or earlier, I should say, this year, the PC caucus called

for presumptive PTSD coverage in a brief to WorkplaceNL on February 1, 2018. We

argued at the time for presumptive coverage for first responders, saying their

jobs were inherently stressful. So when a first responder is diagnosed with

PTSD, WorkplaceNL should presume the PTSD is work related so they can more

easily and quickly receive treatment without being re-traumatized by the

process.

Bill 35,

Mr. Speaker, extends this presumption beyond first responders to include

potentially all workers, as some of the other provinces have done, and

particularly our bill seems to mirror that of Manitoba.

principle, a move towards presumptive PTSD coverage is in line with the 2018 PC

caucus policy initiatives. So we're certainly pleased to be in support, Mr.

Speaker, but it's still very important to dig into the specifics of this bill.

Of course, as we go through the various phases of debate, there are a few

questions we will be posing, Mr. Speaker, and I will share some of them in this

first reading.

People

who suffer PTSD, as well as other illnesses such as anxiety and depression, can

already apply for workers' compensation if they believe their illnesses are work

related. But the challenge with the laws as currently written is there is no

presumption that the diagnosed illness is work related.

Mr.

Speaker, the burden of proof can be onerous, lengthy and stressful, particularly

for people who have to describe and relive their trauma in order to make their

case. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we can all appreciate just how challenging and

difficult this can be for injured workers.

This

change that we see here before us today is a very important change. And the

question, how did this come about? Well, we can go back as far as November of

last year in 2017 when WorkplaceNL issued a release calling for public input on

their mental health policy.

Just for

purposes of information to the public who may be listening, here's what they

wrote, WorkplaceNL, at the time. “WorkplaceNL has initiated a review of its

mental stress policy (Policy EN-18). The goal of the review is to modernize the

approach to work-related mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress

disorder. WorkplaceNL is also partnering with workplace parties to develop

occupational health and safety programs that support mental health in the

workplace, including workshops and webinars.

“WorkplaceNL and the … Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL met with interested

parties on November 15, 2017 to seek input on the prevention of, and

compensation for, work-related mental stress.

“Potential changes will come from a two-stage process.

“The

first is the immediate policy review, where changes will be informed by a review

of mental-health related policies of other Canadian workers' compensation boards

and consultation with WorkplaceNL's primary stakeholders, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of Labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers'

Council.”

This is

all, again, Mr. Speaker, from the release of WorkplaceNL on November 23.

“In the

longer-term, a review of mental stress coverage in the workers' compensation

legislation will be informed by formal research and input from interested

parties. WorkplaceNL will accept written submissions pertaining to this review

until February 1, 2018.

“WorkplaceNL will engage a research partner to conduct research and review

literature relating to work-related mental health issues, particularly as it

relates to workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

So, Mr.

Speaker, as you can see from what I've just read out, this was a very

comprehensive initiative of WorkplaceNL. They were genuinely recognizing the

concerns expressed by workers and set out to see what could be done to improve

the situation. And what we have before us today is a result of some of that

work.

When our

caucus learned of this review we did two things. First, we announced our

intention to make a written submission by February 1, and at the same time we

called for a policy change in how PTSD is treated by WorkplaceNL. We pointed out

that other provinces recognize that PTSD is often the result of an accumulation

of repeated exposures and experiences that workers have in the course of their

careers.

The

WorkplaceNL policy at the time required the PTSD to be the result of a single,

triggering, traumatic event that the worker would need to pinpoint. We called

for that definition to be changed to include accumulated experiences as well, in

recognition of the fact that over time the frequency and number of incidences

that workers are exposed to, that has an impact as well on the workers, Mr.

Speaker. So we felt it was important that accumulated experiences be a part of

the policy.

We were

also clearly not in favour of denying workers' compensation for PTSD to workers

and professions that are deemed to be inherently stressful. If their job caused

them to develop PTSD, then there was a sentiment that they ought to be covered

because the PTSD occurred as a result of the workplace.

Following that, Mr. Speaker, we developed a written brief, which was submitted

on February 1 of this year. In that submission, we called for presumptive

coverage of PTSD for first responders. Our leader at the time, Mr. Paul Davis,

made the presentation, and he also raised it on several other occasions here in

the House as well. Our rationale in calling for presumptive coverage was that

these front-line professions often expose workers to traumatizing events that

cumulatively can lead to PTSD in some people.

In March

of this year, WorkplaceNL amended its mental stress policy and they did add

exposure to multiple traumatic events. And we were certainly pleased, having

advocated for that to see that change take place, Mr. Speaker. They also

eliminated the exclusion for inherent risk of an occupation. Further, it

clarified the types of conditions covered, specifically acute stress disorder,

PTSD, adjustment disorder and anxiety or depressive disorder. So that all

happened, Mr. Speaker, in March of this year.

At the

same time, WorkplaceNL started considering its next steps, or the phase two,

including the request to offer presumptive PTSD coverage as recommended by our

caucus and others, such as NAPE and the province's Nurses' Union. So there was

certainly a strong advocacy by different entities and organizations in this

province to recognize that PTSD is a very serious challenge in the workplace.

The

public is becoming more and more aware that such professions leave some workers

unable to continue doing their jobs because of the impact of what they've

experienced on their mental health. Imagine dealing with horrific roadside

accidents, or a long career of such accidents if you're an ambulance operator, a

police officer, a firefighter or a nurse, for example. Imagine the other

traumatic events such workers experience on the job day in and day out. PTSD is

a term we've all become familiar with in recent years because of the wealth of

news coverage that it has received, and it is very much appreciated, the

increased awareness, because it really does make a difference in trying to make

things better.

Mental

illness has been very poorly understood, not only throughout history but even

more recently, Mr. Speaker. This is the way the American Psychiatric Association

has defined PTSD, and I quote this organization because they are the developers

of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

of Mental Disorders , or DSM, that will be used under this legislation and

others across Canada to diagnose PTSD.

I feel

it's important to read this into the record as well because, again, all related

to the awareness and increasing awareness amongst everyone. So, what is Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder? They define it as “a psychiatric disorder that can

occur in people who have experienced or witnessed a traumatic event such as a

natural disaster, a serious accident, a terrorist act, war/combat, rape or other

violent personal assault.

“PTSD

has been known by many names in the past, such as 'shell shock' during the years

of World War I and 'combat fatigue' after World War II. But PTSD does not just

happen to combat veterans. PTSD can occur in all people, in people of any

ethnicity, nationality or culture, and any age. PTSD affects approximately 3.5

percent of U.S. adults, and an estimated one in 11 people will be diagnosed PTSD

in their lifetime. Women are twice as likely as men to have PTSD.

“People

with PTSD have intense, disturbing thoughts and feelings related to their

experience that last long after the traumatic event has ended. They may relive

the event through flashbacks or nightmares; they may feel sadness, fear or

anger; and they may feel detached or estranged from other people. People with

PTSD may avoid situations or people that remind them of the traumatic event, and

they may have strong negative reactions to something as ordinary as a loud noise

or an accidental touch.

diagnosis of PTSD requires exposure to an upsetting traumatic event. However,

exposure could be indirect rather than first hand. For example, PTSD could occur

in an individual learning about the violent death of a close family. It can also

occur as a result of repeated exposure to horrible details of trauma such as

police officers exposed to details of child abuse cases.

Symptoms

of PTSD fall into four categories and they can vary in severity: “1. Intrusive

thoughts such as repeated, involuntary memories, distressing dreams; or

flashbacks of the traumatic event. Flashbacks may be so vivid that people feel

they are re-living the traumatic experience or seeing it before their eyes. 2.

Avoiding reminders of the traumatic event may include avoiding people, places,

activities, objects and situations that bring on distressing memories. People

may try to avoid remembering or thinking about the traumatic event. They may

resist talking about what happened or how they feel about it. 3. Negative

thoughts and feelings may include ongoing and distorted beliefs about oneself or

others (e.g., 'I am bad,' 'No one can be trusted'); ongoing fear, horror, anger,

guilt or shame;, much less interest in activities previously enjoyed; or feeling

detached or estranged from others. 4. Arousal and reactive systems may include

being irritable and having angry outbursts; behaving recklessly or in a

self-destructive way; being easily startled; or having problems concentrating or

sleeping.

“Many

people who are exposed to a traumatic event experience symptoms like those

described above in the days following the event. For a person to be diagnosed

with PTSD, however, symptoms last for more than a month and often persist for

months and sometimes years. Many individuals develop symptoms within three

months of the trauma, but symptoms may appear later. For people with PTSD the

symptoms cause significant distress or problems functioning. PTSD often occurs

with other related conditions, such as depression, substance use, memory

problems and other physical and mental health problems.”

It is

important to note, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to treatment that not everyone who

experiences trauma develops PTSD and not everyone who develops either requires

psychiatric treatment. For some people, symptoms of PTSD subside or disappear

over time. Others get better with the help of family, friends or clergy. But

many people with PTSD need professional treatment to recover from psychological

distress that can be intense and disabling. It is important to remember that

trauma may lead to severe distress. That distress is not the individual's fault,

and PTSD is treatable. The earlier a person gets treatment, the better the

likely outcome.

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals use various effective

research-proven methods to help people recover from PTSD. Both talk therapy or

psychotherapy and medication provide effective evidence-based treatments for

PTSD. One category of psychotherapy, cognitive behaviour therapies, is, in

particular, very effective. Cognitive processing therapy, prolonged exposure

therapy and stress inoculation therapy are among the types of CBT used to treat

PTSD, and, Mr. Speaker, these types of treatments have been proven to be

effective.

Therapists help the person confront such distressing memories and emotions. In

prolonged exposure therapy, the psychologist uses repeated, detailed imaging of

the trauma or progressive exposures to symptom triggers in a safe, controlled

way to help a person face and gain control of fear and distress and learn to

cope. For example, virtual reality programs have been used to help war veterans

with PTSD re-experience the battlefield in a controlled, therapeutic way.

Group

therapy encourages survivors of similar traumatic events to share their

experiences and reactions in a comfortable and non-judgmental setting. Group

members help one another realize that many people would have responded the same

way and felt the same emotions.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I won't elaborate on all the treatments, but it's fair to say that

these treatments are very important, and it's crucial that those suffering from

PTSD have access to such treatments so that they can re-gain control of their

lives. It's important for them, it's important for their families, it's

important for their friends and it's important for all of society that people

suffering from PTSD can access the help that they require.

Tis

information that I just talked about from the American Psychiatric Association

is really very eye-opening. PTSD is real, and it can be debilitating. People in

Newfoundland and Labrador are currently suffering from PTSD. People working

right now in our province are going to develop it because of something they have

experienced on the job. The question is whether we, as a society, are prepared

to ensure they can access the care they need without having roadblocks thrown in

their paths.

Think

about the first responder who witnesses a traumatic accident and doesn't have

the luxury of turning away. Imagine some of the accident stories you've heard

about in the news and think about what it must be like for the workers who have

to respond. Think about what they witness and how it must affect them.

Now,

imagine having to relive those memories in order to describe them to the

satisfaction of authorities assessing or adjudicating your claim. We rely on

these workers to do the things that most of us simply could not do. These first

responders are true heroes but they are not super human.

After

years of dealing with such things or perhaps even after a single, unforgettable

event, it may become impossible for a person to move forward without some type

of treatment. We need to empathize with those who find themselves in situations

like this. We need to raise the priority of their mental well-being and ensure

that they can qualify for the care they need. We certainly don't need to be

putting them through processes that leave them even more traumatized. That is

just heartless and cruel.

recent years, Mr. Speaker, we've all been taking mental health much more

seriously and becoming more aware of mental illness through a medical lens.

We've rejected the notion that it's all in someone's head, like it's not real –

thank goodness. We've rejected the notion that it's the person's own fault –

thank goodness. We've also rejected the notion that a person with mental illness

is beyond help and needs to be locked away – thank goodness. We're determined to

put an end to the stigma surrounding mental illness, a stigma that we would

never dream of associating with illnesses like cancer, cardiovascular disease,

osteoporosis or diabetes.

We're

becoming increasingly aware of the challenges many people face when they're

dealing with mental illness, and mental illness is real. There's something about

mental illness, in particular, that makes it extra difficult for people to talk

about. Diabetes is something you have, heart disease is something you have, but

mental illness is often seen as something you are. It can affect how you see

yourself, how you deal with other people, how you cope, how you think and how

you fit in the world.

You can

see a broken bone on an X-ray, you can see a tumour on a scan, but what device

do you use to see a mental illness? Scientists are getting better at measuring

things in our brains. They've helped us to understand more and more about the

biochemical and biological nature of mental illnesses. Their work has also

developed better treatments. Things have come a long way but there's still a

long way to go. The one thing that all of us need to do is to inform ourselves

so that we are more understanding of the nature of mental illness and the things

we can do to help those who are suffering.

The

All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions educated us about the

importance of improving the supports for those who are facing such challenges.

The report of the All-Party Committee echoes the statement from the American

Psychiatric Association when it said: “The high prevalence of sexual violence

that women are exposed to renders them the largest single group of people

affected by PTSD.” It is not a minor annoyance like a headache or a bad mood.

It's a major illness that devastates people and leaves them needing medical

care.

recent years, eight other provinces have brought forward presumptive PTSD

coverage. Each province's approach is unique and evolving. Alberta acted first,

and others have acted just recently. Our province currently offers presumptive

cancer coverage for firefighters but there is no presumptive coverage of PTSD

until now with this bill.

Our

caucus suggested following the lead that most provinces took by extending

presumptive coverage to firefighters and other first responders. Limiting the

presumptive clause to certain first responders was the initial approach of Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Ontario, Alberta and BC. Saskatchewan went even

further by extending the presumption to other occupations, and Manitoba extended

the presumptive coverage to all workers across the broad spectrum of

professions. Theirs is the broadest presumptive coverage in the country, and we

understand the Manitoba example is the one that Bill 35 is modelled on, Mr.

Speaker.

So on

principle, having called for it, we certainly do believe that the move towards

presumptive coverage of PTSD is the right one. Again, there are still many

questions we will be asking throughout the course of the debate and more

information we'll be asking for, but certainly having presumptive coverage of

PTSD, we believe is moving in the right direction.

Becoming

the ninth province to offer this coverage, we are extending a protection to

workers in this province that workers in most other Canadian provinces will also

have. Mr. Speaker, at the very least, we should be on par I think with other

Canadian provinces and I'm often a proponent as I stand in this House of us

being leaders with our legislation. Certainly, that is what we all aim to do,

I'm sure in this hon. House, to put the best legislation in place possible and

to treat legislation where necessary.

Just

because everyone else is doing it, it's not a good rationale for any decision of

course, but we have an obligation to evaluate the policy on its merits and weigh

the alternatives. As the Official Opposition, we have an obligation to ask the

questions that people outside the House are asking, or questions that need to be

asked so people can understand how this policy was adopted and what it will

mean.

I would

like to take this opportunity to thank the officials of the minister's

department, WorkplaceNL, and others for briefing the Opposition on this bill and

answering some of our questions. We have been given some of the answers in the

briefing but it's important here today as we go through the various stages of

the bill that we dig deeper into these issues for the sake of viewers and

persons affected by PTSD to try and get the information on public record

because, of course, that's what our job is here in the Official Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, and it's a very enjoyable job.

Every

worker watching this broadcast ought to be informed about what this bill will

mean to them as employees and as employers. Every employer has an interest in

knowing the implications as well. Health care providers have an interest; people

who suffer from mental illness have an interest. In fact, everyone ought to have

an interest because everyone may be impacted in one way or another by what we

are doing with Bill 35.

This

bill is about drawing a new line that will change how some people qualify for

workers' compensation in certain circumstances. WorkplaceNL has a website full

of useful information about what it offers and how it applies to people in

various circumstances. The link is WorkplaceNL.ca. It's an enormous amount of

information. It will take a bit of time to sift through it but it's certainly a

valuable website and resource.

I'm

hoping government is going to follow up on this legislation, though, given that

there is so much information out there and people do like to be able to have a

snapshot and a quick understanding of things that are happening. We're also

hoping that in addition to the debate of what's happening here and various

websites, that government will follow up with a public education campaign to

inform people about what the changes to this bill means.

It's

particularly important, given the broad implications of this legislation and the

questions that many people still have about how you diagnose and treat PTSD. I

encourage the government to provide this information without a political lens or

a Way Forward lens because that kind

of spin always leaves people suspicious that the information might have been

sanitized to remove facts. So, this is really about an awareness session for all

people on a piece of legislation that may affect many persons, many communities,

many regions, many entities.

We feel

it's important that people know what the new rules will be, what they can

expect, what will and won't be covered, what challenges they might encounter and

how they find the help they need. We'll address some of that, Mr. Speaker,

throughout the course of the debate but, of course, a lot of it will need to be

forthcoming after the debate is concluded in terms of finalizing what actually

gets passed.

I'd also

like to talk about the consultation process that was used for this bill a bit,

Mr. Speaker. We certainly applaud WorkplaceNL for undertaking a policy review

and seeking submissions. It started out with a great deal of interest and that

was indicated by the submissions from groups representing tens of thousands of

people in this province.

I don't

know how much of an advanced viewing these groups would have gotten of this bill

before it came to the House; I'm thinking not a lot. We, ourselves as MHAs,

don't get much of an advanced viewing. But in this particular case, with this

bill, we did get our briefing last week. But, the rules being, we are not

permitted to distribute the bill until it has been officially distributed in the

House and it goes up online on the House's webpage and everyone can access it.

That's normal protocol because, until a bill is distributed, there's still room

for changes to be made.

All of

these groups were probably expecting that this legislation was coming, but how

many of them have actually been consulted with what the specific changes are and

were told exactly what the changes would be is still a question that we have.

I'll speak to that a little bit more because we certainly would like to see that

consultation continue with existing groups over the next six months, given that

this legislation is not coming into effect until June, and we want to really

make sure it is the best possible piece of legislation that it can be for all

parties.

This

government came into office in 2015 on a red book that promised the resurrection

of legislation review committees. For those who don't know, such committees used

to operate in this hon. House and they would examine a bill before it came up

for debate. They would give people and groups an opportunity to see it, evaluate

it, comment on it and perhaps even change it before it came to the floor for

debate.

That's

important, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons. Firstly, it treats people with respect,

by giving them an opportunity to take a hands-on role in the development of

legislation that impacts their lives; and, secondly, democratic reform is about

making our work more open, engaging and accountable.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

It's long overdue –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

the Member to stay relevant to the bill that we're discussing.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I'll

say, I'll close out by saying I trust the all-party committee on democratic

reform will make this a priority issue for consideration.

Mr.

Speaker, as well in terms of legislation like we have before us here today, the

rules of debate as currently structured make it difficult to amend the

legislation directly here on the floor of the House. So, I'll just close that

little discussion by saying, the more input we have in a bill in its formulating

stage I think can result in a better product at the end of the day.

Lots of

times, Mr. Speaker, the people we consult with see things that we may not and

they can identify problems that may have been overlooked, so certainly a lot of

merit to it. We're not saying this flippantly. I just want to repeat again that

with this bill having an implementation date of July 1, 2019, there's still

plenty of opportunity for tweaking to occur, if necessary.

We say

this very seriously, because this bill is very important to a lot of entities

and organizations out there, many of who are here or observing the debate today.

These people are the ones we really need to hear from, Mr. Speaker.

What is

presumptive coverage and what does it mean, and why does it matter I guess? The

minister outlined the definition. It's a legal concept which means that when one

fact is proven, another fact is presumed. If the fact of PTSD is proven, then

the fact that it is work related can be presumed. Why does that matter? It has

to do with the way workers' compensation works. Let's say you're on a worksite

and you're injured, you go to a doctor; you're not going to be able to go back

to work and you're going to be laid up. The system of workers' compensation is

in place to give that worker an income while the worker is unable to work due to

the injury.

Some

injuries or disabilities don't go away. The worker will not be able to return to

that job. It's that severe. There are all sorts of rules at WorkplaceNL to

determine what happens, step by step, what forms are needed, who has to sign

them, what has to be proven, can anyone challenge the request, can you appeal

your claim if it's rejected, is WorkplaceNL serving as an advocate for the

injured worker or as an adversary. As you can imagine, it's a long, complicated

and stressful process for many injured workers.

The

system is set up to prevent abuse. It's also set up to control costs. The fund

that covers injured workers is limited in size. Rules are put in place to

restrict access. The system does have an adversarial feel. People can expect

their claim to be challenged. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Even if an

injury is established, there is no presumption, in most instances, that the

injury is work related. Could it be related to something else? Should workers'

compensation cover the worker or not?

When

medical researchers determined that many firefighters go on to suffer certain

kinds of cancers, and many fires tend to expose firefighters to certain

carcinogens, the call went out to change the policy. When a firefighter develops

these certain types of cancers, don't suspect it might have come from some other

cause, like a family history, or exposure to woodstoves at home, or campfires

growing up, or air pollution, or the person's diet or any other factor. See the

pattern; understand the balance of probabilities; show compassion for the

firefighter who invested in saving lives in our community; get them compensation

more easily and quickly, without forcing them to jump through hoops while their

cancer is treated.

Let

WorkplaceNL presume that one of these cancers, once diagnosed in a firefighter,

was caused by the work the firefighter did as a firefighter. Don't force the

firefighter to prove the connection; presume it. The same argument would surely

work with industrial diseases. If an asbestos miner gets asbestosis, why would

it be unreasonable to presume a work-related connection?

So what

about PTSD? We know from psychiatrists that PTSD is a severe reaction to trauma.

We know that first responders can be severely traumatized by what they

experience on the job. Workers in other professions can also be traumatized on

the job. I think of retail workers whose shops are burglarized, or bank tellers

whose banks are robbed. I think of taxi drivers who are robbed or threatened.

Under

Bill 35, if the worker obtains a medical diagnosis of PTSD by one of the

diagnosticians defined in the bill, and if the worker can establish they were

exposed to a traumatic event or the cumulative impact of multiple traumatic

events of work, then it will be presumed that their PTSD was a result of those

traumatic events at work. That, Mr. Speaker, is what presumption means.

All of

these workers can already apply for coverage right now without a presumption and

try to make the case that they have work related PTSD. They can get the

diagnosis and identify the traumatic event or events and then try to make the

case that it was those work related events and not something else that caused

their PTSD.

The

difference that this bill will make is to eliminate the need for the worker to

prove that the PTSD, once it is diagnosed, is work related. That step is

eliminated with this bill. This speeds up the adjudication process and it

simplifies the claims process. It allows for earlier health care intervention

for the worker by allowing the worker to leave the workplace without losing

their entire income.

In terms

of proof from PTSD, why is the elimination of that step in the adjudication

process important for someone suffering from PTSD? I've talked about that a lot

already, Mr. Speaker, in my 20 minutes or so. We can all think about what PTSD

is. It's the experience of intense, disturbing thoughts and feelings related to

a traumatic experience that lasts long after the traumatic event has ended.

It may

include flashbacks or nightmares, anger, sadness, detachment and estrangement.

It may involve reliving the traumatic experience over and over again. People

with PTSD may avoid situations that remind them, but, Mr. Speaker, forcing that

person to deliberately relive these events we believe is unnecessary, and we're

pleased that this bill is going to eliminate that particular element of trauma

for those suffering from PTSD because it is continuing to traumatize the victim.

In Bill

35, in looking at the jurisdictional scan across provinces, all the provinces do

not agree on where to draw to line. Manitoba applies it to all workers.

Saskatchewan's potentially does as well, by leaving it to the act's regulations

to define any exclusions. PEI is taking the same approach. Alberta began by

restricting the presumption to first responders but it has now moved to include

others, as has Ontario. BC has a very narrow restriction that workers are

pressing to broaden. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, it is limited to first

responders.

So why

did the government draw the line where it did, instead of restricting it to

specific occupations, as many other provinces have done? We know the job of

first responders, by their very nature, exposes them to traumatic events. We

know many first responders have experienced PTSD because of this, and it's this

evidence that has led some of the other provinces, in a jurisdictional scan, to

impose a restriction on the occupations that are covered.

The

workers who suffer, for example, something traumatizing – though, don't

necessarily have to be first responders. It is not unreasonable to expect

workers in other professions to have PTSD that is related to their work. The

workers who suffer criminal violence on the job would be able to make the case

in order to qualify, no doubt, because the event would provide the proof

required.

Someone

working here in the House of Assembly, for example, may suffer trauma, but this

environment does not systematically expose everyone here to the kind of trauma

that police officers, paramedics, nurses and firefighters tend to experience on

the job. But some can, Mr. Speaker, and certainly those in ministerial positions

dealing with these types of issues would certainly have first-hand experience of

these types of issues.

The

argument would go for just first responders, in that it's harder to prove, but

there's a counter argument to that, Mr. Speaker. The counter argument in this

bill is that the PTSD has already been diagnosed and something has caused it.

The worker is suffering and in need of care. The worker is probably not healthy

enough to endure the adversarial, adjudicative process needed to provide the

connection to work.

The last

thing the worker needs to have is to relive every potential traumatic experience

in the person's life to determine which trigger or triggers are primarily

responsible for the PTSD that is debilitating the worker. That seems to be a

very reasonable argument to make, Mr. Speaker, unless a case can be made that

it's not the right approach.

Mr.

Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion gone into this and we've landed

where we have on Bill 35. Again, I'll say I do think over the course of the next

six months, as the awareness with this bill increases, any tweaks that may be

required by organizations or persons out there, that they will certainly bring

them forward to WorkplaceNL and to the department, and, if necessary, to the

House for consideration, because this is a very important piece of legislation

and one that has been called for, for quite some time.

I'm

going to now start talking a bit about cost versus access to care, because this

is where some of our questions are going to come into play in terms of the next

phase of this bill, because cost is a factor that every government considers

when establishing a system of care. The workers' compensation system is financed

through contributions in a way that ultimately has an economic cost. If you let

your mind go back to an era when there was no such thing as workers'

compensation, it was not a good time to be an injured worker. An injury could

leave a worker and their family in poverty, or worse. So it is better to have a

system of compensation for workplace injuries than not to have one.

We all

recognize, though, that such systems and processes and programs have to be

viable and feasible, and the economy has to generate enough money to sustain the

system or it will collapse. It's the same with pensions, we have to have them

provide for people who have retired from the workforce but the liabilities have

to be covered.

If a

firefighter breathing carcinogens develops cancer, who would argue against

providing that worker with an income to compensate for that injury? If a

firefighter receiving the bodies of burn victims develops PTSD as a result of

that trauma and can't return to the job, who would argue against providing that

worker with an income to compensate for the injury and allow the firefighter the

opportunity to get therapy and heal?

That's

what workers' compensation is all about. It is reasonable to believe there is

going to be a financial cost associated with presumptive coverage. That's

because at the briefing officials revealed an actuarial estimate based on the

experience of other jurisdictions.

One of

the questions that we will be asking in Committee is we'd like the minister to

go into greater detail about how this analysis was done. During our briefing we

were told that the estimate is imprecise, partly because the jurisdictions,

circumstances and rules across the country are different. But the estimate of

the impact to the injury fund is expected to be $7.6 million to $15.1 million

per year. The impact on the assessment rate is estimated to be nine cents to 18

cents per $100. The costs will be reflected in the employer assessment rates

over time but with the implementation date of July 1.

financial impact is expected on the injury fund for the fiscal year of 2019.

What we don't know, Mr. Speaker, is what happens after 2019 and what the impact

estimate is for 2020 and onward. Will the fund be sustainable?

Officials also estimated the financial impact on the province. The government is

a self-insured employer. And so we we