PDF Version

December 3, 2024 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 95

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin, in the public gallery today, I’d like to welcome Glenda Rideout and Lisa Bolt. They’re visiting this afternoon for a Member’s statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also in the public gallery, joining us for a Member’s statement, welcome to Mohamed Abdallah, CEO and founder; and Ron Taylor, director of strategy, at Connections for Seniors.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also, I’d like to recognize volunteers from the Avalon

Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, past president, Patricia Hynes-Coates; Sharon Smith; Benjamin Chaulk; and Michele Martin. They are joining us this afternoon for a Ministerial Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also, welcome to Margaret Murrin’s social studies class from Holy Spirit High School.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we’ll hear statements by the hon. Members for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Terra Nova, Topsail - Paradise, St. John’s Centre and Placentia West - Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Daniel Kelly was born in Grand Falls-Windsor, where he has made a positive impact on so many individuals over the past years.

He holds a Bachelor of Biblical and Theological Studies from Booth University College. Daniel has served as an officer of the Salvation Army for four years and is now currently the community and family services coordinator in Grand Falls-Windsor for the church.

Recently, Daniel has led the Salvation Army food bank in town, which is the first accredited food bank in our province and in Canada.

Mr. Kelly serves in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment 2nd Battalion as a lieutenant. He completed his officer qualification course in Gagetown and was named top candidate and parade commander in their graduation parade this year. He is the first person in over 15 years to complete this course in the 2nd Battalion.

In his free time, Daniel volunteers as the coordinator for the breakfast program at Forest Park Primary school, bike club and cross-country ski club.

When not serving his community, Daniel spends his time with his wife Courtney and his daughter Elizabeth.

Please join me as I honour my friend Daniel Kelly, dad, husband, soldier and true humanitarian.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my honour today to rise and honour Jim Cook. He needs to be commended and congratulated for his 40 years of volunteer service in the Random Island area.

Jim met Laverne Ryan, a girl from Snooks Harbour, while living and working in Toronto, serving as an officer with the Metropolitan Toronto Police. They married in 1972 and moved home in 1976 to raise their family and settled in Elliotts Cove.

Jim became active in the local service clubs and volunteering in the community. He was the chair of the Clarenville Rotary Club, he was instrumental in the construction of G. B. Cross Memorial Hospital and he was one of the founding members of the Random Island Lions Club.

He served for 40 years, 35 of which as chair of the Local Service District committee for Random Island West and was chair of the Eastern Regional Service Board.

After a tragic fire in the community, Jim focused his energy on forming a local volunteer fire department in 1987 and has recently seen the expansion of the fire hall.

In serving his community, Jim was known to be fair and objective, avoiding controversy, and was seen as doing what was best for his community and region at all times.

I’d like to offer my sincere congratulations and thank you to Jim on his well-deserved retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, there are many volunteers, groups and organizations who each day give their time to assist others and expect nothing in return. With the upcoming holidays approaching, in what should be a special time that brings festivity and family fun, for many it is a difficult and stressful time.

Each and every day throughout the year, we all hear and see the growing needs in our communities. The needs are growing and the volunteers and groups step up to assist. To name a few, groups such as the Kin Clubs of Paradise and CBS; the Lions Clubs of Paradise and CBS; the Salvation Army; and many other community organizations all help ease the burden of everyday struggles by providing hampers, clothing, meals and even a place to sleep for the night.

Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to say thank you to all the volunteers and organizations and recognize the incredible contributions they provide to our communities. I encourage everyone to take the time over Christmas to do what you can to give, help others in need, open your hearts and reflect on the importance of the well-being of others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, at a time when increasing numbers of seniors are facing a lack of affordable housing and homelessness, Connections for Seniors, or CFS, is proactive in supporting older adults in our community through a variety of programs and projects. The new housing centre on Patrick Street provides emergency shelter for up to 35 residents and serves as a vital resource for seniors facing housing challenges. With intensive case management and a housing-first approach, the housing centre helps seniors find safe, permanent housing solutions.

CFS’s 60-unit Alexander Street affordable housing program of one-bedroom and studio apartments, in partnership with NLHC, the City of St. John’s and CMHC, will play a major role in addressing the housing needs of seniors in our community.

Connections also provides free transportation for food hampers and delivers over 80 meals and hampers weekly to seniors across the Northeast Avalon.

Despite challenges, CFS provides vital services and addresses critical needs of seniors through its 24 health-related rides and new snow clearing pilot program, which helps seniors maintain safe exits from their homes.

Please join me in recognizing Connections for Seniors for their work in enhancing the well-being and quality of life for seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I rise in this hon. House to acknowledge the Terrenceville Church Committee located on the Burin Peninsula in the beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

As with many other churches located on the Burin Peninsula, the RC Church in Terrenceville was listed for sale by the Archdiocese of St. John’s. The purchase price was too high, but once it was lowered another appeal was made by a current resident of Terrenceville for possible donations to purchase the church.

Because of the interest in purchasing the church, the community came together to form a committee which is now the Terrenceville Church Committee. Their purchase was finalized and accepted, and the committee officially owns their church!

They presently fundraise through cold plate sales, high school graduations, ticket sales on quilts and seasonal fairs to help with their monthly bills and any repairs to the building that they will have to make.

Speaker, I welcome my friends Glenda Rideout and Lisa Bolt here today, as I am asking all hon. Members to please join me in congratulating this committee and wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

E. LOVELESS: Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mothers Against Drunk Driving and their longest running, most well-known public awareness campaign, Project Red Ribbon.

For more than 37 years, a simple red ribbon has served as a powerful reminder to drive responsibly.

To never, ever drive while impaired.

I commend Mothers Against Drunk Driving for their efforts to end impaired driving. Their message of Project Red Ribbon cannot be overstated.

Every year, during the holiday season when social calendars are at their busiest, impaired driving takes a devastating toll on families and communities when people are killed or seriously injured.

Speaker, it is not just alcohol that impairs. Illegal drugs, cannabis, prescription or over-the-counter medication, and even fatigue can impair your ability to drive.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. These types of crashes are 100 per cent preventable.

As we approach the holiday season, I urge Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to make the responsible choice every single time. Never drive impaired; never get in a car with an impaired driver. If you suspect someone is driving impaired, call 911. If you plan on drinking, designate a sober driver or plan to call a cab or ride share.

Because together we can end impaired driving.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O’DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Speaker, it is important to rise in this House today to recognize Mothers Against Drunk Driving in their 37th year of the Red Ribbon campaign. The immense growth in public awareness surrounding impaired driving is game changing. That shift is directly due to the work and dedication by members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Their efforts are unmatched and must be commended by all. It’s difficult to determine just how many lives their efforts have saved, though I truly believe it is in the thousands.

It is our hope that government follows through on its commitments to ensure police are adequately staffed to respond to reports of impaired drivers, as well as our courts are prepared to adjudicate these cases.

In another note, road safety in this province is critical. With 72 vehicles observed speeding more than 100 kilometres over the speed limit in a three-month pilot program, government must act on its commitment to ensure less families in our province receive the dreaded call.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

It’s everybody’s responsibility to encourage responsible driving and put an end to impaired driving. I urge that everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador make the responsible choice and to set an example in their communities by leading by example: never drive impaired, no excuses, zero tolerance and if you suspect someone driving impaired, call 911 and report it right away.

Thank you to the work of MADD Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

In the interest of protecting vulnerable children, will the Premier commit to a commission of inquiry into children in care and the response of the province’s police forces where witnesses can be interviewed in camera and protected?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we share the concern from the Members opposite with respect to the issue that has arisen. Consequently, we took immediate action to ensure that the office is doing an investigation. When that report comes, and hopefully it comes soon, we will act on any recommendation. If that is one of them, certainly we will endeavour with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, this is an extremely important issue, not only for current, but for future children in our province. It is to make sure that children in the care of the province are protected at all times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, the former and current Seniors’ Advocate both call for a “significant review of the province’s Personal Care Homes and Long Term Care Homes.” These calls intensified after seniors’ privacy were violated through the taking of inappropriate photos.

The Liberals have the review. I ask the Premier: Will you make it public?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As far as I know we have the review, it’s been analyzed within the department and as soon as the minister is ready, hopefully in days to weeks, we’ll make that review fully available to the public. There is nothing to hide here. We want to be fully transparent with respect to how we handle long-term care homes, how we handle seniors’ homes and how we look after seniors in our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

We look forward to the report being made public.

I ask the Premier: Does the Premier know how many long-term care beds are expected to be required in the next five years?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

As the Premier said, we have a report that’s with the expert advisory panel right now. We look forward to having all the information in that report that will outline recommendations for what we should do or what we will do now and, of course, what we will do going into the future.

The Health Accord NL, one of the very important components of that is to look after seniors. We have a Seniors’ Well-Being Plan. We have programs such as the caregiver program to make sure that seniors can age at home.

It’s very important that we do it for seniors, what they want us to do for them, which is to remain in place at home. In the event, of course, that they do need long-term care homes, we will make that available and we look forward to the recommendations in the report.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, according to access to information requests that we made, it’s already been forecasted that there is actually a requirement for the additional 667 long-term care beds in our province.

So I would ask the Premier: What is the plan to build and staff these beds?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, as I said and as the Premier said, we’re waiting for the report back. It’s with the expert advisory panel right now and we’re not just going to make up answers and say we’re going to have this many beds. We’re going to just pull out of a hat what we think. That’s why we have the report. That’s what we’re going to rely on, the experts, to forecast what we need now and what we need into the future.

We very much look forward to receiving that report and acting on it, right away, because seniors are the most important people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: These are actually briefing notes prepared by the Department of Health. One of those actually called for, in Western Newfoundland, an additional need for 182 beds. Yet, when we built the new long-term care facility, we only built 102 beds.

I ask the Premier: Why?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Again, I’ll just refer to the report that we’re waiting on but, of course, as I said, when we did the Health Accord and we heard from seniors, seniors want to age in place. They want to age in the community where they lived and where they raised their family and where they worked and where they built Newfoundland and Labrador.

That’s where they want to be and we are doing everything that we can within our power to make sure that we do for seniors what they want us to do for them, which is to remain in place.

In the event, of course, they have to move out of their homes in an unfortunate situation, we will have the appropriate long-term care beds available for them, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, the challenge is, without the plan, you don’t know because right now what we have is many of our acute-care beds in this province of ours are occupied by people who are waiting for long-term care.

In Western Memorial right now, in the brand new facility, there are 64 people with alternate levels of care occupying acute-care beds.

I ask, again, the Premier: Why do you not move those alternate levels of care back to the old Western Memorial and staff it there?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the Member opposite is confusing ALC with seniors; nevertheless, with respect to ALC, we have employed different strategies here on the Northeast Avalon as pilots. We’re looking to continue to roll that out across the province, should the opportunities be available in Western Newfoundland.

We also haven’t fully decided what we’re going to do with the old Western Memorial. Certainly, leadership is looking at that with respect to the maintenance required, with respect to the useability of that for a long-term care and, potentially, ALC patients into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, one would have thought that they would have known when they moved patients from the old Western Memorial into the new Western Memorial hospital, they didn’t have enough space. Those ALC patients are taking up acute-care beds. They should be back in the old Western Memorial hospital where they were being looked after prior to the move.

Again I ask: Why isn’t that happening?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, with respect to the premise of the questions, those patients are being looked after. They’re alternate level of care –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: He said they weren’t being looked after.

They are alternate level of care. That means that they’re still being cared for. They are occupying acute-care beds. That’s different than long-term care beds. It’s different than ALC beds.

What we are doing on this side of the government is looking for a strategy that will fully streamline in an efficient, effective, patient-centred way how to best use all of those beds in that work stream.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, we can all agree that patients that need long-term care are not best suited to be in an acute-care bed. That’s not where they belong. They belong in long-term care beds. In the case of alternative level of care beds, they deserve to be in a different place. There is a place available. They’ve talked about an RFP. Well, let’s get on with it. Let’s get Western Memorial reopened and get those patients moved over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I want to ask on the Teladoc costs that we talked about yesterday.

Is it true that Teladoc costs approximately $579 a visit when local doctors receive less than $50 a visit?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I need to address the

preamble. We are doing everything we can to address the ALC issue in the western part of Island of Newfoundland. There is an RFP that went out to add to the addition of ALC beds in the western part of the province. We’re also using personal care homes as temporary facilities for individuals for short stays, where they can be given rehabilitative and restorative options there as well.

We are working on this issue. ALC is an issue across the country. We’re aware of it on the West Coast of the Island and we are working on it.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, again I ask the minister: Can you confirm that Teladoc costs approximately $579 per visit when local doctors receive less than $50 per visit?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Just to advise the public that anybody who sees a family physician through Teladoc, that physician is being paid the same rate as they would if they saw them in person. Of course, there’s an extra advantage to Teladoc is that if someone doesn’t have access to a family physician because maybe they live in rural or remote Newfoundland, there has to be part of that contract to pay for that.

So there is value there; it’s not just dollar for dollar. We have to look at the whole package, which is, as I said, virtual care. Virtual care as well is very important in making sure we don’t have the diversions that we had a couple of years ago in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I’m sure they’re very thankful that we have Teladoc. I’m sure they’re very thankful that we don’t have the diversions anymore in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, according to the health authority it was 19,000 patient visits and almost $11 million in cost. That’s a significant number.

But let me tell you where they can save money; let me tell you where they can provide better health care to all of those seniors and others who are forced to pay to see a nurse practitioner. That’s an immediate solution that’s available right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: So I ask the Premier again: Will you allow nurse practitioners to be reimbursed for all the patients that they are helping in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nurse practitioners are incredibly important; they’re the heart and soul of our health care system, Mr. Speaker. We continue to work with the nurse practitioners to ensure that the funding model is a modern one, that it’s a funding model that meets their needs. We’ve already seen from family doctors in the past how the antiquated fee for service isn’t necessarily what every provider wants. So we will continue to work with nurse practitioners to ensure that we create the model that works for them.

In the meantime, I think it’s a bit creative, a bit rich for the Member opposite, who chose to cut nurses, cut nurse practitioners and close clinics, to be telling us about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I stand here today to talk and represent the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are paying out of pocket to receive health care from a nurse practitioner because this government opposite can’t figure out a way to reimburse the nurse practitioners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: And I will continue to stand and say that.

Actually, let’s talk about that, because all of this comes down to a human resource plan. We’ve been promised a human resource plan for health care professionals by this government for years, and we still don’t have it.

So once again, I ask the Premier: Where is the human resource plan for health professionals?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: We continue to work with all stakeholders involved with respect to the human resources and the dynamic environment in which health care is right now, Mr. Speaker, and the whole entire system, including the much-respected nurse practitioners and nurses. We certainly need more nurses, more nurse practitioners, more doctors. We need them all.

I can tell you what won’t work, what is not a human resource plan, is to cut nurses, is to cut nurse practitioners, is to close rural clinics. That is not an acceptable human resource plan, and our government will not stand for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I think the Premier needs to realize the people of the province deserve answers, and they deserve respect, and what we’re hearing the last two days in this House of Assembly is outrageous. I said it yesterday and I’ll repeat it again today: They live in an alternate universe, not the same universe we all live in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, I’m in receipt of a copy of a letter signed by five doctors at the Carbonear General Hospital. The doctors outline a number of concerns eroding their ability to practise, including clinic physician space being converted into management and executive office spaces.

Speaker, the minister was copied on this letter. Has he determined what’s going on?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Myself and the Premier met with the CEO of NLHS earlier this week. She advised that she had met with these physicians as well to discuss their issues with them. Of course, she and we take them very seriously and hope to have some information back to them very soon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, if new executive office suites in a regional hospital are a priority for this government, then it’s no wonder we have a health care crisis. The doctors say they feel unsafe in their workplace, not consulted, and not treated with respect. As a matter of fact, I’ll quote from the letter: They no longer feel safe bringing forward questions and concerns. Just imagine.

Speaker, why is government continuing to treat health care professionals in the system now like this?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, this government, with its increase in the budget to health care over the past few years, shows how committed we are to health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: The fact that they don’t want nurses in the system –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HOGAN: – the fact that they don’t want virtual care for people in rural and remote Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I heard the question quite clearly; I’d like to hear the response too, please.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, you have 25 seconds.

J. HOGAN: – the fact that they don’t support collaborative care teams, which we welcome all nurse practitioners to be a part of, the fact that they don’t support what’s outlined in Health Accord NL, I can’t do anything about that. All I can do is control what we do. We are committed to continuing to improve health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I’ll tell the minister what we support. We support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who deserve proper health care. That’s who we support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: And money doesn’t equal respect, Minister. You can throw all the money you want, but there’s no cost to respect.

SPEAKER: Address the Chair.

B. PETTEN: It’s human respect. There’s no price tag on respect.

Speaker, the doctors describe being mistreated, spoken down to and yelled at.

Speaker, is this a respectful and collaborative workplace that the minister hopes will help with physician recruitment? All this so-called money he’s pouring out, is that how you show respect, Minister?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I really, really, really take great exception when the Members get up and think they have a monopoly in this province on caring for the people that work here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: I have been representing the people of this province – and talk about an alternate universe, up in Labrador where we have lots of challenges – and working 16, 18 hours a day, seven days a week. They know my phone hasn’t been off. And to sit in this House and have the gall and the audacity. Care about the people, respect the people – that’s what we’re doing. We’d like to have someone join us from the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, I’ve got the gall to stand up for every person in my district and in this province, and I make no apologies to you, Minister, or anyone on that side, nor do I take lectures from you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Lectures from anyone over there, for that matter.

Speaker, like the 60 nurses from India sitting home without jobs, the doctors fear disciplinary action for speaking out about their concerns. These professionals are concerned for patient care and worry that the facility will be downgraded once core general surgery ends.

Are surgical services at Carbonear General Hospital is in jeopardy?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I do remind the hon. Member that we were all elected over here as well. It is a tremendous privilege to serve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: Ed Roberts once told me anyone can get elected the first time, but to get re-elected, you’ve got to be doing something right, Mr. Speaker, working hard on behalf of the people and that means respect. Do we have challenges in health care? Yes, we do.

Do you know what we should be doing as MHAs and as ministers in this House and Members of the Opposition and Third Party? Talking to those people, seeing what the solutions are and sitting with the government of the day to try and find resolutions.

I’m tired of turning on Open Line and you’re hearing people talking about issues. They’ve never brought them to us. So clearly, they just want to make politics and not work with us to try and find reasonable options and solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, outrageous. Outrageous is the only word you can use to describe those comments. We’re standing in the House of Assembly and we’re going to continue to stand here and debate issues and bring issues to the floor of this House of Assembly.

As a matter of fact, the minister and the government doesn’t realize we have a job to do and we’re going to do it. They’re not answering questions, but we’re going to continue to ask those questions. They’re not giving answers, but we’re going to continue to ask. I’m going to ask another one.

The Minister of Justice and Public Safety over there – you’ll get an opportunity. I’m going to ask it right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, these doctors provide cancer and emergency surgery, as well as care to trauma and accident victims.

Where are those patients going to go in the Trinity-Conception region.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, it’s unfortunate that the Member for CBS gets upset when we give answers that he doesn’t like. We are answering the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: So, Speaker, when they say what are you doing for health care, and we say we’re doing things like virtual care, and they say well, we don’t like it; it cost money. Well, yes, it does cost money to deliver health care, Speaker, and we’re going to continue to spend that money to make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access to primary health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: They said, what are you doing for long-term care patients? We say we’re getting experts to tell us how many beds we need to make sure we look after our seniors, and we put programs in place to make sure seniors can stay at home because they told us they want to stay at home. Those are answers. That’s a plan. That’s Health Accord NL and we are implementing that plan.

As for surgeons in Carbonear, we are implementing that orthopaedic joint program in Carbonear. Now, that is an answer. That is a tangible thing that we’re doing for people in that area. He doesn’t like it because it’s an answer that provides health care to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, I don’t mind answers. We don’t get answers. That’s the problem. They’re not giving us an answer. That’s what they’re doing. They’re treating people in this House with total disrespect.

If you’re going to carry forward the orthopaedic surgeons, what about the general surgery in Carbonear? That’s the issue. So I guess you’re throwing them out and you’re bringing in new people. So where does Carbonear General Hospital stand because that’s what you haven’t answered. I’ve got up and got lectured about who cares the most.

I’m going to try another one, Speaker. There are no answers to these questions. We’ll get them later obviously. I would say we’ll get them in the media.

Speaker, the doctors talk about retiring or quitting in their letter – their words, not mine. If Carbonear is the backup for Clarenville, I think we have a larger problem. As we were told in the House yesterday, Clarenville will not have any physicians for internal medicine coverage as of December 16.

Speaker, if Carbonear General Hospital is a backup to Clarenville, what are those patients in Carbonear going to do after December 16?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me take an opportunity to address the

preamble. There’s no way that we will –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

A. FUREY: I’ll answer the question. Want me to answer the question? I’ll answer it right here. I can answer the question. If you want an answer, I’ll give you an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Are Members ready?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Premier, you got 40 seconds.

A. FUREY: I believe the Member opposite raised an incredibly important point with respect to surgical distribution in Carbonear. We gave an answer earlier; I’d like to repeat it.

We were made aware of this issue earlier. We met immediately with the CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services. We take this very seriously. If there are issues that we can resolve – she’s already met with them. That is an answer.

There is an answer in saying that we’re doing orthopaedic services in Carbonear. There is an answer in saying that we are committed to general surgery services in Carbonear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: There is an answer in saying that we are committed to general internal medicine in Carbonear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

I spoke, last night, to the doctors. We’ve spoken to the doctors as late as 10 last night and they said the situation is not good. It’s a huge, huge issue. So you can meet, you can talk and you can implement. The general surgeons in Carbonear are upset they’re not being listened to.

So you can go on your rant, Premier. You never answered one question –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

B. PETTEN: – not one question and you can laugh.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand tempers are getting high. People are passionate about the issues, but please, it’s very difficult to hear the questions. It very difficult to hear the responses.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, you have 20 more seconds to ask your question.

B. PETTEN: Simple question, Premier: What’s your answer to the five surgeons –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, are you the Speaker, or are they?

Speaker, I’m asking the Premier a question. He looks at me but I can’t look at him. So will he tell the general surgeons in Carbonear –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Will he tell the general surgeons in Carbonear what the plan is? Will he tell them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: That’s my question. Will the Premier tell the general surgeons in Carbonear, who are very upset, what the plan is?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

As I said yesterday, history is a good judge of the future and here we are again, looking at history and we can predict what the question is going to be. This has been asked three or four times and the Premier and I have said –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

If it continues, Members are going to be named or lose their speaking privileges. Enough of it. It’s very difficult to hear. It’s very important issues we’re discussing. We’d like to hear the questions; we’d like to hear the responses to them.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

As the Premier has said on multiple occasions in the last 20 minutes and I have said that the CEO has met with the individuals from this part of the province to discuss their issues, to hear their concerns. We are committed to listening to them, to make sure that we provide a place where they can provide health care to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that’s appropriate and good for them and satisfactory to them. The CEO has done that as well.

All we can do at this stage is when an issue comes forward, is to meet and to engage and to listen and to solve problems.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: God, it’s nice to be waited on like this. I appreciate it, I really do.

Speaker, the NLTA has published startling statistics about violence in their classrooms, and it’s continuing to rise.

Speaker, in Hansard , on November 19, the minister recognized that there’s an issue with violence. After nine years, what progress has been made?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.

For reference, I haven’t been here nine years, but in the little over two years that I’ve spent in the Department of Education, we’ve made significant progress in advancing things through in our department. Most recently, we’ve been able to look at the issue of violence in our schools. It is an issue that I’m glad the Member opposite has finally had the opportunity to ask a question about.

As the new chair of the coalition against school violence, we’re pleased to stand and say that we have introduced a pilot program in several of our schools that brings teaching and learning assistants to the forefront. They meet the students on the front lines and have the opportunity to interact with them, therefore eliminating a lot of the issues that will arise.

In the event that they cannot defuse the situation, we’ve increased the guidance counsellor hours in our school systems so that we now have a ratio of 1-333.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: It’s interesting that the other side talks about not being here. I don’t think any of us here were here and they throw Muskrat Falls around all the time – all the time. So practise what you preach.

When you say finally, I’m getting up asking questions, these questions have been asked many times – many times. It’s a serious issue and this government is entering their 10th year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. DINN: They’re still not hearing me: their 10th year. Ten years and violence in our schools continues to rise and they have nothing to offer.

Does the minister have anything to offer besides pilot projects and an increasing crime rate and violence in our schools?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.

As I was saying, we have successfully implemented a pilot project and, in the recent week, we’ve actually doubled that, given the feedback that has come from our schools and from the NLTA that this program was successful. So we’ve doubled that.

We’ve introduced 160 student assistants. We have 40 IRTs in the current school year. We are part of the safety coalition that I now chair. We are continuing to increase the counsellor and administration hours. We’ve improved the student-to-councillor ratios from 1-500 to, now, 1-333.

We’ve increased the Positive Action For Student Success teachers in our classrooms. We’ve had new interventions on our bullying prevention. We have re-evaluated and revamped our code of conduct for students.

Speaker, I can continue with these measures but you’re telling me my time is over. I hope I get the chance to stand again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I ask the Premier: What action will this government finally take to compel Northview to get the elevator at Keane Place back in operation and allow tenants to get out of their apartments?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For clarity on that issue with Keane Place apartments, my department is responsible for inspections. The owner is responsible for the work to be done. We have a job to do; the City of St. John’s has a job to do. We’re doing our jobs, but we cannot inspect the work that’s not being completed.

We’ve been on it and until that work is done, we can’t inspect it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: The problem is, Speaker, no one seems to have any responsibility for this: not the city, not the government, not the St. John’s Regional Fire Department, not Northview.

Speaker, Northview is an REIT and REITs buy up affordable housing, raise rent, and fail to make the necessary capital investment. For almost two years, seniors at Northview’s Keane Place apartments, many with significant health and mobility issues, have been confined to their apartments because the elevator cannot be used. Rent is the only thing that seems to be going up there.

I ask the Premier: What bold action will his government take to compel Northview to get this elevator operating properly so residents are able to leave their apartment building? Simple.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There’s an onus and a responsibility on the owner to get the work done. It seems that it’s not getting done. If he has a way to go and get the owner to do the work, get it done, and we’ll get it inspected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Speaker, seniors in Labrador face a significant challenge when accessing medical services that are concentrated on the Northeast Avalon. Seniors and medical professionals find that requirements to access MTAP are burdensome and that many specialists’ offices have a hard time producing the necessary letters, or in some cases they outright refuse to do so because they are under resourced.

I ask the minister responsible for MTAP: Will you review the required documentation for applications to the program and lift some of the burden from seniors?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague across the way for raising the important matter of the Medical Transportation Assistance Program. We know that it’s a very valued program right across this province, but we also know that Labradorians use the program 5½ times more.

That is why, Speaker, we have made a number of changes. The Member across the way has come to me on more than one occasion on concerns for the people that he represents, and most of the time we have been able to find a resolution. We continue to review the program, in addition to the enhancements that I’ve talked about repeatedly here, I’m certainly happy to take that away and look at that as well.

Anything that we can do to reduce the undue burden on administrative people, to prevent folks from having to go back, but always balancing it, Speaker, with the fact that we do have a measure of accountability here with the public purse.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Having seniors calling a specialist’s office looking for letters to allow escorts to travel with them, or confirmation of dates and times for appointments is taking up a lot of time and resources of medical professionals.

I ask the minister responsible for MTAP: Will you immediately remove the requirement for escort letters for seniors? Let couples travel together for health care.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, we’ve made movement in that area, and we certainly continue to look at it. As I’ve told the Member before, we administer the program, but the doctors do play a role here as well. When an individual goes to see a physician, that physician determines whether the individual needs an escort or not. It shouldn’t be done by policy people or people administering the program.

When there are challenges or if there are solutions to be put on the table, options that we can look at, I’m certainly open to that and we continue to review the program and we continue to make enhancements and we will continue to do that going forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Speaker, the minister wants us to come up with solutions. It’s their government. We’ve already put forward solutions in many cases. Right here, it comes down to forcing if nothing else, having that conversation with Keane. They can have it with everyone else but start dealing with the issue here.

Speaker, one senior at Keane Place suffered a heart attack – it has very real consequences – while after climbing the stairs with groceries. Another senior with cerebral palsy had to climb the stairs instead of using the elevator. This government does not walk the talk of seniors’ health and well-being and healthy aging. It does not.

I ask the Premier: Why is the government unwilling to help the seniors of Northview’s Keane Place apartments?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL

E. LOVELESS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I don’t need that Member or any Member to tell me that I don’t care about seniors.

I say that with respect, Mr. Speaker, because I represent seniors in my district, as well. Any Member over there can say we care about seniors. We all care about seniors and the well-being of our seniors. In terms of the situations with the seniors in that apartment building, it’s unfortunate.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the unfortunate situations –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: – those seniors find themselves in, I cannot inspect work that’s not been completed. So the onus is on the owner to get it done. Once it’s done, we will be glad to inspect it and move it forward.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

E. JOYCE: Point of order.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands on a p oint of order.

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, a point of order,

Section 49.

Again, when the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier questions on the nurse practitioners which is a very serious and hurting a lot of seniors out on the West Coast, the Premier, again, made statements that the Leader of the Opposition went and cut in 2015-2016.

It was our government, which I was a part of, that asked for options. The Premier was not a part of the government. The Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair was not in Cabinet. We asked for options and the options came forth. I just ask the Premier to do the honourable thing and withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Conclude, please.

E. JOYCE: I would just ask that the Premier withdraw those statements and, please, take the seriousness of nurse practitioners billing seniors. Because I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, people are suffering. People are not getting primary care.

When you hear a statement coming back, which I know is false, to try and take away from the statement of the real need for nurse practitioners to bill so people will get primary care, I take it personally because I know the people.

I ask the Premier to withdraw the statement because it is just not true.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I heard the Member’s point of order; however, it’s not a point of order. I do understand your questioning and the response and that, but there is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: I made my ruling.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: These are the reasons for this petition, or the background for this petition is as follows:

Services at G. B. Cross Memorial Hospital are being eliminated due to the lack of specialists available in the hospital. Presently the hospital has no pediatrics or internal medicine doctors and is experiencing a shortage of nurses in various specialized areas.

As well, patients who are receiving surgeries are being transported to ICUs in Burin, Carbonear and St. John’s area. This is unacceptable that patients who are fortunate enough to receive surgery or care are transported to other regional hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, we had four internal medicine specialists; now we have zero. We had two anesthesiologists; now we have zero. We had a pain clinic – nonexistent. We had a wound care specialist – nonexistent. We had pediatrics – none. We had an ICU. We can’t man it because – or put nurses, men or women, in there because we don’t have internal medicine specialists.

We have nursing shortages. We have a collaborative care clinic – we have one nurse practitioner and one nurse. That’s a clinic, no doctors. We have two OBGYNs who can’t deliver babies because we have no pediatricians and this government is trying to tell the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that this is their plan and it’s working. Somebody has to have a look at rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last week, I had a patient who died. He died because he went to the hospital with heart issues and he was sent home on medication, awaiting an urgent appointment with an internal medicine specialist. He died. Yesterday, I had a patient who was transported here to St. John’s who was palliative, and he was trying to get back home and die with dignity with his family. Guess what? He passed away here in St. John’s away from his family and it’s their fault. It’s their fault.

You can stand up and say it’s not, but all of these shortages – the minister has gotten the letters. He knows these issues have been going on. The previous minister that’s not here any longer, the previous minister that messed it all up that’s sitting over there, they all knew it was happening since 2015, and here we are today in a mess.

Part of the plan was the elimination of these services through the Health Accord. They said they weren’t going to do it, but guess what? It’s happening. So not only is it they’re not going to do it; they’re allowing it to happen.

We need health care in rural Newfoundland, specifically, that doesn’t drain all the health care systems across the province. I talked to orthopedic surgeons in St. John’s last week who said they’re cancelling surgeries because they don’t have beds because people from rural Newfoundland are being diverted into St. John’s. The trickle-down effect from the mess that this government has made of health care is ruining and decimating the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition, or the background to this petition is as follows:

Services at the G. B. Cross Memorial Hospital are being eliminated due to lack of specialists available in the hospital. Presently, the hospital has no pediatrics or internal medicine doctors and is experiencing a shortage of nurses in various specialized areas.

As well, patients who are receiving surgeries are being transported to ICUs in Burin and Carbonear. This is unacceptable that patients who are fortunate enough to receive surgery are transported to another regional hospital.

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 increase in recruitment efforts so that the residents of the area can received the necessary health care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I wanted to present this petition and support my colleague from Terra Nova is because this affects me, too, and the people of Placentia West - Bellevue. I’ve got people here today from Terrenceville. It actually affects them. They’re equal distance between Burin and Clarenville.

This is not just a one-off that just affects the people living in Clarenville. This is a serious issue. When we sit here and ask questions about it, and we get these pat answers that we’re looking into it, or we’re waiting on this, we’re waiting on that and all this, that means you’re doing nothing. That is an action to do nothing.

So what we are asking this government is to buckle up your boots – if you want some help, I’ve got three Members on this side, including myself, that will certainly sit around any table to help with any solutions. But this is not only for the people of Terra Nova, it’s also for the people of Placentia West - Bellevue, and I ask the government to please do something about it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for a response.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

Normally, I don’t respond to health care questions. Maybe it’s because I just feel like I’ve got to get up. I’ll just point out something. As someone who’s been on both sides of the House, one of the ways – and this goes for any department – when you stand up – and this is not just based on Health NL – but if you stand up and shout at somebody, you’re probably not going to get the best response.

I don’t dispute for a second that that Member, or that Member, or this Member cares about health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

A. PARSONS: Oh, it’s condescending – so again, I haven’t said a word to the Opposition House Leader. I sit there when he calls us outrageous. What I’m saying is I don’t dispute that you want to make things better, but I would say there’s a real way to get action here, and just standing up and shouting at each other is not the way to get there.

So I just point that out. Everybody in this House is concerned about health care; I think we would all like to find some answers, but that’s just my approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

Services at the G. B. Cross Memorial Hospital are being eliminated due to a lack of specialists available in the hospital. Presently the hospital has no pediatrics or internal medicine doctors and is experiencing a shortage of nurses in various specialized areas.

As well, patients who are receiving surgeries are being transferred to ICUs in Burin or Carbonear. This is unacceptable that patients who are fortunate enough to receive surgery are transported to another regional hospital.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase recruitment efforts so the residents of the area can receive the necessary health care they deserve.

Speaker, Bonavista depends on the specialist at G. B. Cross. In order to get to G. B. Cross with somebody that would be in an emergent care level, it’s an hour and 20 minutes, an hour and 30 minutes. If we’ve now got to go to Carbonear and to Burin, we’re looking at over three hours.

Let me offer a couple of suggestions that would be for the government. I know earlier the minister said that he had thought that everything was working well according to the plan. We don’t see that in the District of Bonavista that it’s working well. There are two things I would raise to the Minister of Health and Community Services. Teachers that teach in King’s Cove or Bonavista will get paid the same as what they do at Holy Heart; they’re teaching children. RCMP officers in Bonavista will get paid the same as what they would in other areas of the province – paid the same.

Physicians, if you work emerge in Bonavista, you’ll find that you don’t make as much as what you do in Clarenville. Internal medicine specialists don’t make as much in Clarenville as what they do in St. John’s. We don’t need to look at where we went wrong with how we operated the system.

The second thing would be that the minister states that we’ve added five more seats to the MUN medical school, and that is a good thing, but if we’re not retaining the ones that we have coming out of the school as much as what northern Ontario medical school is, it’s not just adding more seats, we got to find out why we’re not retaining the physicians to $50 million a year of taxpayer money. We need to find out why we’re not retaining them but we need some action.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition is for improved inclusion for Northern Labrador communities to participate in the Newfoundland and Labrador incentive/rebate programs.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of this province who urge our leaders to continue to ensure that – not continue because it doesn’t exist right now – Northern Labrador communities be given due consideration when the provincial government develops, or develops in the collaboration with others, incentive programs such as the Oil to Electric Incentive Program and the Residential Construction Rebate Program.

Now, Speaker, I’ve presented this petition before. This petition is about inclusion. When there’s a rebate program across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, my constituents are continuously excluded.

With the Residential Construction Rebate Program that was vital back during the COVID days to restart the construction industry and also give a break to the people in the province, we were excluded because of the requirement that it was only eligible contractors who are affiliated with the Canadian housing or whatever affiliation it was. They don’t exist in Northern Labrador, so we couldn’t avail of that rebate. We were cost excluded.

Looking at the Oil to Electric Incentives, we would love the CMHA – yes, we would love to be able to actually avail of that rebate. The minister said $17,000. That was the first lot the province was offering to a household to switch from oil to electricity. So that’s $17,000 and it went up to $22,000 and then there are other federal rebates, but in Northern Labrador we couldn’t qualify for that.

So there are so many problems. Speaker, when you’re looking at Newfoundland and Labrador province-wide rebate programs that are going to help people or going to help businesses, not for Northern Labrador. Speaker, unfortunately, with my tone, it’s really hard for me to raise my voice. I don’t think I have shouted in this House of Assembly or been accused of shouting but, in actual fact, the people in my district are so downtrodden when it comes to province-wide rebates that, really, I should be shouting.

I should be getting up here and pounding my fist because chronically, decade after decade, the North Coast of Labrador, the six Indigenous communities have been excluded from a lot of incentives, a lot of programs, a lot of infrastructure. We’re not even connected by road. We’re actually being harmed now because we don’t have the same equal access to food, to oil, to housing, Speaker. It’s impacting us.

So I said before and I’ll say it again, year after year, that Northern Labrador needs to be included if it’s going to be province wide. If it’s not, then just tell us if we’re a part of this province or not.

SPEAKER: The Member’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

Over the last number of years, there appears to have been a noticeable increase in crime within the St. John's metro region. While much of it has been centred around break-ins in to vehicles, sheds and residential dwellings, which many people attribute to individuals attempting to feed their drug addictions, there has also been several instances of violent crime.

Within the City of Mount Pearl, there have been incidents of teenagers being attacked on the trail system and just recently there were two separate instances of adults being seriously assaulted by a group of out-of-control teens, allegedly including the use of weapons. What is even scarier about these latest incidents in Mount Pearl is that they appear to have been unprovoked, random acts of violence against unsuspecting law-abiding citizens.

As a result of these incidents, many people in Mount Pearl no longer feel safe in their community. They’re afraid to go for a walk on the city’s beautiful walking trails and are in fear for the safety of their children and their elderly parents.

While these latest incidents have had an impact on the people of Mount Pearl, it’s recognized that many communities in the St. John’s metro region are experiencing similar issues.

Also. it is worth nothing that while violent crime has been on the rise, policing levels have actually decreased over the past two years.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the government to allocate funding for the provision of additional police resources within the St. John’s metro region to help combat violent crime and associated public safety concerns.

To further urge the government to work with their other provincial counterparts throughout the country to lobby the federal government for a review of the Criminal Code , the Youth Criminal Justice Act and their associated sentencing guidelines to result in greater accountability for repeat and habitual offenders, as well as those who perpetuate violent crimes.

Also, to urge the government to prioritize resources in dealing with some of the factors which can contribute to these criminal behaviours such as poverty, housing, mental health and addictions, rehabilitation, reintegration and appropriate resources in our school system.

Mr. Speaker, I presented this yesterday, the minister did respond. He talked about the millions of dollars that have been put into Department of Justice and so on. He talked about investments in Labrador and he threw out some big numbers. I’m not disputing there hasn’t been any investments. I know there was like a new radio system that would have applied, I guess, to all first responders, including the police. Probably it’s part of the numbers, I don’t know.

But, at the end of the day, what I’m told is certainly here in the Northeast Avalon, we haven’t seen any real increase in terms of patrol units on the street. I’m told that we probably need about a half dozen additional RNC officers, 24-7, in patrol cars, going through our neighbourhoods so that they’re not just responding to Priority 1 calls, but they can respond to other calls and they can actually be doing some preventative work in patrolling neighbourhoods and so on, checking on suspicious persons to prevent it from happening.

The other piece he didn’t address is the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member’s time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety for a response.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for his petition again.

I’ll reiterate some of the things that we’ve announced in just the last three weeks. Those investments take a little bit of time. RNC officers don’t grow on trees. They are very-well trained. They have to be vetted. They have to make sure we get the best and brightest within our communities. That’s what we’re focused on. I think there are 14 or 16 in training right now as we speak. I think there are another 17 starting in January.

In addition to all that, we’ve invested some $40 million in policing over the last few years in both the RNC and the RCMP. That brought their totals to $95 million for the RCMP, $75 million for the RNC. But we didn’t stop there, Mr. Speaker. We went further. We went $20 million more with respect to forming a joint force operation unit made up for the Northeast Avalon area that will expand to other areas, as required, to deal with the drug trade, to deal with guns, to deal with contraband. Those are the three things those are focused on there, which will cut off the crime that the Member’s talking about significantly.

We put in a leadership position in for intimate partner violence within the RNC, within that unit that we created over here. We’ve added an additional 19 officers that will be shared between the RCMP and the RNC, depending upon what the Policing Transformation Working Group looks at based on crime trends. That is being proactive, that’s looking at what we can do.

We’ve made an additional 15 investments into sheriff officers, 25 into corrections officers and an additional 18 Crowns helping to adjust the spectrum that we’re trying to accomplish here. I know it’s not fast enough for the Member, but we’re moving as fast as we can.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time is expired.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O’DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

St. Shotts Road on the Southern Avalon is need of major repairs. These roads are in deplorable conditions to the point where it’s a safety issue. This road is relied upon by residents and visitors on a daily basis. With a World Heritage UNESCO site in the area, there is an increased volume in traffic in the region.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this piece of infrastructure for the safety of the residents and visitors to allow for a safer commute on this roadway.

Speaker, I’ve done this petition many times for sure and, to reiterate, this pavement is 38 to 40 years old that’s been in this area and it’s not fit to drive on. Bottom line, it’s not fit to drive on. We have highway maintenance crews that are doing the best they can to put band-aids on it. They’re going up putting cold patch on it, spreading it out. When the winter hits and the fall hits, that stuff rises out or the plows go up and hook it and it’s all back to where it was before, full of potholes. The safety

part is when you’re driving in the area, especially on a foggy night or even on a day, you’re hauling over on the left side of the road to get around the big holes and craters in the ground.

So it’s something that the minister, hopefully in his wisdom, will put in his budget to be able to get done next year, because it’s certainly something that needs to be done.

I mean, there’s tourism in the area when you get up there in July. You see it on the news every single year and it seems to be bigger and bigger. It’s called the Irish Loop and they’re going up there watching the whales right from the road. Go up on the beach and sit – they don’t have to go out anywhere, they get right there, they drive around and make it a day’s excursion and there is tons of traffic in the area, and I mean tons of traffic. As a matter of fact, there’s a traffic jam in the area, of people up watching whales.

And they’re driving across this pavement and they’d be the first ones to tell you when they see it that the road is not fit to drive on. It’s really not fit to drive on; it’s deplorable.

You also have, as I said, the UNESCO site in the area and it is a part of the Irish Loop. So we would love to see the minister get this in his budget for next year to be able to get this road done. It’s over 38 to 40 years old, and it’s something we should have in our district.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 85,

An Act to Amend the Provincial Health Authority Act and the Fatalities Investigations Act. That is seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Bill 85 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Provincial Health Authority Act and the Fatalities Investigations Act. (Bill 85)

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.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Provincial Health Authority Act and the Fatalities Investigations Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 85)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Bill 93, third reading of

An Act to Amend the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000 and the City of St. John’s Municipal Taxation Act. This is also seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 93 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000 and the City of St.

John’s Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 93)

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.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000 and the City of St. John’s Municipal Taxation Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 93)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, third reading of Bill 95,

An Act to Amend the Public Safety Act. It is seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 95 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Public Safety Ac t. (Bill 95)

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.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Public Safety Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 95)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: I call from the Order Paper, Order 5, Bill 97, third reading of

An Act to Amend the Family Violence Protection Act. It is seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 97 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Family Violence Protection Act. (Bill 97)

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.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Family Violence Protection Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 97)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2, Bill 103, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2, Bill 103, 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2,” carried. (Bill 103)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No 2. (Bill 103)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

L. DEMPSTER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 103 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2, Bill 104, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2, Bill 104, and that said bill be read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2,” carried. (Bill 104)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. (Bill 104)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

L. DEMPSTER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 104 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Deputy Government House Leader.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 14.

I move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for Labour and Environment and Climate Change, that Bill 101,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2, now be read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 101,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2.” (Bill 101)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House today to bring forward an amendment to the Labour Standards Act . The Labour Standards Act , Speaker, is designed to protect workers by requiring employers to establish conditions of employment that meet the minimum legislative standards, including sick and family responsibility leave.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Speaker, the act requires an employee to provide a medical certificate to their employer for an illness-related absence from work for three or more consecutive days. This requirement to provide sick notes places an undue burden on the health care system. We know that requiring employees to visit a health care professional or facility for a note may also expose medically vulnerable individuals to coughs, colds or other infectious diseases, thus contributing to the spread of infection.

The Canadian Medical Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association have been advocating for a reduction or elimination of the requirement for employees to provide employers with sick notes or medical certificates for short-term sick leave.

Today, Speaker, if we were to look across the country, we know that there are currently five jurisdictions, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, that do not require sick notes for short-term leave; three jurisdictions, Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, do require notes after five consecutive days; and there are three jurisdictions, PEI, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, that require notes after three consecutive days.

As the Minister Responsible for Labour, I am pleased to bring forward for debate today in this hon. House an amendment to the act to remove the requirement for employees to provide medical certificates to employers for short-term sick leave. As I mentioned at the opening, this amendment reduces the administrative burden on physicians and nurse practitioners, the unnecessary utilization often of emergency departments, the unnecessary financial burden on employees and prevents the spread of infectious diseases to vulnerable populations.

Speaker, our government is committed to legislation that responds to the evolving needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and I ask all Members of this hon. House to endorse this amendment to the Labour Standards Act that addresses the need to reduce the administrative burden on health care providers and the added strain on the health care system.

I look forward to the debate and what will, hopefully, be the successful implementation of those important legislative changes this afternoon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, I’m just speaking on Bill 101,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2, as the minister talked about, the requirement to get a medical note after three consecutive, illness-related absent days.

Speaker, this amendment is pretty straightforward. I think what it is, is it’s welcomed by many. COVID has changed the way we look at illness, even things like coughs and cold. Also, we’re more aware of vulnerable people in our populations now, who, when exposed to what we would consider mild illness, sometimes can have serious repercussions and we should be taking preventative measures.

This would be a positive thing because it wouldn’t require somebody, in the stages of being sick, having to go in to a doctor’s office or go to a medical professional to get a note excusing them from their absence.

Speaker, this is pretty straightforward. One of the things that I would like to mention is during the technical briefing I did ask about consultations, what consultations were done, for example, with unions who represent the workers, who ensure that the workers’ best interests are looked after when it comes to changes to legislation. Also, I was interested in hearing what consultations were done with small businesses.

We’ve seen the strain that small business is under right now and it would be interesting to see if small businesses were looking at this as a positive thing or as problematic, and what we see in terms of the impact of small businesses in trying to actually stay afloat in this competitive time. There are restrictions now that are really creating a lot of problems.

For example, the workforce, a lot of small businesses are having trouble recruiting workers. Also, things that we view as positive, like the tax breaks that are coming down now just before Christmas, with the tax break on the provincial and federal level, the HST/GST, Speaker, but what we’re also hearing is that’s actually creating a strain for small businesses.

So I did ask with the intention of listening carefully to the answer of what consultations were done. Unfortunately, the briefing team told me that they didn’t know and that would be a question for the minister.

So just looking at how technical briefings work, it would be really, really, good that the team who actually are going to brief us on these changes to the legislation would be knowledgeable of any work that was done in term of consultations for legislation to the stakeholders because it formulates our questions over here when we’re looking at changes to legislation. We need to know what the concerns are from stakeholders. That’s a big part of doing business.

Speaker, just looking at this now in terms of the sick note, we, too, fully support anything that would actually cut down on the spread of flus and viruses and colds, and this would be a step. We think that it would actually be a help to the workers so that they wouldn’t actually have to lose paid leave or sick leave that they’re entitled to if they actually can’t go into a doctor’s office. So this is a positive thing.

I do have questions that I’ll ask, Speaker, but just looking at this now in terms of the overall – one thing I will note, too, is that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has been advocating for this change; we’ve heard them out in the media. So it seems like they support this, so that looks like it’s a positive thing. Also, too, as we look at calls across the country to remove the requirement for the sick note.

Speaker, I’ll save my questions and just sit down.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

We’ve seen the changes to the Labour Standards Act ,

an act designed to protect individual workers while requiring employers to establish conditions of employment that meet the legal minimum standard. So this bill amends the Labour Standards Act to remove the requirement for employees to provide a certificate of medical practitioner or nurse practitioner when taking short-term sick leave.

This is something that we’ve been calling for, banning employers from requiring sick notes for short periods of time, but we do have some questions. One of the things is, if we’re removing the requirement to do it, but it doesn’t stop employers from internally still having the ability to have an internal requirement for a sick note. That still causes some issues because some employers can still put that onto their employees. It’s still a requirement to go up on short-term sick leave. There’s no legislation to stop them from doing that. So this is something that we find a little bit of a concern when it comes to the changes that are being made.

Yes, we agree that for something like coughs, colds, sniffles, stuff like that and forcing them to go to emerge, sit in emergency for a couple of hours, get a sick note and then bring that home, when they should be home resting and trying to get better.

So the only thing is, we see the changes here, but we are concerned that now it’s just putting it onto the employer and they could have an internal policy of requiring a sick note. It doesn’t really stop the situation that the NLMA has been asking for and a lot of other groups, like ourselves, have been asking for when it comes to sick notes.

Once again, we see changes to the Labour Standards Act. There is a lot of stuff that we want to see continued to be changed. This is a good amendment, a good change, but this is something that we find really concerning with the amendment, is that you’re just putting it down onto the employer, the employer can internally have this policy and then we’re still having people go up to emerge, sit in emerge for a couple of hours and getting sick notes, when they should be home resting. This is something that we will have some questions in Committee about these changes and a few other things there on that.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll be supporting Bill 101 also. When I saw it come on the Order Paper,

An Act To Amend the Labour Standards Act, I was hoping we were finally going to address the provision of overtime being paid at time and a half the actual hours, as opposed to time and a half minimum wage.

I look forward to one of these days that the minister is going to bring that one before the House and also, hopefully, she’s going to bring forward some changes to deal with the absolute abuse that occurs in some of these retail locations, big box stores and so on with employees having to work split shifts and come in for four hours and it’s not busy, go home after two. If it is busy, you’ve got to stay whether you like it or not Those are some really good things I’d like to see.

I’m just going to talk about this one here. It does make a lot of sense to me, as others have said, to eliminate the need for a sick note, for short-term illnesses, certainly from the burden that would place on the health care system, it eliminates that. It also eliminates the idea of people being in the workplace that are actually spreading germs. That’s one of the things that we did learn from COVID, I guess. We became more cognizant of people spreading viruses and, quite frankly, if someone is coughing and sneezing and everything else, I don’t want to be around them anyway.

So eliminating that process and having people stay home when they’re sick and not having the burden of the sick note makes sense to me. So I would support that.

I would contradict, I guess, my colleague from Labrador West a little bit. A couple of times when he was speaking, he talked we don’t want them out to the emergency for a couple of hours, I’d say more like a couple of days, not a couple of hours.

That’s another piece to all that, that I’ve heard from people before who’d had to go and get a sick note and it’s kind of foolish the way it works now, anyway. Because the reality of it is, if I was off sick, today, and I needed a doctor’s note, in all likelihood, if I want to see my doctor, I have to call and make an appointment and my appointment is in two week’s time.

By the time I actually go to the doctor to get a note I’m saying, listen, can I have a sick note, I had the flu two weeks ago which you talk about a waste of money and a waste on the system, on our health care system and on taxpayers to be sending someone to a family doctor two weeks after the fact to get a note. The doctor, of course, got to take your word for it that, yes, I was sick two weeks ago. Two weeks ago, I had a bad cough. Two weeks ago, I had a bad pain in my stomach. Two weeks ago, I was sick to my stomach, whatever the case might be. It’s too foolish to talk about. This eliminates that as well.

With all that said, I will support the bill. Like I said, next time let’s get some changes here to this act to deal with employees being abused by their employer on these stupid split shifts that makes no sense and it’s just a total abuse of employees. I’d like to see something on that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, if the Minister Responsible for Labour speaks now, she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I want to thank my colleagues in the House who spoke to this bill today, Bill 101: the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for Labrador West and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

I’ll just answer, Speaker, a couple of the questions that were raised, if I can pick out my own penmanship here which is pretty poor at best. The Member for Torngat Mountains asked about who had been consulted and she referenced the briefing and that officials didn’t know. I just want to say for the House, Speaker, it’s not that the officials didn’t know, it’s just that those are questions more relevant to be asked of the minister in the House.

As I mentioned when I was speaking at the opening, it’s something that the Canadian Medical Association have been calling for, for a long time, and it’s something that the NLMA have been calling for actually since the early 2000s, Speaker.

I just received, since I’ve been here in the House this afternoon, a statement from the president of the NLMA. He’s really, really applauding the government for going in this direction, for something that they have been looking for, for more than two decades. Commending our Premier, Speaker, and for moving in this direction for removing the requirement for sick notes from the Labour Standards Act .

I guess the president of NLMA made a couple of points in that doctors will now spend, as I had mentioned earlier, less time on inefficient administrative work and by spending less time on inefficient administrative work means they get to spend more time providing quality patient care, Speaker.

Just to finish off for the Member for Torngat Mountains, I want to say that we have reached out to the Board of Trade. We reached out to the Federation of Labour and we also have heard from independent businesses that supported this.

For the Member for Lab West, I think he raised a concern about businesses. A point that is really important to make with this amendment that we’re doing is that employers can ask for sick notes today. Even with this amendment, employers can still ask for sick notes. So really, nothing is changing with that regard with the amendment that we are bringing in today. It’s just that it is no longer enshrined in our legislation, but employers still have the right.

I don’t know, maybe the Member was saying we should have mandated the employers, but I go back to it all the time in Labour, I’ve become so acutely aware of this in my just short time here, that much of the work that we do is about finding a balance between the employers and the employees.

So I look forward to questions from my colleagues in Committee on this amendment, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 101 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2. (Bill 101)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

J. HAGGIE: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 101)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Deputy Government House Leader.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Mount Scio, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 101,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 101.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Gambin-Walsh): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 101,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2.” (Bill 101)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I do have some questions. I thank the minister for adding a little bit more to give us some context because it provided some answers to my questions that I had and, also, it generated a few more questions.

So getting back to the topic of consultation. When you bring in legislation, usually I know government goes out to stakeholders to see what the impacts are and the concerns and, also, to have some recommendations. One of the questions that I was going to ask, even though this seems like a small change in the legislation, I was wondering when the minister said that it wasn’t that the briefing team didn’t know the answer if there was consultations, but it was more a question that was relevant for the minister.

I’m just wondering, Minister, does that mean we shouldn’t be asking for the consultations that were done during the technical briefing? Because based on the answers, it generates questions and, also, it provides information to us. We’ve got to make sure over here, in the Opposition, that we’re challenging the government in a friendly way, in a productive way, to make sure that the changes to legislation are the ones that will best serve the people and have the best outcomes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair, and I thank the Member for the question.

I may not have been clear there. I sat over there for a couple of years and it is really important when new legislation is coming into the House that Members come to the technical briefings and that they ask all the questions that they want and that whoever on this side who owns the bill, they take ample time.

All I know is that it was brought to me after. Obviously, we get debriefed on how did the briefing go and it was said that the question was asked and, at that time, that particular one on who consulted, they felt it was better for the minister to answer it in the House. That’s all I can say. I’m just sort of sharing everything that I know.

I don’t know if you want me to expand on the consultation part.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair, and I thank the minister for her answer.

I guess for us, we will continue to ask and want answers about the consultation process because we just happen to look at the merging of the health authorities. When we asked about consultations, that was very troubling. There were other things, like with the gender equality legislation, pay equity, that was brought in. Some changes to legislation is small, some is large and some changes have far-reaching implications across the province so it’s important for us.

I just wonder if the minister can answer this question: Were there any concerns voiced about this change by the parties that you consulted?

CHAIR: The Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: No, I’m not aware of any concerns. There was nothing brought to me by the parties that we talked to, the Board of Trade and some independent businesses out there.

I think it’s really important to note that I mention that since I’ve been here in this House, we have a statement from the president of NLMA who said they have been for more than two decades asking for this. So I was really pleased, Chair, that as each of the Members on all sides of the House got up and said they would be supporting this because day after day after day we come in here and health is probably the number one issue.

We know that right across the country, right across the globe, after we sort of all lived through a worldwide pandemic, I explain it like we were building from the ground up again. When you have family in all the other provinces in the country, whether it’s my mom who’s in BC, all of my husband’s family who are in Ontario and friends, you know that every single province is really struggling with health care. When you’re adding extra seats to the med school, or whatever we’re doing, recruitment, retention, bringing folks in, we know that the health care system have been really, really – it’s been a lot.

So that is why this move to remove that requirement so that people, if they’re feeling terrible they don’t have to get up and force themselves in to see a doctor. That doctor doesn’t have to take his time to write a sick note to say, yes, you’re not well, you need to go home; or to show up at an emergency room and probably spread that to other vulnerable people that are in there sitting.

I probably took the long way of answering the Member’s question, but we did hear from the Federation of Labour, we talked to them; the Board of Trade; some independent business; and I think the biggest groups here, the Canadian Medical Association and the NLMA, who were not just supportive but really applauded the efforts because it’s something that they have wanted for so long.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair, and I thank the minister for her answer.

Normally, we would ask what jurisdictional scans to see what’s happening across Canada, but as was talked about earlier, there are some jurisdictions that require a three consecutive sick days for the note; some require five; and there are five jurisdictions, according to the minister, that don’t require this at all. So it looks like that question was already answered.

Also, just looking at this, when you’re looking at the requirement for the sick note, did you look at or consult about extending the period? Instead of requiring three consecutive sick days, maybe extend it to a week? Was there any advocacy for that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: So I may not answer correctly and the Member will tell me if I don’t, but right now in the Labour Standards Act , an employee is still entitled to seven unpaid sick days.

You will note that a couple of weeks ago, I brought in an amendment to the Labour Standards Act where we put some protection in place around long-term illness, long-term injury, organ donation and the military reservists, but this is about the short term.

Right now, the act is saying that after three days you have to have a sick note and we’re removing that. So if an establishment says I’m still going to require that after day two or day three, well, we’re not going to overreach and tell them what to do. But it won’t be something enshrined in law that they would be legislated to comply with. But the seven days of unpaid is still there under the Labour Standards Act .

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, that did answer my question.

I think that’s the end of my questions here. For us, anything that frees up the doctor’s resources and the medical professionals and makes them available to deal with other more urgent issues or sickness is a positive thing. We look at this amendment as a positive thing for the labour force and for business.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

With these changes, obviously we’ve removed the legislative requirement for a sick note, but it still doesn’t do the full, I guess, job of what we’re envisioning here, that employers can still ask for sick notes for one day missed, two days missed, three days missed. They’re still putting a burden on the health care system by giving that ability that we’re not really telling employers you shouldn’t be doing this. It’s causing undue harm onto the health care system and onto the individuals.

It doesn’t really capture the full essence of what is possible here. That still brings a lot of concern, because, unfortunately, in my time, sometimes I’ve seen employers use it as a punishment in some cases: Well, go up to emerg, get a sick note; you were out that day, we need that sick note. Even though, really, you don’t need that sick note. It’s pure ridiculousness.

We’re still not actually addressing the issue and not addressing what the NLMA has actually been asking for. They want employers not to do this. So what it seems to be here is that we’re just taking the legislative away, but we’re still saying to employers, yeah, you can still do that. You can still send your employees up to the emerg or wherever and wait and wait and wait for a sick note.

With that, Chair, I move the following amendment: That clause 1 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the word “repealed” and the following substituted: 43.11(2) An employer shall not ask an employee for a certificate of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner for a period of five or fewer consecutive days of sick leave.

Seconded by my colleague, the Member for St. John’s Centre.

Thank you.

CHAIR: A n amendment has been moved by the Member for Labrador West. We’ll now recess to determine if the amendment is in order.

Recess

CHAIR: Are the House Leaders ready?

Order, please!

We have examined the amendment and it is not in order.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

It’s unfortunate that it’s not in order but we still have grave concern that employers, even though they’re not legislatively going to have to ask for sick notes, are still going to ask for sick notes and it’s not really going to address the issue that I think the government is trying to do by removing this thing.

I ask the minister to go back and think about how maybe we can still address that issue. I think that there’s still going to be a problem with sick notes. I think employers are still going to be asking for them for short periods of time. I think that it’s not really going to address the issue that they expect addressed, without telling employers that they cannot ask for sick notes for a certain period of time.

We do still have issue with that. Repealing it – there is support there for that, but we ask them to take this back and look at maybe putting in a period of time where an employer cannot ask their employee to get a sick note for short periods of time.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: I thank the Member for the comments and the amendment that he proposed. I think from my time, as we were preparing the bill and going through a number of things – jurisdictions: we looked at those who had gone five days and there was still some criticism there that they had not gone far enough.

I think what’s important here to note, I’ll reiterate, Chair, is that elimination of this requirement will benefit both employees and certainly will benefit the health care system that we keep referring to. I don’t know if there’s anything more than I can add to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John’s Centre.

J. DINN: To be clear, Chair, to the minister, with the elimination of this clause is there anything to prevent an employer, especially non-unionized, to demand a sick note for two days, let’s say, or three days or four? Is there anything that would prevent the employer from asking that, regardless of what – it’s not referenced in legislation.

CHAIR: The Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

So that is as it stands today, I say to my colleague across the way. We’re not changing anything there. We’re just removing the legislative requirement so that if an individual is home and they’re not well – we’re just taking that out. If an individual business wants to say according to our HR policy we require a sick note after three days or four, that’s as it is now.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John’s Centre.

J. DINN: So in other words, it does nothing really. I come to it from a unionized point of view in terms of people with sick leave; we hear the word “abuse” of sick leave and so on and so forth. Often, when I’m hearing this discussion, the question that never gets asked is: Why are people using sick leave or using up their sick leave?

I’ve seen people – I know certainly in the teaching profession and I would say others – going to work sick because it’s often too hard, Chair, to do up the lesson plan; with the difficulty of the class and whatever else, that it’s just easier to go in and work. Sick leave provisions were changed there, which disadvantaged new teachers, I will say that. But at least in a unionized situation, Chair, there is a grievance process that can be followed if an employer was inappropriately interpreting the contract.

I would suspect here that in this case it’s not going to be so easy for an employee to say to their employer that, well, the legislation has changed and no longer requires it. So I’m trying to think in terms of what practically has changed; otherwise, we’re just dealing with removing words, semantics and so on and so forth.

It won’t be enshrined in law but there’s nothing that stops employers from demanding it. If this is about seeking a balance, a measured approach, it’s not very measured. It still puts employees in the position where they might very well have to get that note and it still requires them, then, to go to the doctor. It hasn’t changed much.

I understand maybe there’s an attempt here to incrementally change it, but I think it would’ve been very clear to make it that an employer couldn’t ask, as we were trying to do in the amendment – that you couldn’t require a sick note. I know in our own contract a sick note is not required for four days or less, or for seven in the aggregate.

That’s a little bit more clear-cut and delineated. This, basically, causes unnecessary confusion, I think, in some ways. It removes the clause but it doesn’t really change the requirement. That’s problematic. It sounds like it’s made a change but really, in fact, it hasn’t. I’m not sure how this is going to benefit anyone or how this is necessarily going to reduce the trips to the doctor’s office, but it’d be interesting to see how, in a year’s time, it has actually had any effect at all.

I would assume, too – and I will go with the sick notes – it’s a bureaucratic function, Chair, in that it’s prove that you were sick. I can tell you that often when you want to go see the doctor to get the sick note, it’s not on the day that you’re sick; it’s sometimes a week or two later. Then we’re, basically, going through an exercise where I need a doctor’s note for – well, when were you sick? Two weeks ago but I didn’t see you.

So it just opens up all sorts of, I don’t know – in a way we used to say it’s encouraging people to be dishonest, either the medical profession or otherwise. I used to have teachers who would say to me, we applied for unpaid leave and were denied unpaid leave to accompany sometimes their children to a hospital. They were willing to take unpaid leave; turned down, being forced to use sick leave then, just so they could be with their children,

So in many ways, if it’s about health, if it’s about allowing a person who’s sick to – especially in an area where you might be dealing with people, then I think putting that decision-making power in the hands of the workers, at least, then that allows them to do so without feeling that they’re going to be under scrutiny. Especially where we still have people who are unable to get in to a doctor. Even the collaborative care clinic where I go now, it’s still at least a two- or three-week wait to get in.

I think in light of that, in light of the desire of this legislation or this change to take the pressure off an already overburdened health care system, then I think it would be a lot more practical and a legislation that has some teeth if it was actually about making it more or less that a note shall not be required. At least the lines are clearly drawn, because right now it really comes down to the employer. The fact is it’s not in legislation, it doesn’t make any difference, it’s our HR policy. We haven’t solved really anything.

I’d be interested to see, knowing that I would say there would be plenty of owners who might say, look, I still need that note. If we’re about, again, making sure we don’t overburden the health care system, this is not going to help it. I cannot see it. I think it’s when it’s clearly delineated in contract language or law, that’s when we have clear guidelines, clear guardrails that doesn’t leave it open to

interpretation.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the comments from the Member on the other side. I’ll try again. The legislation today, Chair, requires the employee to provide a note after three days. So the onus is on the employee and the requirement is for the employee to provide a note, and we’re taking away that requirement with this amendment.

So maybe it’s me not being clear, but I do appreciate the Member’s comments with a little bit of different view. I don’t know what I can add to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I have to change my comments from second reading, to some degree, because it was a misunderstanding on my part. I’ll be the first one to say I wasn’t at the briefing – my bad. Anyway, I had something else I had to do at the time.

Clearly, it was my understanding, when I was reading this, that there would simply no further requirement for people to have a sick note for short-term illness. And while the minister says we’re taking away the requirement under the legislation for an employee to have to do it, as my colleague from St. John’s Centre has said, there’s nothing stopping an employer from demanding it anyway.

So it’s kind of a smoke and mirrors, defeating the purpose as far as I’m concerned. I really don’t see it doing anything beneficial. If somebody –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: The minister will have an opportunity to respond.

I can understand – the reality of it is, if I had a business, if I opened a business tomorrow and I didn’t want a note, I’m not so sure that I’d be saying to my employee, well, I don’t really want a note, but because the Labour Standards Act , which I’ve studied from one cover to the other, and it says there that you’ve got to provide me a note, so I don’t really want one, I don’t need one but you got to get one anyway. Like, that’s not happening.

The reality of it is, if an employer don’t want a note now, they’re not asking for a note now. Whether or not that clause is in there or removed, it’s not going to change a thing. The only thing that will change is if the act were to be changed to say that an employer can no longer request a note after three days. Because my colleague is right, it really is a bureaucratic exercise. It’s a farce.

My wife had a doctor’s appointment last week with our family doctor. We’re fortunate we still have one. Thank God she hasn’t retired yet, but that day is coming. But for now we still have a family doctor. We’ve had her for years. She had to wait two weeks to get an appointment to see her. That’s reality. So if she was at work and she was sick and she needed a doctor’s note, she wouldn’t be getting to see the doctor until two weeks later.

By that time, sure, the flu is all better or the stomach ache or whatever the condition is, hopefully. That’s all over. Basically all you’re doing is saying, listen, I was off work sick two weeks ago and my employer wants a note. I’m not sick anymore, but you’ll have to take my word for it that I was sick. I couldn’t see you two weeks ago because I couldn’t get an appointment. Believe me, I was sick. And the doctor is just basically taking your word for it, so this whole note becomes a total farce, really. It’s a joke.

Now, it’s one thing if this exercise in futility is impacting the employer-employee relationship and employee rights and so on that my colleague was kind of inferring about, being of a strong union background I get that, but the reality of it is that we have a health care system that is in crisis.

People can’t get to see a doctor. We have walk-in clinics, collaborative clinics. You’re waiting for weeks to see your doctor. You’re waiting for a couple of weeks if you’re lucky enough to be in a collaborative clinic and if you’re in the walk-in clinic, you’ve got to go line up at 7 in the morning to be at the door to hope to be in line so that you’re far enough in a queue that you get to come back later that day to see a doctor.

I mean, that’s the reality of what’s happening. We don’t have family doctors. Now we’re going to go tying up those valuable resources on someone looking for a sick note at a cost to the taxpayer, not to mention knocking people out of the queue who actually are sick and need to see the doctor, we’re going to go through this exercise and get a sick note because I was sick two weeks ago.

The alternative to that is we’re going to send them down to the emergency. We’re down at the emergency department and there are people on stretchers. We’ve heard from ambulance operators. We’re not allowed to say red alerts, but we have red alerts all the time. There are four of five ambulances down at the Health Sciences or at St. Clare’s off the road, not able to respond to emergencies, with ambulances responding to an emergency in Flatrock and they’re coming from Trinity because we have no ambulances, because there are ambulance operators tied up in the emergency with patients on stretchers and people sleeping on the floor.

I have had people come to me who have been in the emergency department for like 24 hours or longer and finally just had to give in and go home because they can’t see a doctor. We’re going to be sending people down to the emergency department, adding to that burden, to get a bloody sick note. To get a sick note for something because I had the flu.

The minister is nodding her head saying no, but it’s true. If the employer still wants a sick note, that’s what’s going to happen. The minister can nod her head and say no, but unless we’re making the employer say no, employer, you can’t ask for a sick note. I don’t care about your HR policy. We are cancelling your HR policy. We are legislatively changing your HR policy that you can’t do it anymore. If we’re not going to change that, then we’re not changing a thing, absolutely nothing.

I suppose there’s no reason for me to not vote for the change. It’s not harming anybody by making this change, but it’s not fixing a thing. So I kind of feel like I’m voting for something that’s supposed to be making a great change and it’s not accomplishing anything. It’s a nothing burger. That’s what it is, in my opinion, now that I understand exactly how it’s working.

With that said, I mean, the minister can respond and I appreciate she’s doing what she has to do. Listen, you want to make the change, make the change, I’ll support the change but if we’re truly concerned about accomplishing something here and getting people out of the emergency departments, getting them out of the doctors’ offices, getting them out of the collaborative care clinics, tying up unnecessary space, if that’s the goal – and I think that’s the goal of the NLMA; that’s what they want – then let’s make a meaningful change that totally ends this practice of employers asking for short-term sick notes.

As I say, it’s a bureaucratic exercise at best, anyway, because it’s not like they can say I don’t believe you’re sick; go to the doctor and prove me wrong. Yes, I’ll go to the doctor in two weeks’ time and, of course, my doctor is going to write a note and say, yes, Paul was sick two weeks ago. It’s a waste of time. It’s a joke. It makes zero sense.

So that’s all I have to say on it. It’s too bad the amendment didn’t go through because I would have supported it. I’m not sure about the five days. I would have been more comfortable with three, but, anyway, that’s semantics, I suppose. I think the concept of what my colleagues in the Third Party were trying to do made sense to me.

Like I say, the way I read it and understood it, that’s the way this was going to work anyway, but, apparently, that’s not the case and I just feel that it’s a whole lot to do about nothing.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I was listening to the Member and I want to say for Hansard that no province or territory in this country, no province, anywhere, other jurisdictions have prohibited employers from asking for a sick note. What I’m hearing the Member say is that we should have done that sort of big reach and mandated and made it into law.

What I will also say, just to reiterate, again, is that we are removing the requirement for employers – I’ve got to get my glasses on again, Chair, pardon me; hopefully, this will soon be behind me, the end is in sight and no pun intended – we are removing the requirements for employees to provide employers with a sick note after three consecutive days.

I think, just my

interpretation, but there seems to be a thought that once we do this, every single employer is still going to require a sick note. What about employers in the province who may have only been doing it because it was the law and it’s no longer the law?

I do want to get this out because it’s just coming on my screen now because the release is out. The president of NLMA, Dr. Major – they have been advocating for this. They’ve seen the legislation. This is what they have been wanting for more than two decades and he just put out, and I’m going to read it for the House here: Physicians in this province commend the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for removing the requirement for sick notes from the Labour Standards Act. It’s not no longer law. We’re no longer mandating it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has been advocating for this change since the early 2000s and we applaud the government for listening to doctors.

That seems to be the number one concern in this House is health care, rightfully, justifiably so.

The NLMA president goes on to say: By removing sick notes from the Labour Standards Act , doctors will spend less time on inefficient administrative processes and have more time to spend providing care for patients that need medical attention. This will also reduce – and I made this point earlier when I opened –inappropriate utilization of emergency departments, reduce unnecessary costs to the health care system and will reduce wait times for patients who need medical intervention.

So I just want to say that is the president of the NLMA who is very happy with the direction that it’s going, somebody who’s in the system and understands it and sees that this is a positive step. We’re responding to what the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association have asked for. They wanted this taken out, no longer require it to be law and that’s what we’re doing.

We’re responding, we’re listening and we’re happy to see that they believe this will be a very positive step and by removing it from the Labour Standards Act , we now know that doctors, instead of signing notes and doing whatever the Member called a bureaucratic exercise – reading right from what the president of the NLMA said – th